Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Probing medium response via strangeness enhancement around quenched jets

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 ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that jets in heavy-ion collisions are surrounded by enhanced strange-hadron yields that grow with centrality and distance from the jet axis, a proposed new signature of jet-induced medium excitation.

desk verdict A clean, falsifiable AMPT prediction of strangeness enhancement around quenched jets; the radial trend needs a closer look at background subtraction. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19283 v1 pith:Q4WXXHZT submitted 2024-12-26 nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex

Ao Luo , Shanshan Cao , Guang-You Qin This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-phnucl-ex PACS 25.75.-q12.38.Mh13.87.-a
keywords jetquenchingquark-gluonplasmamediumresponsestrangenessenhancementjet-particlecorrelationsquarkcoalescenceheavy-ioncollisionsidentifiedhadronratios
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

This paper tries to establish that the hot medium stirred up by a fast jet in a heavy-ion collision leaves a chemical fingerprint: more strange hadrons, especially multi-strange hadrons, appear around the jet than around a jet in proton-proton collisions. The authors argue this strangeness enhancement is a new signature of jet-induced medium excitation, the process by which a jet deposits energy into the quark-gluon plasma. Using a partonic transport simulation with quark coalescence hadronization, they predict that the strange-to-non-strange and double-to-single-strange hadron ratios around jets grow with collision centrality and with radial distance from the jet axis, peaking at intermediate particle transverse momentum. If the prediction survives experimental test, it gives heavy-ion physicists an observable that is sensitive to how jets thermalize their energy in the plasma and to how hadrons form at the boundary of the deconfined phase.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on the AMPT string-melting parton cascade: initial hadrons are melted into quark degrees of freedom, which undergo elastic two-body scatterings with a partonic cross-section set to 1.5 mb, then recombine into hadrons by spatial coalescence of two or three nearby quarks, followed by hadronic rescattering. Jet-particle correlations are built with the anti-$k_T$ jet algorithm (cone size $R=0.4$, jet $\mathrm{p}_T>120$ GeV), corrected for acceptance by mixed events and for background by a side-band average, giving per-trigger yields of pions, kaons, lambdas, xis, and phi mesons as functions of particle $\mathrm{p}_T$ and $\Delta r$. The load-bearing ratios are $K/\pi$, $\Lambda/\pi$, $\Xi/\pi$, $\phi/\pi$, and $\phi/K$ differences between Pb+Pb and pp collisions.

What would settle it

Measure the $(K^+ + K^-)/(\pi^+ + \pi^-)$ ratio around $R=0.4$ jets with $\mathrm{p}_T > 120$ GeV in $p+p$ and 0-10% Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$ TeV as a function of $\Delta r$ and $\mathrm{p}_T$; if the Pb+Pb ratio is not larger than the $p+p$ ratio, or if the excess does not grow with $\Delta r$ and centrality, the predicted strangeness-enhancement signature of medium response is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the simulation, jets with $\mathrm{p}_T > 120$ GeV in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$ TeV are correlated with more strange hadrons per pion than jets in pp collisions: the differences in $K/\pi$, $\Lambda/\pi$, $\Xi/\pi$, and $\phi/\pi$ ratios are positive, largest for 0-30% central collisions, strongest at particle transverse momenta of 2-4 GeV for the heavier strange hadrons, and increasing as the annular distance $\Delta r$ from the jet axis grows from 0.2 to 1. The $\phi/K$ ratio, which isolates double-strange enrichment from baryon effects, shows the same centrality and $\Delta r$ trends. The authors interpret the excess as medium response: energy lost by the jet thermalizes in the quark-gluon plasma, producing strange quarks abundantly, and quark coalescence assembles these into the observed strange hadrons.

Load-bearing premise

The central prediction depends on the assumption that the AMPT simulation with a 1.5 mb parton cross-section and quark-coalescence hadronization correctly reproduces how much of the jet's lost energy turns into strange quarks and how that energy spreads in angle.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If confirmed, strangeness around jets becomes an observable sensitive to the energy and angular distribution of jet-induced medium excitation.
  • The centrality dependence gives a handle: comparing 0-30%, 30-50%, and 50-100% bins tests how medium response scales with system size and density.
  • The growth with $\Delta r$ implies jet-energy diffusion to large angles, measurable via annular yields rather than only inside the jet cone.
  • The intermediate-$\mathrm{p}_T$ peak ties the signal to coalescence hadronization, so the observable can discriminate coalescence versus fragmentation at the jet-medium boundary.
  • The $\phi/K$ ratio provides a baryon-independent strangeness probe, avoiding the baryon-enhancement contamination that affects $\Lambda/\pi$ and $\Xi/\pi$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct experimental test could use existing heavy-ion data: compare the kaon-to-pion ratio around jets in pp and Pb+Pb; the paper shows one preliminary Pb+Pb data point but no pp baseline, so the enhancement prediction is not yet tested.
  • Because the model omits medium-induced gluon radiation and uses coalescence only, the absolute size of the ratio enhancement at high $\mathrm{p}_T$ may shift; the qualitative radial and centrality trends are more robust than the normalization.
  • If confirmed, this signal may help disentangle medium response from color-flow or color-reconnection effects, which the paper argues would produce different $\mathrm{p}_T$ and $\Delta r$ dependence.
  • The same correlation technique could be applied to charm or bottom hadrons around jets, where strangeness enhancement from medium response might be separated from flavor-tagged fragmentation.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. Using the AMPT string-melting model at sqrt(s_NN) = 5.02 TeV, the paper computes per-trigger jet-hadron correlations for identified pions, kaons, Lambda, Xi, and phi mesons around anti-kT jets with pT > 120 GeV and R = 0.4. The correlations are corrected with a mixed-event acceptance correction and a side-band background subtraction (1.5 < |Delta(eta)| < 2.5). From these distributions the authors construct K/pi, Lambda/pi, Xi/pi, phi/pi, and phi/K ratios around jets in p+p and in Pb+Pb for three centrality classes, and report that the Pb+Pb minus p+p differences grow with centrality and with radial distance Delta(r) from the jet axis and peak at intermediate pT (2-4 GeV). They interpret this as evidence of jet-induced medium excitation combined with quark coalescence, and compare the in-cone K/pi ratio with ALICE preliminary data.

Significance. The proposed observable is timely and falsifiable: strangeness enhancement around quenched jets is an experimentally accessible channel that could discriminate between models with and without medium response. The study uses a standard experimental correlation pipeline, the ALICE comparison in Fig. 5 provides a useful first anchor, and the predicted ratios are emergent outputs rather than refits of the same observable, so the central prediction is not circular. The claim is nevertheless model-based and currently lacks statistical uncertainties and a validation of the radial trend, so its significance is conditional on those points being addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Figs. 2 and 3] No statistical uncertainties are shown for any of the AMPT curves in Figs. 2-4. The claimed effects are small differences between ratios, e.g. the Xi/pi enhancement is at the 0.002-0.01 level and the Delta(r) bins are only 0.1 wide, so without error bars or a stated number of simulated events one cannot tell whether the monotonic radial increase in Fig. 3 is a physical trend or Monte-Carlo noise. A test with independent statistical samples or bootstrap resampling should be added before the central claim is accepted.
  2. [Section II, side-band subtraction and Figs. 3] The side-band background B(Delta(eta),Delta(phi)) is taken from 1.5 < |Delta(eta)| < 2.5 and subtracted from the signal region |Delta(eta)| < 1. This assumes the background is Delta(eta)-independent in the acceptance-corrected correlation, but in 0-30% Pb+Pb the background contains anisotropic flow harmonics, long-range correlations, and residual acceptance effects that vary with Delta(eta). The jet-induced contribution at Delta(r) = 0.6-1.0 is a small excess over a large background, so a modest error in B would produce exactly the kind of rising radial enhancement reported in Fig. 3. The paper should validate the subtraction with a closure test in AMPT, vary the side-band range, or compare with an alternative background estimator; as written, the radial trend is not yet established.
  3. [Section III, paragraph following Fig. 2] The manuscript explicitly states that AMPT lacks medium-induced gluon emission and that high-pT hadron production is not reliably described because only coalescence is implemented. These are not merely high-pT caveats: the observed radial rise of the enhancement is produced by the interplay of medium excitation and coalescence, and a different treatment of radiative energy loss or hadronization could change the angular distribution of strange hadrons. The authors should either quantify this model dependence, for example by comparing with a version that includes fragmentation or radiation, or soften the claim that the radial increase is a robust property of medium response rather than a feature of this particular AMPT implementation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV] The word 'significant' is used in the abstract although the results are shown without statistical uncertainties; please rephrase or report uncertainties.
  2. [Fig. 5] The comparison covers only Pb+Pb data, with no p+p measurement, and only Delta(r) < 0.4, so it does not directly test the enhancement or the radial trend claimed in Figs. 2-4; the caption should state this limitation.
  3. [Eq. (3) and surrounding text] The notation d3N/(dpT dDelta(eta) dDelta(phi)) is introduced after dN/(dDelta(eta) dDelta(phi)) and the pT bin widths; please make the definition of the three-dimensional distribution explicit.
  4. [Section IV] The phrase 'an access of the strange hadron production' should read 'an excess of strange hadron production'.
  5. [Figs. 2 and 3 captions] The captions should use proper centrality ranges, such as 0-30%, rather than '0 square 30%', and should indicate whether any statistical uncertainties are available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the strangeness ratios are emergent AMPT outputs, not refits of the same observable, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central observables — the Pb+Pb versus pp differences of K/π, Λ/π, Ξ/π, φ/π, and φ/K around jets — are emergent outputs of the AMPT simulation rather than quantities defined in terms of the model inputs. The ZPC parton cross-section (1.5 mb) is fixed by earlier comparisons to jet nuclear modification and dijet asymmetry, not by fitting the strangeness ratios that are later presented as predictions. The mixed-event acceptance correction and side-band background subtraction are standard correlation techniques applied identically to pp and Pb+Pb events, so the difference between the two systems is not engineered by the analysis procedure. The comparison to ALICE data in Fig. 5 is an external benchmark, not a fitted input. Self-citations such as Ref. [75] (prior baryon-enhancement study) and Refs. [94,95] (parameter context) are published, externally falsifiable model results; they do not assert the strangeness-enhancement claim itself, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported to forbid alternatives. Concerns about the side-band subtraction or the coalescence mechanism are model-correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger entries are the AMPT model ingredients and analysis choices the prediction depends on. No new physical entities are postulated; the paper claims a new observable from known components.

free parameters (2)
  • ZPC partonic scattering cross-section sigma = 1.5 mb
    Set in Sec. II for Pb+Pb at 5.02 TeV; tuned to describe the jet nuclear modification factor and dijet asymmetry in earlier AMPT studies [94,95]. It sets the strength of jet-medium interactions that drives the predicted strangeness enhancement.
  • ART hadronic cascade maximum time = 30 fm
    Set in Sec. II as the hadronic kinetic freeze-out cutoff; a model choice not fitted to the strangeness observable, but it controls late-stage hadronic rescattering that can modify strange hadron abundances.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The AMPT string-melting model with ZPC and quark coalescence gives a reliable description of jet-QGP interactions and hadron chemistry in the relevant pT range.
    Sec. II adopts AMPT as the full simulation framework; the prediction is only as trustworthy as this model, which the authors themselves note lacks medium-induced gluon emission.
  • domain assumption The side-band background subtraction isolates the jet-induced signal.
    Used in Sec. II and Fig. 1 to remove uncorrelated background by averaging over 1.5<|Delta eta|<2.5; if the background is not flat in Delta eta, residual contamination enters the ratios.
  • domain assumption The p+p AMPT baseline accurately represents vacuum jet fragmentation and its strangeness content.
    All enhancements are differences Pb+Pb minus p+p; an artificially strangeness-poor p+p baseline would inflate the signal.
  • domain assumption Strangeness enhancement in a hot QCD medium and its transfer into hadrons via coalescence are general features independent of model details.
    The closing paragraph of Sec. IV uses this assertion to claim robustness beyond AMPT; it is plausible but not proven here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing medium response via strangeness enhancement around quenched jets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q4WXXHZT

@misc{pith2026241219283,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing medium response via strangeness enhancement around quenched jets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q4WXXHZT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19283}
}
read the original abstract

Jet-induced medium excitation is a crucial part of jet interactions with the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, and has recently been confirmed by experiment for the first time. Based on the AMPT model simulation, we propose the strangeness enhancement around quenched jets as a novel signature of jet-induced medium excitation. By applying the jet-particle correlation techniques, we calculate jet-induced particle yields around the jets and find a significant enhancement of the strange-to-non-strange-hadron ratio and the double-to-single-strange-hadron ratio correlated with jets in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions relative to proton-proton collisions. This enhancement increases with both the strength of jet-QGP interactions and the radial distance from jet axis. These observations align with the features of jet-induced medium excitation and parton coalescence in hadron formation, and await experimental validation in the future measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19283 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Color online) Jet-kaon correlations for associated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color online) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color online) The radial distance dependence of the enhancement of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online) The difference of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: , we present our AMPT results using the same ex￾perimental setups for both p + p and Pb+Pb collisions. Our results for 0-10% Pb+Pb collisions reasonably agree with the ALICE data within the experimental uncertain￾ties. We look forward to similar measurements in p + p c…

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

  1. An improved linear Boltzmann transport model for hadron and jet suppression in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions

    nucl-th 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An improved LBT model with an earlier medium-scale insertion and color-flow tracking reproduces hadron and jet nuclear modification factors together in 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb collisions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Gyulassy and L

    M. Gyulassy and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A 750, 30 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0405013

    arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    Jacobs and X.-N

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

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Busza, K

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 339 (2018), arXiv:1802.04801

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Elfner and B

    H. Elfner and B. M¨ uller, J. Phys. G50, 103001 (2023), arXiv:2210.12056

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Wang and M

    X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 1480 (1992)

    1992

  6. [6]

    S. A. Bass et al., Phys. Rev. C 79, 024901 (2009), arXiv:0808.0908

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Qin and X.-N

    G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24, 1530014 (2015), arXiv:1511.00790

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Majumder and M

    A. Majumder and M. Van Leeuwen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66, 41 (2011), arXiv:1002.2206

    arXiv 2011

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    Blaizot and Y

    J.-P. Blaizot and Y. Mehtar-Tani, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24, 1530012 (2015), arXiv:1503.05958

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cao and X.-N

    S. Cao and X.-N. Wang, Rept. Prog. Phys. 84, 024301 (2021), arXiv:2002.04028

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Qin and B

    G.-Y. Qin and B. Muller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 162302 (2011), arXiv:1012.5280, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 108, 189904 (2012)]

    2011 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Majumder and C

    A. Majumder and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 202301 (2012), arXiv:1103.0809

    2012 arXiv

  5. [13]

    W. Dai, I. Vitev, and B.-W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 142001 (2013), arXiv:1207.5177

    2013 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Blaizot, E

    J.-P. Blaizot, E. Iancu, and Y. Mehtar-Tani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 052001 (2013), arXiv:1301.6102

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Chien and I

    Y.-T. Chien and I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 112301 (2017), arXiv:1608.07283

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Caucal, E

    P. Caucal, E. Iancu, A. H. Mueller, and G. Soyez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 232001 (2018), arXiv:1801.09703

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    W.-J. Xing, S. Cao, G.-Y. Qin, and H. Xing, Phys. Lett. B 805, 135424 (2020), arXiv:1906.00413

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Huss et al., Phys

    A. Huss et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 192301 (2021), arXiv:2007.13754

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Mehtar-Tani, D

    Y. Mehtar-Tani, D. Pablos, and K. Tywoniuk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 252301 (2021), arXiv:2101.01742

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    W. Zhao, W. Ke, W. Chen, T. Luo, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 022302 (2022), arXiv:2103.14657

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    S. Cao, A. Majumder, R. Modarresi-Yazdi, I. Soudi, and Y. Tachibana, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 33, 2430002 (2024), arXiv:2401.10026

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Schenke, C

    B. Schenke, C. Gale, and S. Jeon, Phys. Rev. C 80, 054913 (2009), arXiv:0909.2037

    2009 arXiv

  15. [23]

    K. C. Zapp, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2762 (2014), arXiv:1311.0048

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Casalderrey-Solana, D

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. C. Gulhan, J. G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, JHEP 10, 019 (2014), arXiv:1405.3864, [Erratum: JHEP 09, 175 (2015)]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Cao and A

    S. Cao and A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. C 101, 024903 (2020), arXiv:1712.10055

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Cao et al., Phys

    JETSCAPE, S. Cao et al., Phys. Rev. C 96, 024909 (2017), arXiv:1705.00050

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. H. Putschke et al., (2019), arXiv:1903.07706. 8

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    T. Luo, Y. He, S. Cao, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034919 (2024), arXiv:2306.13742

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Karpenko, A

    I. Karpenko, A. Lind, M. Rohrmoser, J. Aichelin, and P.-B. Gossiaux, (2024), arXiv:2404.14579

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    JET, K. M. Burke et al., Phys. Rev. C 90, 014909 (2014), arXiv:1312.5003

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Cao et al., Phys

    JETSCAPE, S. Cao et al., Phys. Rev. C 104, 024905 (2021), arXiv:2102.11337

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    M. Xie, W. Ke, H. Zhang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 108, L011901 (2023), arXiv:2206.01340

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    B. Chen, X. Chen, X. Li, Z.-R. Zhu, and K. Zhou, (2024), arXiv:2404.18217

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Karmakar et al., Phys

    B. Karmakar et al., Phys. Rev. C 110, 044906 (2024), arXiv:2403.17817

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Karmakar et al., Phys

    B. Karmakar et al., Phys. Rev. C 108, 044907 (2023), arXiv:2305.11318

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Liu, X.-Y

    F.-L. Liu, X.-Y. Wu, S. Cao, G.-Y. Qin, and X.- N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138355 (2024), arXiv:2304.08787

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Cao and G.-Y

    S. Cao and G.-Y. Qin, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 73, 205 (2023), arXiv:2211.16821

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    He et al

    Y. He et al. , Phys. Rev. C 99, 054911 (2019), arXiv:1809.02525

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Kumar et al., Phys

    JETSCAPE, A. Kumar et al., Phys. Rev. C 107, 034911 (2023), arXiv:2204.01163

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    He et al., Phys

    Y. He et al., Phys. Rev. C 106, 044904 (2022), arXiv:2201.08408

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Casalderrey-Solana, D

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. Gulhan, G. Milhano, D. Pab- los, and K. Rajagopal, JHEP 03, 135 (2017), arXiv:1609.05842

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Tachibana, N.-B

    Y. Tachibana, N.-B. Chang, and G.-Y. Qin, Phys. Rev. C 95, 044909 (2017), arXiv:1701.07951

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kunnawalkam Elayavalli and K

    R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli and K. C. Zapp, JHEP 07, 141 (2017), arXiv:1707.01539

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Milhano, U

    G. Milhano, U. A. Wiedemann, and K. C. Zapp, Phys. Lett. B 779, 409 (2018), arXiv:1707.04142

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    W. Chen, S. Cao, T. Luo, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 810, 135783 (2020), arXiv:2005.09678

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    C. Park, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Nucl. Phys. A 982, 643 (2019), arXiv:1807.06550

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    T. Luo, S. Cao, Y. He, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 782, 707 (2018), arXiv:1803.06785

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Casalderrey-Solana, G

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, JHEP 01, 044 (2020), arXiv:1907.11248

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Chang, Y

    N.-B. Chang, Y. Tachibana, and G.-Y. Qin, Phys. Lett. B 801, 135181 (2020), arXiv:1906.09562

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Tachibana, C

    Y. Tachibana, C. Shen, and A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. C 106, L021902 (2022), arXiv:2001.08321

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

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

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    W.-J. Xing, S. Cao, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, (2024), arXiv:2409.12843

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Casalderrey-Solana, E

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, E. V. Shuryak, and D. Teaney, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 27, 22 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411315

    2005 arXiv

  46. [54]

    A. K. Chaudhuri and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 062301 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0503028

    2006 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Ruppert and B

    J. Ruppert and B. Muller, Phys. Lett. B 618, 123 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0503158

    2005 arXiv

  48. [56]

    S. S. Gubser, S. S. Pufu, and A. Yarom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 012301 (2008), arXiv:0706.4307

    2008 arXiv

  49. [57]

    P. M. Chesler and L. G. Yaffe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 152001 (2007), arXiv:0706.0368

    2007 arXiv

  50. [58]

    G. Y. Qin, A. Majumder, H. Song, and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 152303 (2009), arXiv:0903.2255

    2009 arXiv

  51. [59]

    R. B. Neufeld and B. Muller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 042301 (2009), arXiv:0902.2950

    2009 arXiv

  52. [60]

    H. Li, F. Liu, G.-l. Ma, X.-N. Wang, and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 012301 (2011), arXiv:1006.2893

    2011 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Ma and X.-N

    G.-L. Ma and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 162301 (2011), arXiv:1011.5249

    2011 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Casalderrey-Solana, J

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, J. G. Milhano, D. Pablos, K. Rajagopal, and X. Yao, JHEP 05, 230 (2021), arXiv:2010.01140

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    R. B. Neufeld, Phys. Rev. C 79, 054909 (2009), arXiv:0807.2996

    2009 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Bouras, B

    I. Bouras, B. Betz, Z. Xu, and C. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 90, 024904 (2014), arXiv:1401.3019

    2014 arXiv

  57. [65]

    B. Betz, J. Noronha, G. Torrieri, M. Gyulassy, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 222301 (2010), arXiv:1005.5461

    2010 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Tachibana and T

    Y. Tachibana and T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. C 93, 054907 (2016), arXiv:1510.06966

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    R. B. Neufeld and I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. C 86, 024905 (2012), arXiv:1105.2067

    2012 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Renk, Phys

    T. Renk, Phys. Rev. C 88, 044905 (2013), arXiv:1306.2739

    2013 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Betz et al., Phys

    B. Betz et al., Phys. Rev. C 79, 034902 (2009), arXiv:0812.4401

    2009 arXiv

  62. [70]

    W. Chen, S. Cao, T. Luo, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 777, 86 (2018), arXiv:1704.03648

    2018 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Yang et al., Phys

    Z. Yang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 082301 (2021), arXiv:2101.05422

    2021 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Z. Yang, T. Luo, W. Chen, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 052301 (2023), arXiv:2203.03683

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    CMS, CMS-PAS-HIN-23-006 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    W. Chen, S. Cao, T. Luo, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A 1005, 121934 (2021)

    2021

  67. [75]

    Luo, Y.-X

    A. Luo, Y.-X. Mao, G.-Y. Qin, E.-K. Wang, and H.-Z. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 837, 137638 (2023), arXiv:2109.14314

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Sirimanna et al., Phys

    C. Sirimanna et al., Phys. Rev. C 108, 014911 (2023), arXiv:2211.15553

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Dale-Gau, PoS HardProbes2023, 173 (2024), arXiv:2312.11362

    STAR, G. Dale-Gau, PoS HardProbes2023, 173 (2024), arXiv:2312.11362

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Rafelski and B

    J. Rafelski and B. Muller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1066 (1982), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 56, 2334 (1986)]

    1982

  71. [79]

    R. J. Fries, B. Muller, C. Nonaka, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 68, 044902 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0306027

    2003 arXiv

  72. [80]

    R. J. Fries, B. Muller, C. Nonaka, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 202303 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0301087

    2003 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Greco, C

    V. Greco, C. M. Ko, and P. Levai, Phys. Rev. C 68, 034904 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0305024

    2003 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Z.-W. Lin, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, B. Zhang, and S. Pal, Phys. Rev. C 72, 064901 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0411110

    2005 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Zhang, L.-W

    B. Zhang, L.-W. Chen, and C.-M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 72, 024906 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0502056

    2005 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Lin and C

    Z.-W. Lin and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 65, 034904 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0108039

    2002 arXiv

  77. [85]

    L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, and Z.-W. Lin, Phys. Rev. C 69, 031901 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0312124

    2004 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Xu and C

    J. Xu and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 84, 014903 (2011), arXiv:1103.5187

    2011 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Ma, Phys

    G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 87, 064901 (2013), arXiv:1304.2841

    2013 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Ma, Phys

    G.-L. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 724, 278 (2013), arXiv:1302.5873

    2013 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Ma, Phys

    G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 88, 021902 (2013), arXiv:1306.1306. 9

    2013 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Ma, Phys

    G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 89, 024902 (2014), arXiv:1309.5555

    2014 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Wang and M

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

    1991

  84. [92]

    Gyulassy and X.-N

    M. Gyulassy and X.-N. Wang, Comput. Phys. Commun. 83, 307 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9502021

    1994 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Zhang, Comput

    B. Zhang, Comput. Phys. Commun. 109, 193 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9709009

    1998 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Z. Gao, A. Luo, G.-L. Ma, G.-Y. Qin, and H.-Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 97, 044903 (2018), arXiv:1612.02548

    2018 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Luo, Y.-X

    A. Luo, Y.-X. Mao, G.-Y. Qin, E.-K. Wang, and H.-Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 156 (2022), arXiv:2107.11751

    2022 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Li and C

    B.-A. Li and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 52, 2037 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9505016

    1995 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Khachatryan et al., JHEP 11, 055 (2016), arXiv:1609.02466

    CMS, V. Khachatryan et al., JHEP 11, 055 (2016), arXiv:1609.02466

    2016 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Khachatryan et al., JHEP 02, 156 (2016), arXiv:1601.00079

    CMS, V. Khachatryan et al., JHEP 02, 156 (2016), arXiv:1601.00079

    2016 arXiv

  91. [99]

    CMS, A. M. Sirunyan et al., JHEP 05, 006 (2018), arXiv:1803.00042

    2018 arXiv

  92. [100]

    CMS, A. M. Sirunyan et al., JHEP 05, 116 (2021), arXiv:2101.04720

    2021 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, JHEP 04, 063 (2008), arXiv:0802.1189

    2008 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012), arXiv:1111.6097

    2012 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Aad et al., Phys

    ATLAS, G. Aad et al., Phys. Rev. C 100, 064901 (2019), arXiv:1908.05264, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 101, 059903 (2020)]

    2019 arXiv

  96. [104]

    ALICE, ALI-PREL-582548 (2024)

    2024

  97. [105]

    Sapeta and U

    S. Sapeta and U. A. Wiedemann, Eur. Phys. J. C 55, 293 (2008), arXiv:0707.3494

    2008 arXiv

Pith tools

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