Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 11 minor 86 references

Towards factorization of jet observables in dense media : An EFT approach

T0 review · 4 major / 11 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that jet energy-correlator cross-sections in a quark-gluon plasma factorize into a hard function times a medium-modified jet function.

desk verdict A self-citing review that is the best current map to the OQS+SCET+Glauber framework for ν-correlators in heavy-ion jets, but its central k− power-counting step is not justified on the paper's own scaling. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18070 v1 pith:UETLSFBX submitted 2025-05-23 hep-ph

Balbeer Singh This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords jetquenchingenergy-energycorrelatorsprojectednu-pointenergysoft-collineareffectivetheoryGlaubergluonsfactorizationBFKLresummationquark-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

This review article consolidates recent effective-field-theory work and argues a specific factorization theorem for jet substructure in heavy-ion collisions: for projected $\nu$-point energy correlators, the differential cross-section can be written as a hard function times a jet function, with all medium interactions carried by Glauber-gluon exchanges. The claim matters because jet quenching in the quark-gluon plasma is a many-body QCD problem; factorization separates hard production, vacuum evolution, and medium response into pieces that can each be computed and improved systematically. The review's central result is that the leading medium correction comes from double Glauber insertions, grows with the medium length $L$ through a sinc phase, and can be resummed with BFKL evolution. If the paper is right, medium-modified energy correlators become a calculable, systematically improvable observable for studying the quark-gluon plasma.

What carries the argument

The machinery is Glauber-extended SCET II. In this effective theory, Glauber gluons have momentum scaling $Q(\lambda,\lambda^2,\lambda)$ and mediate instantaneous, near-forward exchanges between collinear jet partons and soft thermal partons, through operators $O_{ns}=O_n(1/P_\perp^2)O_s$. The load-bearing identity is Eq. (35): it factors the cross-section into the hard function and a jet function whose medium part is the real-minus-virtual double-Glauber contribution. That contribution contains the two essential objects of the paper: the length-enhanced sinc phase coming from the finite extent $L$ of the medium, and the medium function $B(k)$, built from thermal spectral functions and depending only on transverse Glauber momentum. Resummation uses the BFKL kernel with eigenfunctions $|l|^{2\gamma-1}e^{in\phi_l}$, which turns the leading logarithms of $1/\sqrt{\chi}$ into an exponentiated anomalous-dimension integral.

What would settle it

Take the medium function to depend on the full Glauber momentum rather than only on its transverse part, and recompute the double-Glauber jet function; if the result cannot be written as $J_{qR}-J_{qV}$ times the same hard function, the factorization fails. Experimentally, one can bin two-point energy-correlator data by estimated path length in heavy-ion collisions and check whether the medium modification scales as $L$ with the predicted sinc phase, rather than showing an energy shift of the jet parton.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is Eq. (35): $d\sigma^{[\nu]}/d\chi = |C(Q)|^2 L^{\alpha\beta} \int dx\, x^\nu\, H_q^{\alpha\beta}(\omega,\mu)\,\big[J_{q0}^{[\nu]} + (J_{qR}^{[\nu]}-J_{qV}^{[\nu]})\big]$, with each factor fully specified through double Glauber insertions. The hard function $H_q^{\alpha\beta}$ describes production of the jet-initiating quark, while the jet function $J_q^{[\nu]}$ describes its vacuum and in-medium evolution; the medium correction is the difference of real and virtual Glauber contributions, each proportional to the medium length $L$ and carrying the phase $e^{i(p_a^+-p_b^+)L/2}\mathrm{sinc}[(p_a^+-p_b^+)L/2]$ alongside a transverse-momentum-dependent medium function $B(k)$. The paper shows the same factorization in the wide-separation hierarchy $Q\gg Q\sqrt{\chi}\gg Q_{\rm med}$, where the medium-induced radiation can be refactorized into matching functions and a BFKL-evolved function. It also extends the single-scattering result to independent multiple scatterings when the mean free path exceeds the screening length.

Load-bearing premise

The factorization holds only if each Glauber exchange changes the jet parton's transverse momentum but not its energy, i.e., the longitudinal-momentum component $k^-$ can be dropped; if the medium transfers non-negligible longitudinal momentum, Eq. (35) is not the leading-power result.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The medium modification of $\nu$-correlators is calculable order by order in Glauber insertions, with the first correction fixed explicitly in the soft limit by Eq. (36).
  • At small $\chi$, the large logarithms $\ln(1/\sqrt{\chi})$ can be resummed by BFKL evolution between the jet scale and the medium scale, giving concrete analytic predictions for the large-angle region.
  • The factorization extends to other jet substructure observables by replacing the measurement function, and to gluon jets by adding the collinear gluon operators.
  • When scatterings are independent, multiple Glauber exchanges resum into products of single-scattering medium functions, providing an EFT route to emergent medium scales such as $\hat q$.
  • The same framework connects to inclusive jet production, so energy-correlator predictions can be checked against the established inclusive-jet factorization results.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the factorization is correct, the ratio of in-medium to vacuum energy-energy correlators should show a linear growth with path length $L$ in the dilute single-scattering regime; a dedicated centrality or long-lived-jet measurement could look for that scaling.
  • The paper leaves the gluon-jet and proton-proton extensions implicit; adding PDFs and nuclear PDFs would turn Eq. (35) into a prediction for heavy-ion collider data, which seems a natural next step.
  • The BFKL saddle-point solutions in Eqs. (49)--(51) could be used to extract the in-medium anomalous dimension of the $\nu$-correlator, an extraction the paper identifies as needed but does not carry out.
  • A testable extension is to compute the first subleading Glauber correction and check whether the length enhancement remains a simple sinc phase or acquires a $\hat q$-dependent width; that would delimit the single-scattering regime.
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

4 major / 11 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents an EFT framework for factorizing medium-modified projected ν-point energy correlators in heavy-ion collisions. Starting from an open-quantum-system density matrix and Glauber-extended SCET, it derives a factorized cross-section, Eq. (35), of the form dσ[ν]/dχ = |C(Q)|² L^{αβ} ∫ dx x^ν H_q^{αβ}(ω,μ) [J_q0[ν] + J_qR[ν] − J_qV[ν]], where the medium enters through double Glauber insertions, a thermal medium function B(k), and a length-enhanced LPM phase. The paper also discusses BFKL resummation of the resulting jet function and an extension to multiple scatterings. Much of the technical content is drawn from the author's prior work (Refs. 67–71), and the detailed single-scattering jet-function computation is quoted rather than derived.

Significance. If correct, this factorization would be a valuable step: it gives a systematic SCET basis for a class of jet-substructure observables in dense media, exposes the LPM phase and a thermal medium function, and provides a concrete BFKL resummation of logarithms of the measurement χ. The paper is also useful as a review that collects recent results in one place, and the operator definitions of the medium function are explicit and physically motivated. Its main strengths are the transparent separation of scales and the clear Lund-plane discussion. However, the paper is largely an exposition of the author's own previous results; the central diagrammatic calculation is deferred to Ref. [70], and no independent numerical predictions or machine-checked derivations are included. The expository value is real, but the research-level claim embodied in Eq. (35) is not self-contained as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (31)–(32)] The step 'we can drop k− as this is suppressed compared to p− component of collinear mode' is not supported by the power counting given in Section 2.1. There the collinear mode scales as (p+, p−, p⊥) ∼ Q(1, λ², λ) and the Glauber mode as (k+, k−, k⊥) ∼ Q(λ, λ², λ), so k− and the collinear p− are the same order in λ. Moreover, in the phase e^{ik·ŷ}, the term k− ŷ+ is O(1) because ŷ+ ∼ 1/(Qλ²) for collinear operators. Dropping k− is therefore an additional physical assumption (essentially zero longitudinal momentum transfer in the Glauber vertex) that must be stated and justified. Without it, the reduction of the ȳ− integral to the factor L e^{i(p_a+−p_b+)L/2} sinc[(p_a+−p_b+)L/2] and hence the factorized formula (35) are not established.
  2. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (35)–(36)] The central non-trivial object, the leading medium-induced jet function J_q2, is not derived in this manuscript. The text explicitly directs the reader to Ref. [70] for the detailed diagram computation and then quotes Eq. (36) as the final soft-limit expression. Since this object carries the LPM/sinc structure and the convolution with the medium function B(k) that are essential to Eq. (35), the factorization claim is not self-contained. For a research article this is a load-bearing omission; at minimum the manuscript must either provide the derivation or clearly and consistently frame itself as a review of Ref. [70].
  3. [Section 4.1, after Eq. (24)] The statement that 'only even number of insertions contribute to the jet function and odd one vanishes' is asserted without proof. This vanishing is essential because Eq. (35) truncates the Glauber expansion at two insertions; if odd insertions contributed at leading power, Eq. (35) would be incomplete. Please provide the argument (for example, color neutrality of the medium, or a symmetry of the forward-scattering amplitude) or cite a derivation that establishes it.
  4. [Section 4.2 and Eq. (52)] The multiple-scattering factorization, with a product of independent medium functions B(k_l) and the combinatorial factor L^{j/2}/(j/2)! in Eq. (52), is introduced as an ansatz after the statement that the scatterings are independent when the mean free path is larger than the Debye screening length. No derivation or power counting is given for this independence criterion or for the resummation of arbitrary Glauber insertions. Since this is a central element of the claimed all-order structure, it should be substantiated or explicitly attributed to a prior derivation.
minor comments (11)
  1. [Title] The full-text title reads 'T owards factorization...' with a stray space; it should be 'Towards factorization...'.
  2. [Section 2, before Eq. (2)] The phrase 'takes the form the form' is duplicated and should be corrected.
  3. [Section 2, momentum scaling] The notation '¯n·p (1, λ², λ)' is ambiguous; label the triple as (p+, p−, p⊥) to match Eq. (1) and the subsequent discussion.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (8)] The index ranges in the sums, e.g., '1≤b1≤M' and '1≤b1<..<bM=N', are notationally inconsistent and should be cleaned up.
  5. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (29)–(31)] The medium function is denoted S(y1,y2) in the text and S_ab(ŷ,ȳ) in Eq. (30); please use one consistent notation throughout.
  6. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (31)–(32)] The arguments of B are written B(k−,k) in Eq. (31) and B(k) in Eq. (32); make the light-cone and transverse components explicit, e.g., B(k−,k⊥) and B(k⊥).
  7. [Section 4.1, after Eq. (32)] 'after performing ¯x− interaction' should read 'after performing the ȳ− integration'.
  8. [Section 4.2, Eq. (37)] The Lorentz indices are inconsistent: the prefactor is L^{µα} but the hard function is written H^{µα}_q, while Eq. (35) uses L^{αβ}H^{αβ}_q; unify the notation.
  9. [Section 5, before Eq. (48)] The phrase 'we can obtain analytic solution for specific cases by within diffusion and double logarithmic approximation approximation' contains duplicated and ungrammatical words; please rephrase.
  10. [Appendix A] 'Weightman correlaotrs' should read 'Wightman correlators'; also the sentence introducing the gluon spectral function should specify whether it refers to the gluon or quark correlator in each place.
  11. [References] Several references are incomplete or inconsistently formatted (e.g., Refs. [30], [51], [58]–[66] in the text and some arXiv identifiers); please standardize the bibliography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the medium-modified ν-correlator factorization is derived in outline within the paper, and the deferred diagrammatic details in the author's prior Ref. 70 are legitimate references rather than a circular input.

full rationale

The paper is a review article whose central result, Eq. (35), is reached by an explicit (if abridged) derivation: Eq. (16) is the master formula, Eq. (21) is the hard/jet factorization, Eqs. (23)–(28) expand the jet function in Glauber insertions, Eq. (29) defines the medium correlator, Eqs. (30)–(32) perform the kinematic simplifications, Eq. (34) gives the virtual piece, and Eq. (35) combines them. No parameter is fitted to the claimed prediction and no external result is renamed; the BFKL kernel is taken from the independent Kovchegov–Levin textbook. The text defers the detailed Feynman-diagram calculation to Ref. [70] (Singh and Vaidya), which is a self-citation, but that citation supplies an explicit parameter-free computation, not the conclusion of Eq. (35) itself; Eq. (35) is justified by the displayed operator derivation. The L enhancement in Eq. (32) follows from the assumed medium extent ȳ ∈ [0, L], an input model assumption, not from a quantity that was previously treated as unknown. The only serious technical concern is the power-counting for dropping k⁻ in Sec. 4.1: under the paper's own scalings, collinear p⁻ and Glauber k⁻ are both O(Qλ²), so the suppression is not demonstrated; this is a correctness/validity issue, not a circularity in the derivation chain. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows no fitted constants in the derivation itself. The only hand-picked numbers are illustrative medium parameters for the Lund plane (pT = 100 GeV, T ~ 0.5 GeV, q-hat ~ 1-2 GeV^2/fm, L ~ 5 fm, Qmed ~ 1-3 GeV), which do not enter any fit. The factorization relies on several domain assumptions about scale separation, the equilibrium form of the medium, and the dominance of transverse-momentum-transferring Glauber exchanges. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Medium parameters for the Lund-plane illustration = not fitted (illustrative): pT = 100 GeV, T ~ 0.5 GeV, q-hat ~ 1-2 GeV^2/fm, L ~ 5 fm, Qmed ~ 1-3 GeV
    Section 4 lists these 'typical values' only to draw the Lund diagram in Figure 1. They do not enter the factorization derivation or any fit, so they do not load-bear on the central claim.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption SCET power counting with lambda ~ T/Q and measurement scale Q sqrt(chi), with the hierarchy Q >> Q sqrt(chi) >= Qmed.
    Section 4 sets lambda ~ sqrt(chi) and treats jet and medium virtualities as well below the hard scale Q. The whole factorization relies on this scale separation.
  • domain assumption The medium is in thermal equilibrium, described by the factorized density matrix rhoB = exp(-beta Hs)/Tr[exp(-beta Hs)] that evolves only with the soft Hamiltonian.
    Eq. 15 and the factorization of rho(0) into |e+e-><e+e-| tensor rhoB in Section 4.1. This open-quantum-system treatment assumes a Markovian bath with no memory of prior scatterings.
  • domain assumption Glauber modes dominate jet-medium interactions and carry momentum pG ~ Q(lambda, lambda^2, lambda) with negligible k- transfer.
    Section 2.1 and Section 4.1 ('we can drop k-'). The LPM sinc phase and the factorized medium function B(k) depend on this.
  • domain assumption Only even numbers of Glauber insertions contribute to the jet function; odd insertions vanish.
    Stated without proof in the paragraph after Eq. 24. The expansion J_q = J_q0 + J_q2 + J_q4 + ... assumes this real/virtual cancellation structure.
  • domain assumption The medium is homogeneous and carries no net color charge, encoded by replacing color structure with delta_ab and dropping the y-bar dependence in the medium function.
    Section 4.1 after Eq. 29. The multiple-scattering formula (Eq. 52) additionally requires scatterings to be independent, valid only when the mean free path exceeds the Debye screening length.
  • standard math The BFKL kernel has the standard eigenvalue representation with eigenfunctions |l|^(2 gamma - 1) e^(i n phi) and eigenvalue chi(n, gamma).
    Eqs. 41-42, taken from Kovchegov-Levin (Ref. 81). Standard result for the BFKL kernel.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards factorization of jet observables in dense media : An EFT approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UETLSFBX

@misc{pith2026250518070,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards factorization of jet observables in dense media : An EFT approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UETLSFBX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18070}
}
abstract

Jets are extended multipartonic systems and serve as a powerful tool for investigating the dynamics of emergent phenomena driven by many body QCD interactions. In heavy ion collisions, starting from their production during the perturbative hard scattering event in the initial stages of the collision to non-perturbative hadronization they interact with the various stages of quark-gluon plasma and retain imprints of fundamental properties of the medium. In these collisions, the jet production cross-section can be factorized using open quantum system framework along with effective field theory into various functions, each capturing a specific dynamics and depending on a single characteristic scale. In this review article, we discuss recent theoretical developments on factorization for jets in heavy-ion collisions with a specific example of jet substructure observable as energy-energy correlator and its generalization to projected $\nu$-point energy correlators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18070 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Soft, collinear and hard mode representation in mass hyperbola (left) with the assump [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [70]

    Singh and V

    B. Singh and V. Vaidya (8 2024), arXiv:2408.02753 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    G. P. Salam, Eur. Phys. J. C 67, 637 (2010), arXiv:0906.1833 [hep-ph], doi:10. 1140/epjc/s10052-010-1314-6

    arXiv 2010

  3. [2]

    Arsene et al

    BRAHMS Collaboration (I. Arsene et al. ), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 1 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.02.130

    arXiv 2005

  4. [3]

    Connors, C

    M. Connors, C. Nattrass, R. Reed and S. Salur, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 025005 (2018), arXiv:1705.01974 [nucl-ex], doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90.025005

    arXiv 2018

  5. [4]

    PHOBOS Collaboration (B. B. Back et al. ), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 28 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410022, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.084

    arXiv 2005

  6. [5]

    Acharya et al

    ALICE Collaboration (S. Acharya et al. ), Phys. Lett. B 849, 138412 (2024), arXiv:2303.00592 [nucl-ex], doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138412

    arXiv 2024

  7. [6]

    Adams et al

    STAR Collaboration (J. Adams et al. ), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 102 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.085

    arXiv 2005

  8. [7]

    CMS Collaboration (A. M. Sirunyan et al.), JHEP 05, 284 (2021), arXiv:2102.13080 [hep-ex], doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2021)284

    arXiv 2021

Show all 86 references
  1. [8]

    Adcox et al

    PHENIX Collaboration (K. Adcox et al. ), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 184 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.086

    2005 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Chatrchyan et al

    CMS Collaboration (S. Chatrchyan et al. ), Phys. Rev. C 84, 024906 (2011), arXiv:1102.1957 [nucl-ex], doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.84.024906

    2011 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Aamodt et al

    ALICE Collaboration (K. Aamodt et al. ), Phys. Lett. B 696, 30 (2011), arXiv:1012.1004 [nucl-ex], doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.12.020

    2011 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Aad et al

    ATLAS Collaboration (G. Aad et al. ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252303 (2010), arXiv:1011.6182 [hep-ex], doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.252303

    2010 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Gyulassy and M

    M. Gyulassy and M. Plumer, Phys. Lett. B 243, 432 (1990), doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(90)91409-5

    1990

  6. [13]

    Gyulassy, M

    M. Gyulassy, M. Plumer, M. Thoma and X. N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A538, 37C (1992), doi:10.1016/0375-9474(92)90756-A

    1992 doi

  7. [14]

    Wang and M

    X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1480 (1992), doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.68.1480

    1992

  8. [15]

    C. E. Coleman-Smith, S. A. Bass and D. K. Srivastava, Nucl. Phys. A862-863, 275 (2011), arXiv:1101.4895 [hep-ph], doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2011.05.071

    2011 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Baier, Y

    R. Baier, Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller and D. Schiff, Nucl. Phys. B531, 403 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9804212, doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00546-X

    1998 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Baier, D

    R. Baier, D. Schiff and B. G. Zakharov, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.50, 37 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0002198, doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.50.1.37

    2000 arXiv

  11. [18]

    U. A. Wiedemann and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. B 560, 345 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9906257, doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00458-7

    1999 arXiv

  12. [19]

    U. A. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. B 582, 409 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0003021, doi:10. 1016/S0550-3213(00)00286-8

    2000 arXiv

  13. [20]

    L. D. Landau and I. Pomeranchuk, Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ser. Fiz.92, 535 (1953)

    1953

  14. [21]

    A. B. Migdal, Phys. Rev. 103, 1811 (1956), doi:10.1103/PhysRev.103.1811

    1956 doi

  15. [22]

    Arnold, O

    P. Arnold, O. Elgedawy and S. Iqbal, JHEP 01, 193 (2025), arXiv:2408.07129 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2025)193

    2025 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Arnold, O

    P. Arnold, O. Elgedawy and S. Iqbal, JHEP 09, 131 (2024), arXiv:2404.19008 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2024)131

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Casalderrey-Solana, Y

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado and K. Tywoniuk, Phys. Lett. B 725, 357 (2013), arXiv:1210.7765 [hep-ph], doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.07.046

    2013 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Mehtar-Tani, C

    Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado and K. Tywoniuk, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 4, 623 (2011), doi:10.5506/APhysPolBSupp.4.623

    2011 doi

  19. [26]

    Mehtar-Tani, C

    Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado and K. Tywoniuk, JHEP 04, 064 (2012), 22 arXiv:1112.5031 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2012)064

    2012 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Mehtar-Tani, C

    Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado and K. Tywoniuk, JHEP 10, 197 (2012), arXiv:1205.5739 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2012)197

    2012 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Mehtar-Tani and K

    Y. Mehtar-Tani and K. Tywoniuk, Nucl. Phys. A979, 165 (2018), arXiv:1706.06047 [hep-ph], doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2018.09.041

    2018 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Mehtar-Tani and K

    Y. Mehtar-Tani and K. Tywoniuk, Phys. Rev. D98, 051501 (2018), arXiv:1707.07361 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.051501

    2018 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Mehtar-Tani (11 2024), arXiv:2411.11992 [hep-ph]

    Y. Mehtar-Tani (11 2024), arXiv:2411.11992 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Gyulassy, I

    M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, X.-N. Wang and B.-W. Zhang, 123 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0302077, doi: 10.1142/9789812795533 0003

    2004 arXiv

  25. [32]

    C. A. Salgado and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 042301 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0310079, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.042301

    2004 arXiv

  26. [33]

    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], doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100. 072301

    2008 arXiv

  27. [34]

    K. Zapp, G. Ingelman, J. Rathsman, J. Stachel and U. A. Wiedemann, Eur. Phys. J. C 60, 617 (2009), arXiv:0804.3568 [hep-ph], doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-0941-2

    2009 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Casalderrey-Solana, D

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. C. Gulhan, J. G. Milhano, D. Pablos and K. Rajagopal, JHEP 10, 019 (2014), arXiv:1405.3864 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2015)175, [Erratum: JHEP 09, 175 (2015)]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Qin and X.-N

    G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24, 1530014 (2015), arXiv:1511.00790 [hep-ph], doi:10.1142/S0218301315300143

    2015 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Y. He, T. Luo, X.-N. Wang and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. C 91, 054908 (2015), arXiv:1503.03313 [nucl-th], doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.91.054908, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 97, 019902 (2018)]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Chien and I

    Y.-T. Chien and I. Vitev, JHEP 05, 023 (2016), arXiv:1509.07257 [hep-ph], doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2016)023

    2016 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Wang, S.-Y

    X.-N. Wang, S.-Y. Wei and H.-Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 96, 034903 (2017), arXiv:1611.07211 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.96.034903

    2017 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Y. He, S. Cao, W. Chen, T. Luo, L.-G. Pang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 99, 054911 (2019), arXiv:1809.02525 [nucl-th], doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.99.054911

    2019 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Casalderrey-Solana, G

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, G. Milhano, D. Pablos and K. Rajagopal, JHEP 01, 044 (2020), arXiv:1907.11248 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2020)044

    2020 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Caucal, E

    P. Caucal, E. Iancu and G. Soyez, JHEP 10, 273 (2019), arXiv:1907.04866 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2019)273

    2019 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Vaidya and X

    V. Vaidya and X. Yao, JHEP 10, 024 (2020), arXiv:2004.11403 [hep-ph], doi:10. 1007/JHEP10(2020)024

    2020 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Vaidya, JHEP 11, 064 (2021), arXiv:2010.00028 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/ JHEP11(2021)064

    V. Vaidya, JHEP 11, 064 (2021), arXiv:2010.00028 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/ JHEP11(2021)064

    2021 arXiv

  38. [45]

    A. Baty, P. Gardner and W. Li, Phys. Rev. C107, 064908 (2023), arXiv:2104.11735 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.064908

    2023 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Cunqueiro and A

    L. Cunqueiro and A. M. Sickles, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 124, 103940 (2022), arXiv:2110.14490 [nucl-ex], doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103940

    2022 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Vaidya, JHEP 05, 028 (2024), arXiv:2107.00029 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/ JHEP05(2024)028

    V. Vaidya, JHEP 05, 028 (2024), arXiv:2107.00029 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/ JHEP05(2024)028

    2024 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Caucal, A

    P. Caucal, A. Soto-Ontoso and A. Takacs, Phys. Rev. D 105, 114046 (2022), arXiv:2111.14768 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.114046

    2022 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Mehtar-Tani, D

    Y. Mehtar-Tani, D. Pablos and K. Tywoniuk, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 252301 (2021), arXiv:2101.01742 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.252301. 23

    2021 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Kumar et al.), Phys

    JETSCAPE Collaboration (A. Kumar et al.), Phys. Rev. C 107, 034911 (2023), arXiv:2204.01163 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.034911

    2023 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Budhraja, R

    A. Budhraja, R. Sharma and B. Singh (5 2023), arXiv:2305.10237 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Zhang, E

    S.-L. Zhang, E. Wang, H. Xing and B.-W. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B850, 138549 (2024), arXiv:2303.14881 [hep-ph], doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138549

    2024 arXiv

  46. [53]

    J. a. Barata, J. G. Milhano and A. V. Sadofyev, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 174 (2024), arXiv:2308.01294 [hep-ph], doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12514-1

    2024 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Ovanesyan and I

    G. Ovanesyan and I. Vitev, JHEP 06, 080 (2011), arXiv:1103.1074 [hep-ph], doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2011)080

    2011 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Ovanesyan and I

    G. Ovanesyan and I. Vitev, Phys. Lett. B 706, 371 (2012), arXiv:1109.5619 [hep-ph], doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.11.040

    2012 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet and I. Moult, JHEP 09, 088 (2023), arXiv:2303.03413 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2023)088

    2023 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, J. Holguin, C. Marquet and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 262301 (2023), arXiv:2209.11236 [hep-ph], doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.130.262301

    2023 arXiv

  51. [58]

    J. a. Barata, I. Moult, A. V. Sadofyev and J. a. M. Silva (3 2025), arXiv:2503.13603 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Apolin´ ario, R

    L. Apolin´ ario, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, N. O. Madureira, J.-X. Sheng, X.-N. Wang and Z. Yang (2 2025), arXiv:2502.11406 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet and I. Moult (11 2024), arXiv:2411.15298 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [61]

    X. Liu, W. Vogelsang, F. Yuan and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151901 (2025), arXiv:2410.16371 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.151901

    2025 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Andres, J

    C. Andres, J. Holguin, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli and J. Viinikainen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 082303 (2025), arXiv:2409.07514 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 134.082303

    2025 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Alipour-fard, A

    S. Alipour-fard, A. Budhraja, J. Thaler and W. J. Waalewijn (10 2024), arXiv:2410.16368 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [64]

    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], doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2024)073

    2024 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Z. Yang, Y. He, I. Moult and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 011901 (2024), arXiv:2310.01500 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.011901

    2024 arXiv

  59. [66]

    A.-P. Chen, X. Liu and Y.-Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 19 (2024), arXiv:2405.10056 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.191901

    2024 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Mehtar-Tani, F

    Y. Mehtar-Tani, F. Ringer, B. Singh and V. Vaidya (9 2024), arXiv:2409.05957 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Mehtar-Tani, F

    Y. Mehtar-Tani, F. Ringer, B. Singh and V. Vaidya (3 2025), arXiv:2504.00101 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Singh and V

    B. Singh and V. Vaidya (12 2024), arXiv:2412.18967 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Budhraja and B

    A. Budhraja and B. Singh (3 2025), arXiv:2503.20019 [hep-ph]

    2025

  64. [72]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 67, 071502 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0211069, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.67.071502

    2003 arXiv

  65. [73]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D63, 114020 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0011336, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.114020

    2001 arXiv

  66. [74]

    C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Lett. B 516, 134 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0107001, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00902-9

    2001 arXiv

  67. [75]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 24 66, 014017 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0202088, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.014017

    2002 arXiv

  68. [76]

    I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart, JHEP 08, 025 (2016), arXiv:1601.04695 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)025

    2016 arXiv

  69. [77]

    H. Chen, I. Moult, X. Zhang and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 102, 054012 (2020), arXiv:2004.11381 [hep-ph], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.054012

    2020 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, L. Lonnblad and U. Pettersson, Z. Phys. C 43, 625 (1989), doi:10.1007/BF01550942

    1989 doi

  71. [79]

    F. A. Dreyer, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP 12, 064 (2018), arXiv:1807.04758 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2018)064

    2018 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Chicherin, I

    D. Chicherin, I. Moult, E. Sokatchev, K. Yan and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D110, L091901 (2024), arXiv:2401.06463 [hep-th], doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.L091901

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and E. Levin, Quantum Chromodynamics at High Energy(Oxford University Press, 2013)

    2013

  74. [82]

    G. A. Chirilli and Y. V. Kovchegov, JHEP 06, 055 (2013), arXiv:1305.1924 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2013)055

    2013 arXiv

  75. [83]

    C. R. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 4531 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9612454, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.78.4531

    1997 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Baier, Y

    R. Baier, Y. L. Dokshitzer, S. Peigne and D. Schiff, Phys. Lett. B345, 277 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9411409, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)01617-L

    1995 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Baier, Y

    R. Baier, Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller, S. Peigne and D. Schiff, Nucl. Phys. B483, 291 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9607355, doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(96)00553-6

    1997 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Andres, L

    C. Andres, L. Apolin´ ario, F. Dominguez and M. G. Martinez, JHEP 11, 025 (2024), arXiv:2307.06226 [hep-ph], doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2024)025

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.