Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

Rapidity asymmetry of jet-hadron correlation as a robust signal of diffusion wake induced by di-jets in high-energy heavy-ion collisions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes the rapidity asymmetry of jet-hadron correlations in di-jets with a rapidity gap as a background-free signal of the diffusion wake induced by jets in the quark-gluon plasma, and predicts it with the CoLBT-hydro model.

desk verdict A genuinely useful observable for diffusion-wake searches in di-jet events, with model predictions that support the idea, but the 'background-free' claim is asserted rather than tested and should be softened. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03419 v3 pith:LDJFEQZP submitted 2025-01-06 hep-ph nucl-th

Zhong Yang , Xin-Nian Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th PACS 25.75.-q12.38.Mh
keywords diffusionwakejet-hadroncorrelationdi-jetasymmetryquark-gluonplasmamediumresponseCoLBT-hydromodelrapiditygapheavy-ioncollisions
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

When a jet plunges through the quark-gluon plasma made in a heavy-ion collision, it leaves both a cone of enhanced soft particles and a rarer depletion behind it, the diffusion wake. In di-jet events that depletion is normally hidden under the soft-particle enhancement produced by the other jet, so the wake has so far been seen only in rare Z/γ-jet events. This paper argues that if the two jets are selected with a rapidity gap between them, the wake of the sub-leading jet shifts in rapidity away from the leading jet, producing a dip in the near-side rapidity correlation and an enhancement in the region that is no longer suppressed. The difference between large-gap and small-gap correlations, called the rapidity asymmetry, is claimed to be background-free because bulk and multiple-parton-interaction backgrounds cancel once the leading-jet rapidity is fixed. The authors predict the size and gap dependence of this asymmetry using the CoLBT-hydro model, providing an observable that abundant di-jet data at the LHC could measure without dedicated background subtraction.

What carries the argument

The central object is the rapidity asymmetry $\Delta N_{AA}(\Delta\eta) - \Delta N_{AA}(|\Delta\eta_{j_1j_2}|<0.5)$, where $\Delta N_{AA}$ is the medium modification (Pb+Pb minus p+p) of the jet-hadron rapidity correlation projected on the near side ($\Delta\phi<\pi/2$) or away side ($\Delta\phi>\pi/2$) of the leading jet, and the small-gap distribution is symmetrized as the reference. The mechanism is the shift of the diffusion wake in rapidity: once the sub-leading jet is separated from the leading jet by a finite rapidity gap, the depletion that trails one jet no longer overlaps the enhanced soft-hadron ridge of the other, converting an overlap loss into a localized dip and a compensating enhancement. The engine that produces the prediction is the CoLBT-hydro model, which couples the Linear Boltzmann Transport parton shower to (3+1)-dimensional viscous hydrodynamics so that the concurrent evolution of the jets and the medium response is simulated; jet-hadron correlations are formed after either theoretical (same-hydro-event-without-jet) or mixed-event background subtraction.

What would settle it

A background-only control—for example, running the same di-jet selection with jet-medium interaction switched off, or measuring the asymmetry in p+p collisions or peripheral A+A collisions where no wake forms—should show no gap-dependent asymmetry; if a depletion/enhancement pattern of comparable size survived there, the background-free claim would fail. Alternatively, high-statistics data could check whether the predicted dip appears at the rapidity position of the sub-leading jet and grows with the rapidity gap as CoLBT-hydro predicts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the rapidity asymmetry of jet-hadron correlations in back-to-back di-jet events, defined as the difference between the medium modifications for large and small di-jet rapidity gaps, is a clean signal of the jet-induced diffusion wake in the quark-gluon plasma. In a di-jet with a small rapidity gap, the diffusion wake of one jet overlaps with the medium-enhanced soft-hadron ridge of the other jet, so it only reduces the enhancement. When the sub-leading jet sits at a finite rapidity gap, its diffusion wake is shifted in rapidity away from the leading jet, creating a net depletion (negative dip) in the near-side correlation in the rapidity region of the wake, while the reference region that is no longer suppressed by the wake shows an enhancement. Because the backgrounds from bulk hadron production and multiple parton interactions are the same for different rapidity gaps when the leading-jet rapidity is fixed, these backgrounds cancel in the asymmetry, making it measurable without event-by-event background subtraction. The CoLBT-hydro simulation predicts a visible dip whose amplitude and peak separation grow with the rapidity gap, both with theoretical background subtraction and with the mixed-event technique used in experiments.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that for a fixed leading-jet rapidity, all uncorrelated backgrounds—bulk hadron production and multiple parton interactions—are identical for di-jet events with different rapidity gaps, so they cancel exactly in the rapidity asymmetry; the paper states this but does not test it with a background-only calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The rapidity asymmetry can be measured directly with experimental di-jet data without event-by-event background subtraction, since bulk and MPI backgrounds cancel at fixed leading-jet rapidity.
  • The amplitude of the asymmetry and the separation between its depletion and enhancement peaks increase with the rapidity gap, so the gap dependence maps the position and strength of the diffusion wake.
  • Because di-jet events are far more abundant than Z/γ-jet events, this observable should give higher-statistics access to the diffusion wake than current CMS and ATLAS measurements.
  • The same asymmetry survives when the standard mixed-event background subtraction is used, so existing experimental analysis pipelines can apply the method directly.
  • For same-hemisphere di-jets the asymmetry is weaker but still present, extending the reach of the method to moderate rapidity coverage at RHIC and LHC.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test the background-free assumption directly by constructing the asymmetry from events with no reconstructed sub-leading jet but identical leading-jet selection; any residual gap-dependent asymmetry would signal contamination from acceptance or selection effects.
  • The gap dependence of the dip position encodes the wake geometry and could be inverted, in principle, to extract the plasma sound speed or transport coefficients, a step the paper does not take.
  • A similar but weaker depletion at large $\Delta\eta$ is expected for single-inclusive jets under mixed-event subtraction, which the paper mentions as a follow-up; this could provide a lower-cost cross-check in existing data.
  • Combining the di-jet asymmetry with Z-jet and γ-jet diffusion-wake measurements would allow systematic tests of whether the wake shape depends on the energy and flavor of the initiating parton, since the three channels probe different jet-energy scales.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new observable for the jet-induced diffusion wake in heavy-ion collisions: the rapidity asymmetry of jet-hadron correlations in di-jet events, defined as the difference between the medium-modified correlation for a large di-jet rapidity gap and that for a small gap. Using the CoLBT-hydro model with PYTHIA8 di-jet initial conditions, the authors compute this asymmetry for central Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, both with a theoretical hydro background subtraction and with a mixed-event subtraction. They find a negative dip in the rapidity region of the shifted diffusion wake and a positive bump in the region of the reference jet, with the separation growing with the gap. The central claim is that this asymmetry is a robust and background-free signal because bulk and MPI backgrounds cancel when the leading-jet rapidity is fixed and only the sub-leading-jet rapidity gap is varied.

Significance. If validated, the proposed asymmetry would give experimentalists a practical observable for studying the diffusion wake in di-jet events, which are far more abundant than Z/γ-jet events at the LHC and would complement recent CMS and ATLAS observations. The predictions are concrete and falsifiable: the sign, magnitude, and gap dependence of the asymmetry are specified, and two independent background-subtraction procedures are presented. A clear strength is that the CoLBT-hydro model parameters were calibrated in earlier work and no parameter is fitted to the asymmetry itself; the processed data are also made available. The main caveat is that the background-free property and the symmetrization convention are asserted rather than demonstrated, and no statistical uncertainties are shown, so the strength of the central claim currently exceeds the evidence presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3 (background-free claim near Eq. (1) and Fig. 3(c,d))] The statement that the rapidity asymmetry is background-free is asserted rather than demonstrated. The cancellation requires that, for fixed leading-jet rapidity, the uncorrelated background from bulk hadron production and MPI is identical for different di-jet rapidity gaps. This is not obvious because the event selection itself changes with the gap: for a fixed η_jet1, a large |Δη_jet1,jet2| pushes the sub-leading jet toward the edge of the acceptance, changing the sampled MPI/underlying-event activity and, in A+A, the longitudinal flow profile. The paper itself notes in the Fig. 4 discussion that the p+p correlation exhibits a rapidity asymmetry from interference with beam remnants; the claim that this p+p asymmetry is independent of the di-jet rapidity gap is not supported by any comparison of p+p gap bins. Since the observable is a double difference involving N_pp, any gap dependence in the p+p baseline enters directly. A null test using background-only events or a p+p-only asymmetry scan as a function of gap is needed to justify the background-free claim.
  2. [Sec. 3 (symmetrization of the reference distribution)] The reference distribution for the smallest gap is symmetrized by construction, so the asymmetry as defined isolates only the odd part of the large-gap distribution. The physical interpretation that the diffusion wake is shifted by the gap presupposes that the small-gap distribution would itself be symmetric, but the authors do not show the raw versus symmetrized small-gap ΔNAA. In addition, for the away-side correlations the distributions are shifted by the p+p away-side peak position for each gap; this per-gap shift changes the rapidity variable and can distort the asymmetry. The authors should quantify how much these choices affect the result and present the unshifted, unsymmetrized distributions for comparison.
  3. [Figs. 3(c,d) and 4(b)] No statistical uncertainties are shown for the Monte Carlo results, so the significance of the dip/bump structure, whose amplitude is of order ±0.5 in ΔNAA, cannot be assessed. Since the central claim is that the asymmetry is robust, the paper should provide statistical errors from the event samples and, ideally, a control calculation with the diffusion wake artificially suppressed or with a background-only sample to show that the observed asymmetry is not a baseline effect. Without such a null test, the word 'robust' is not supported by the presented evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The collision energy is given as √sNN = 5.2 TeV, while the text and abstract use 5.02 TeV; this typo should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The integration limits over Δφ are not specified in the formula; the text refers to near-side (Δφ < π/2) and away-side (Δφ > π/2) regions, so the limits should be written explicitly in the equation.
  3. [Reference [78]] The data availability statement links to a dataset titled 'single-jet diffusion wake,' which may be different from the di-jet correlation data analyzed here; the authors should clarify the link or provide the correct dataset reference.
  4. [Sec. 4 and Fig. 4] The terms 'same-hemisphere' and 'opposite-hemisphere' are used for ηjet1 ηjet2 > 0 and < 0, which is unconventional because 'hemisphere' usually refers to azimuthal angle; 'same-sign rapidity' or 'same-side in rapidity' would be clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the asymmetry prediction is a Monte Carlo output with no fitted parameters, and the background-free claim is an untested assumption rather than a circular construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a prediction from the CoLBT-hydro model, not a fit. The rapidity asymmetry is defined directly from computed jet-hadron correlation functions, and the diffusion wake interpretation is offered as a physical explanation of the model output rather than as an input definition. No parameter is fitted to the asymmetry itself, and the observable is not defined to equal the diffusion wake by construction. The 'background-free' statement is an explicit assumption that bulk and MPI backgrounds cancel for fixed leading-jet rapidity when subtracting large-gap from small-gap events; this is empirically testable and not a tautology. Self-citations to the CoLBT-hydro model and prior diffusion wake studies are normal references to previously developed tools and context; they do not carry the derivation. The skeptical concern that the background cancellation may fail because the p+p baseline and event selection depend on the sub-leading jet rapidity is a correctness risk, not a circularity. No specific equation reduces to its own input, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via citation.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters and no invented entities. It relies on the CoLBT-hydro model and on the assumed cancellation of backgrounds. The main assumptions are the validity of the model and the background-cancellation property, which is load-bearing for the 'background-free' claim.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The CoLBT-hydro model provides a valid description of di-jet transport and medium response in central Pb+Pb collisions.
    All quantitative predictions are generated by this model; no experimental data for the proposed asymmetry are presented. Invoked throughout Section 2.
  • domain assumption The theoretical background subtraction (same hydro event without the di-jet) isolates the jet-induced medium response without introducing artifacts.
    The ΔN_AA distributions are defined after this subtraction; its accuracy is assumed. Stated in Section 2.
  • domain assumption The background contributions (bulk hadron production and MPI) are identical for di-jet events with different rapidity gaps once the leading-jet rapidity is fixed, so they cancel in the asymmetry.
    This is the basis for the 'background-free' claim; it is asserted but not tested with a dedicated background-only calculation. Section 3, paragraph beginning 'We want to emphasize...'.
  • domain assumption The p+p correlation computed in the same model is an appropriate baseline for medium modification.
    Used in Eq. (1) to define ΔN_AA. The baseline subtraction is standard in the field, but its model-dependence is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rapidity asymmetry of jet-hadron correlation as a robust signal of diffusion wake induced by di-jets in high-energy heavy-ion collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LDJFEQZP

@misc{pith2026250103419,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rapidity asymmetry of jet-hadron correlation as a robust signal of diffusion wake induced by di-jets in high-energy heavy-ion collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LDJFEQZP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03419}
}
abstract

Diffusion wake accompanying a Mach cone is a unique feature of the medium response to projectiles traveling at a speed faster than the velocity of sound. This is also the case for jet-medium interaction inside the quark-gluon plasma in high-energy heavy-ion collisions. It leads to a depletion of soft hadrons in the opposite direction of the propagating jet and has been recently observed in $Z$-jet events of Pb+Pb collisions at LHC. In di-jet events, however, the diffusion wake of one jet usually overlaps with the medium-induced hadron enhancement of other jet without a clear signal except a reduction of the hadron enhancement, unless there is a large rapidity gap between the two jets. We propose to use the rapidity asymmetry of jet-hadron correlations in di-jets with a finite rapidity gap relative to that without, as a robust and background-free signal of the diffusion wake. The asymmetry emerges because the diffusion wake of one jet is shifted to a finite rapidity relative to the other jet. Consequently, a depletion of soft hadrons appears in the shifted rapidity region of the diffusion wake and an enhancement in the rapidity region of the other jet whose soft hadron enhancement is no longer or less reduced by the diffusion wake as in di-jets without a rapidity gap. We predict the rapidity asymmetry using both theoretical and mixed-event background subtraction for different values of the rapidity gap within the CoLBT-hydro model. Future measurements of this rapidity asymmetry with high statistics data on di-jets should provide more precise insights into the jet-induced diffusion wake and properties of the quark-gluon plasma.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03419 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Wake front (red-yellow-green), diffusion wake [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Correlations between leading full jets ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) Near-side jet-hadron correlations for same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Visualizing How the Structure of Large-Radius Jets Shapes Their Wakes

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Hybrid Model simulations show ATLAS large-radius jet data rule out fully coherent jet energy loss, and low-pT jet-shape observables can visualize merging subjet wakes.

  2. An Equilibrating Parton Shower for Jet Quenching and Medium Response

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A parton shower derived from QCD effective kinetic theory reproduces the full linearized Boltzmann equation and generates jet wakes, Mach-cone-like structures, and two-particle correlations.

  3. Energy-energy correlators inside single inclusive jets in heavy-ion collisions with CoLBT-hydro model

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

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

  4. 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.

  5. Constraining the Resolution Length of Quark-Gluon Plasma with New Jet Substructure Measurements

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Jet substructure measurements from ALICE and ATLAS, modeled with the Hybrid Model, disfavor both fully coherent and fully incoherent energy loss, implying a finite QGP resolution length near 1/(pi T).

  6. Medium-induced modification of azimuthal correlations of electrons from heavy-flavor hadron decays with charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}} = 5.02}$ TeV

    nucl-ex 2025-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    First Pb-Pb measurement of heavy-flavor electron-charged particle azimuthal correlations shows a near-side low-pT enhancement hint (1.27 sigma) and an away-side high-pT suppression (2.5 sigma) in central collisions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Introduction: Mach cones, such as the sonic boom of a supersonic jet fighter, are superpositions of Mach waves generated by a projectile that travels at a speed faster than the velocity of sound [1]. These also occur in high-energy heavy-ion (A+A) collisions, where jet parti- cles propagating at the velocity of light interact with the QCD medium and depos...

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    In di-jet events, however, as illustrated in Fig

    Imaging the diffusion wake in di-jet events: In Z/γ-jet events, the signal of a diffusion wake is distinct in the Z/ γ direction [58, 61] since Z/ γ does not interact with the QGP medium and induce any medium modi- fications in its direction. In di-jet events, however, as illustrated in Fig. 1 (a), both jets undergo energy loss, inducing medium response a...

  3. [3]

    Rapidity asymmetry of jet-hadron correlation: Given the above 3D structure of the jet-hadron correla- tions, we can project the correlations onto the rapidity in both near (∆ ϕ < π/2) and away-side (∆ϕ > π/2) region of the leading jet and focus on the medium modifications of the projected correlation in rapidity ∆ η = ηh − ηjet1 , which is defined as the ...

  4. [4]

    Using the CoLBT-hydro model simulations, we show jet-hadron correlations in di-jets with a small or no rapidity gap do not show any apparent signals of the dif- fusion wake

    Summary: In this Letter, we propose a novel method to identify the signal of diffusion wake induced by di-jets with finite rapidity gap in high-energy heavy-ion colli- sions. Using the CoLBT-hydro model simulations, we show jet-hadron correlations in di-jets with a small or no rapidity gap do not show any apparent signals of the dif- fusion wake. The jet-...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Sasoh, Compressible Fluid Dynamics and Shock Waves (Springer Singapore, 2020)

    A. Sasoh, Compressible Fluid Dynamics and Shock Waves (Springer Singapore, 2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    J. D. Bjorken, (1982), reportNumber = FERMILAB- PUB-82-059-THY, FERMILAB-PUB-82-059-T

    work page 1982

  7. [7]

    M. H. Thoma and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. B 351, 491 (1991)

    work page 1991

  8. [8]

    Braaten and M

    E. Braaten and M. H. Thoma, Phys. Rev. D 44, R2625 (1991)

    work page 1991

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Gyulassy and X.-N

    M. Gyulassy and X.-N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B 420, 583 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9306003

    1994 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Baier, Y

    R. Baier, Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller, S. Peigne, and D. Schiff, Nucl. Phys. B 483, 291 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9607355

    1997

  3. [11]

    B. G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 63, 952 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9607440

    1996

  4. [12]

    Gyulassy, P

    M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev, Nucl. Phys. B 571, 197 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907461

    2000 arXiv

  5. [13]

    U. A. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. B 588, 303 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0005129

    2000 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Wang and X.-F

    X.-N. Wang and X.-F. Guo, Nucl. Phys. A 696, 788 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0102230

    2001 arXiv

  7. [15]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP 06, 030 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0204343

    2002 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Djordjevic, Phys

    M. Djordjevic, Phys. Rev. C 74, 064907 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0603066

    2006 arXiv

  9. [17]

    G.-Y. Qin, J. Ruppert, C. Gale, S. Jeon, G. D. Moore, and M. G. Mustafa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 072301 (2008), arXiv:0710.0605 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    Stoecker, Nucl

    H. Stoecker, Nucl. Phys. A 750, 121 (2005), arXiv:nucl- th/0406018

    2005

  12. [20]

    Ruppert and B

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

    2005 arXiv

  13. [21]

    S. S. Gubser, S. S. Pufu, and A. Yarom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 012301 (2008), arXiv:0706.4307 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  14. [22]

    R. B. Neufeld, B. Muller, and J. Ruppert, Phys. Rev. C 78, 041901 (2008), arXiv:0802.2254 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  15. [23]

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

    2009 arXiv

  16. [24]

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

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bouras, A

    I. Bouras, A. El, O. Fochler, H. Niemi, Z. Xu, and C. Greiner, Phys. Lett. B 710, 641 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 728, 156–156 (2014)], arXiv:1201.5005 [nucl- th]

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Ayala, I

    A. Ayala, I. Dominguez, J. Jalilian-Marian, and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Phys. Rev. C 94, 024913 (2016), arXiv:1603.09296 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    L. Yan, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 97, 034914 (2018), arXiv:1707.09519 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Casalderrey-Solana, J

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

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cao and X.-N

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

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

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

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ma and X.-N

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

    2011 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Tachibana and T

    Y. Tachibana and T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. C 90, 021902 6 (2014), arXiv:1402.6469 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Casalderrey-Solana, D

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

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Tachibana, N.-B

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

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

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

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Y. He, S. Cao, W. Chen, T. Luo, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C99, 054911 (2019), arXiv:1809.02525 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Zhang, T

    S.-L. Zhang, T. Luo, X.-N. Wang, and B.-W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 98, 021901 (2018), arXiv:1804.11041 [nucl- th]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

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

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Pablos, Phys

    D. Pablos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 052301 (2020), arXiv:1907.12301 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

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

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Tachibana, C

    Y. Tachibana, C. Shen, and A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. C 106, L021902 (2022), arXiv:2001.08321 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Z. Yang, Y. He, W. Chen, W.-Y. Ke, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 652 (2023), arXiv:2206.02393 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Du and U

    L. Du and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 106, 034903 (2022), arXiv:2205.10262 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Mehtar-Tani, S

    Y. Mehtar-Tani, S. Schlichting, and I. Soudi, JHEP 05, 091 (2023), arXiv:2209.10569 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

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

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Tachibana et al

    Y. Tachibana et al. (JETSCAPE), Phys. Rev. C 110, 044907 (2024), arXiv:2301.02485 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Y.-X. Xiao, Y. He, L.-G. Pang, H. Zhang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 109, 054906 (2024), arXiv:2402.00264 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Li, S.-Y

    Y. Li, S.-Y. Chen, W. Kong, S. Wang, and B.-W. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2409.12742 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Y.-H. Feng, C. M. Ko, Y.-G. Ma, K.-J. Sun, X.-N. Wang, Z. Yang, and S. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B859, 139102 (2024), arXiv:2408.01634 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bossi, A

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

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    J. a. Barata, M. V. Kuzmin, J. G. Milhano, and A. V. Sadofyev, (2024), arXiv:2412.03616 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 152001 (2019), arXiv:1809.08602 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 242301 (2018), arXiv:1801.04895 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 072301 (2021), arXiv:2008.09811 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 122301 (2022), arXiv:2103.04377 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    N. J. Abdulameer et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C 110, 044901 (2024), arXiv:2406.08301 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  49. [57]

    Arslandok et al., (2023), arXiv:2303.17254 [nucl-ex]

    M. Arslandok et al., (2023), arXiv:2303.17254 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Chakraborty, M

    P. Chakraborty, M. G. Mustafa, and M. H. Thoma, Phys. Rev. D 74, 094002 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0606316

    2006 arXiv

  51. [59]

    S. S. Gubser and A. Yarom, Phys. Rev. D 77, 066007 (2008), arXiv:0709.1089 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  52. [60]

    B. Betz, J. Noronha, G. Torrieri, M. Gyulassy, I. Mishus- tin, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. C 79, 034902 (2009), arXiv:0812.4401 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Z. Yang, W. Chen, Y. He, W. Ke, L. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 082301 (2021), arXiv:2101.05422 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

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

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Aad et al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aad et al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. C111, 044909 (2025), arXiv:2408.08599 [nucl-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Collaboration (CMS), (2024), reportNumber = CMS- PAS-HIN-23-006

    C. Collaboration (CMS), (2024), reportNumber = CMS- PAS-HIN-23-006

    2024

  57. [65]

    Lee, https://indico.cern.ch/event/1339555/ contributions/6040903/, accessed: 2024-09-25

    Y.-J. Lee, https://indico.cern.ch/event/1339555/ contributions/6040903/, accessed: 2024-09-25

    2024

  58. [66]

    Collaboration (ATLAS), (2023), reportNumber = ATLAS-CONF-2023-054

    A. Collaboration (ATLAS), (2023), reportNumber = ATLAS-CONF-2023-054

    2023

  59. [67]

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

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852 (2008), arXiv:0710.3820 [hep- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. De- sai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015), arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Bierlich et al., SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al., SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022, 8 (2022), arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Y. He, T. Luo, X.-N. Wang, and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. C 91, 054908 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 97, 019902 (2018)], arXiv:1503.03313 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  64. [72]

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

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    S. Cao, T. Luo, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 94, 014909 (2016), arXiv:1605.06447 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  66. [74]

    S. Cao, T. Luo, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 777, 255 (2018), arXiv:1703.00822 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Wang and Y

    X.-N. Wang and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 062301 (2013), arXiv:1302.5874 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  68. [76]

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

    2020 arXiv

  69. [77]

    L. Pang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 86, 024911 (2012), arXiv:1205.5019 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  70. [78]

    L.-G. Pang, Y. Hatta, X.-N. Wang, and B.-W. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D 91, 074027 (2015), arXiv:1411.7767 [hep- ph]

    2015 arXiv

  71. [79]

    L.-G. Pang, H. Petersen, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 97, 064918 (2018), arXiv:1802.04449 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Wu, G.-Y

    X.-Y. Wu, G.-Y. Qin, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 105, 034909 (2022), arXiv:2107.04949 [hep- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Cacciari, G

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

    2012 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Dataset for single-jet diffusion wake,

    Z. Yang, “Dataset for single-jet diffusion wake,” (2025), zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.16332795

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.