REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by
Study of $p_\mathrm{T}$-differential radial flow in blast-wave model
T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Gaussian event-by-event fluctuations in the blast-wave radial flow and freeze-out temperature reproduce the measured $v_0(p_T)$ data for pions, kaons, and protons, and the extracted freeze-out temperatures run systematically higher than…
desk verdict Useful first blast-wave fit to v0(pT) with Gaussian fluctuations; the qualitative picture holds, but missing multiplicity fluctuations and absent goodness-of-fit numbers mean the extracted freeze-out parameters should be treated as effective, not literal. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the $v_0(p_T)$ observable, a normalized covariance between event-by-event fluctuations of the normalized transverse-momentum spectrum $f(p_T)$ and fluctuations of the event mean transverse momentum $[p_T]$ (Eq.~1). The machinery is a Boltzmann--Gibbs blast-wave emission function (Eq.~4) with a radial velocity profile $\rho = \tanh^{-1}[(r/R)^n \beta_s]$, in which $\beta_s$ and $T_{\rm kin}$ are sampled from Gaussian distributions event by event. The mean values set the shape of the average spectra and the mass ordering, while the widths $\sigma(\beta_s)$ and $\sigma(T_{\rm kin})$ generate the covariance that $v_0(p_T)$ measures, amplified at high $p_T$ and for heavier particles. A Bayesian fit with uniform priors then maps the measured $v_0(p_T)$ of all three species into joint posterior distributions for the four parameters.
What would settle it
Run a full dynamical simulation with known freeze-out parameters and compute $v_0(p_T)$ with and without resonance decays, then fit both versions with the same Gaussian blast-wave Bayesian procedure. If switching on resonances does not lower the extracted $T_{\rm kin}$ by roughly the gap reported here, or if the Gaussian-fluctuation fit cannot reproduce a simulated $v_0(p_T)$ of similar shape, the central claim fails.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central discovery is that the blast-wave model, augmented by Gaussian event-by-event fluctuations in the surface transverse velocity and the freeze-out temperature, reproduces the measured $v_0(p_T)$ of identified hadrons and yields a coherent parameter set for each centrality. In the Bayesian fit, the surface velocity $\beta_s$ decreases from about $0.896$ in 10--20% centrality to $0.700$ in 60--70%, while $T_{\rm kin}$ rises from $0.136$ GeV to $0.235$ GeV, with fluctuation widths $\sigma(\beta_s)$ and $\sigma(T_{\rm kin})$ growing toward peripheral collisions. The model cleanly separates the roles of the two ingredients: the mean flow sets the species separation and the threshold $p_{T,\mathrm{sep}}$, while the fluctuations set the magnitude of $v_0(p_T)$ at high $p_T$, with heavier particles most sensitive. The paper's interpretive claim is that $T_{\rm kin}$ from $v_0(p_T)$ runs systematically higher than from $p_T$-spectra fits because the two-particle correlation defining $v_0(p_T)$ suppresses short-range resonance-decay pairs, so the observable reports the freeze-out conditions more directly.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that $v_0(p_T)$ is driven entirely by Gaussian, independent event-by-event fluctuations in the radial flow speed and the freeze-out temperature, with no significant contribution from collision geometry, system-size variations, or resonance decays.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Freeze-out temperatures extracted from $v_0(p_T)$ should be interpreted as cleaner estimates of the thermal decoupling conditions than $p_T$-spectra temperatures, with the gap between the two serving as a measure of resonance feed-down contamination.
- The anti-correlation between $\beta_s$ and $T_{\rm kin}$ across centrality is preserved in $v_0(p_T)$ fits, so the observable can be used for centrality-dependent systematics of radial flow.
- The growth of $\sigma(\beta_s)$ and $\sigma(T_{\rm kin})$ in peripheral collisions quantifies event-by-event flow and temperature variability in smaller systems, providing a target that dynamical models can be tested against.
- Because fluctuations set the high-$p_T$ magnitude of $v_0(p_T)$ without moving $p_{T,\mathrm{sep}}$, the zero-crossing threshold is a relatively model-insensitive handle on the mean radial flow strength.
Reading between the lines
- A direct test of the resonance-decay explanation would be a full dynamical simulation run with and without resonance feed-down: if adding resonances lowers the $v_0(p_T)$-based $T_{\rm kin}$ by roughly the reported gap, the paper's mechanism is confirmed.
- The Gaussian independence assumption may be too simple: impact-parameter or centrality fluctuations are known to create non-Gaussian mean-$p_T$ fluctuations, so part of the extracted widths could be absorbing geometry. Comparing $v_0(p_T)$ across narrow centrality bins or using event-shape selection would separate those sources.
- The same fitting recipe could be applied to pp and p--Pb collisions, where the extracted $\sigma(T_{\rm kin})$ would act as a model-dependent measure of whether radial-flow-like fluctuations exist in small systems, though the paper itself notes initial-state correlations may then be needed.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This manuscript studies the pT-differential radial flow observable v0(pT) in a Boltzmann-Gibbs blast-wave model with independent Gaussian event-by-event fluctuations of the surface velocity βs and kinetic freeze-out temperature Tkin. The authors scan the dependence of v0(pT) on the means and widths of these parameters, finding that increasing mean βs produces mass ordering and that larger fluctuations increase the magnitude of v0(pT). They then perform Bayesian/MCMC fits of the model to ALICE Pb–Pb 5.02 TeV v0(pT) data for pions, kaons, and protons in three centrality classes, extracting βs, Tkin, σ(βs), and σ(Tkin). They report a decrease in βs and an increase in Tkin from central to peripheral collisions, with fluctuation widths increasing, and they compare Tkin with values from conventional pT-spectra fits, arguing that v0-based temperatures are systematically higher because v0 is less sensitive to resonance decays.
Significance. v0(pT) is a recent observable, and a simple blast-wave study that connects it to traditional freeze-out parameter extraction is useful. The paper's systematic parameter scan and Bayesian framework are transparent, and the comparison to public ALICE data is a strength. If the extracted parameters were robust, the decreasing βs and increasing Tkin trends would be a useful phenomenological result. However, the quantitative support for the central claims is incomplete: no fit quality metrics are reported, the model omits event-by-event multiplicity/geometry fluctuations that are known to drive mean-pT fluctuations, and the resonance-decay interpretation of the Tkin shift is asserted rather than demonstrated. The central claim is plausible but not yet established at the level required for publication.
major comments (3)
- [Sec. III, Eqs. (4)–(6), Table III] The model as implemented cannot isolate the freeze-out fluctuation widths that the paper claims to extract. v0(pT) is an event-by-event covariance of the pT spectrum; in the ALICE data the centrality classes are multiplicity-selected, so impact-parameter and system-size fluctuations contribute to v0(pT). In the generator described by Eqs. (4)–(6), the fireball radius R and the spectrum normalization are fixed within a centrality class, and the only event-by-event sources are independent Gaussian fluctuations of βs and Tkin. Refs. [20,21] show that impact-parameter fluctuations produce mean-pT fluctuations that correlate with the spectrum, and the paper itself concedes in Sec. IV that 'event-by-event geometry and system-size fluctuations ... are not included in the current blast-wave implementation but may significantly influence v0(pT)'. Consequently, the σ(βs) and σ(Tkin) values in Table III are effective parameters that can absorb the missing fluctuation source, and the reported centrality trends and the comparison in Fig. 8 are not uniquely supported. I ask for a control calculation that includes multiplicity or geometry fluctuations (or an estimate of their contribution) and a calculation without any fluctuations, so that the fitted fluctuation widths can be interpreted.
- [Sec. III, Bayesian fitting paragraph and Fig. 7] The paper never reports a quantitative goodness-of-fit. The text states that χ2 is computed, but no χ2 values, degrees of freedom, p-values, or credible-interval quality measures are given for any centrality class or species. The residual panels in Fig. 7 are shown only as nσ = (data − model)/σ_data, and the claims of 'very good agreement' (protons), 'successfully captures the key features', and 'describe the experimental data well' are therefore unsupported. This is load-bearing because the paper's central result is that the model reproduces the ALICE v0(pT) data. In addition, the pion fit range (0.5–1 GeV/c) is very narrow and should be justified, since it covers only a small portion of the v0(pT) curve shown in Fig. 7 and weakens the pion comparison.
- [Sec. IV / Fig. 8] The systematic difference in Tkin between the v0(pT) fit and the pT-spectra fit of Ref. [24] is not quantified, and the proposed explanation is not tested. The text says the temperatures are 'systematically higher' with 'significant differences', but no numerical offsets, uncertainties, or significance levels are given. More importantly, the model contains no resonance decays at all, so the statement that the difference is 'likely due to the reduced sensitivity of v0(pT) to resonance decay contributions' is an assertion, not a result of this analysis. Alternative explanations, such as the missing geometry/system-size fluctuations discussed above or the different fit ranges and data selection, are not excluded. Please provide the numerical comparison and either add resonance-decay effects to the model or soften the causal claim accordingly.
minor comments (4)
- [Sec. III, Fig. 1] The caption says the normalization factors are adjusted to match the experimental spectra, but no quantitative comparison (e.g., residuals or χ2) is shown for the averaged spectra; this makes it hard to judge whether the baseline is reliable.
- [Throughout] The manuscript contains several typos and formatting inconsistencies, e.g., 'reduction inv0(pT)' in the discussion of Fig. 2 and inconsistent use of 'pT' vs 'p_T' and 'βs' vs 'β_s'; a careful proofread is needed.
- [Sec. III, MCMC description] The MCMC analysis is described only as 'Python-based MCMC routines'; please provide convergence diagnostics, the number of samples/walkers, and the likelihood definition, or a reference to the code, so the posterior results in Table III are reproducible.
- [Sec. II, Eq. (1)] Eq. (1) uses [pT] for the event-wise mean transverse momentum; this notation is unconventional and could be confused with the pT bin itself. Consider a notation such as \langle p_T\rangle_e or m_pT.
Circularity Check
The paper is a forward blast-wave model fit to external ALICE v0(pT) data; its derivation chain contains no step that reduces to its own inputs.
full rationale
The derivation chain is self-contained as a forward model: Eq. (1) defines v0(pT) from event-wise spectra, Eqs. (4)-(6) define the blast-wave generator, and the paper then fits the generator parameters (beta_s, Tkin, sigma(beta_s), sigma(Tkin)) to external ALICE data using Bayesian inference. The observed trends are computed properties of the model, not identities with the fitted inputs. The comparison to pT-spectra fits from Ref. [24] is an external benchmark, not a load-bearing self-citation: Ref. [24] is an ALICE data paper with independently measured spectra, and any collaboration overlap by the present authors does not make that citation circular. The paper explicitly notes that event-by-event geometry and system-size fluctuations are not included (Sec. IV), but this is a stated modeling limitation and a potential source of bias, not a circular step: the fitted parameters are not defined in terms of the v0 data, and the model's v0(pT) is not constructed to reproduce the data by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the 'predictions' in Fig. 7 are posterior model calculations displayed against the same data used for fitting, which is a standard goodness-of-fit presentation rather than an independent prediction. There is no uniqueness theorem, no ansatz smuggled in via citation, and no renaming of a known result as a new derivation. Thus the paper has no significant circularity.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (4)
- beta_s (surface transverse velocity) =
0.896 (10-20%), 0.842 (30-40%), 0.700 (60-70%)
- T_kin (kinetic freeze-out temperature) =
0.136 GeV (10-20%), 0.172 GeV (30-40%), 0.235 GeV (60-70%)
- sigma(beta_s) =
0.012 (10-20%), 0.021 (30-40%), 0.046 (60-70%)
- sigma(T_kin) =
0.0022 GeV (10-20%), 0.0065 GeV (30-40%), 0.020 GeV (60-70%)
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Boltzmann-Gibbs blast-wave description of particle production at freeze-out
- domain assumption Radial velocity profile rho = tanh^{-1}((r/R)^n beta_s) with fixed exponent n
- ad hoc to paper Event-by-event fluctuations in beta_s and T_kin follow Gaussian distributions
- standard math The relation beta_s = <beta_T> (n+2)/2
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Study of $p_\mathrm{T}$-differential radial flow in blast-wave model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BAFEWZUJ
@misc{pith2026250519697,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Study of $p_\mathrmT$-differential radial flow in blast-wave model},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BAFEWZUJ}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19697}
}
abstract
The transverse momentum-differential radial flow observable $v_0(p_\mathrm{T})$, recently proposed and measured by the ATLAS and ALICE collaborations, provides a novel tool to probe radial expansion dynamics in high-energy heavy-ion collisions. In this work, we conduct a detailed study of $v_0(p_\mathrm{T})$ using a blast-wave model that incorporates hydrodynamic-like expansion and thermal emission. We introduce event-by-event fluctuations in the transverse expansion velocity and kinetic freeze-out temperature using Gaussian probability distributions. Our results show that increasing the mean expansion velocity leads to a clear mass ordering in $v_0(p_\mathrm{T})$, while fluctuations in both expansion velocity and freeze-out temperature significantly enhance the magnitude of $v_0(p_\mathrm{T})$, particularly at higher $p_\mathrm{T}$. We fit blast-wave model calculations for identified hadrons ($\pi$, K, and p) to recent ALICE data from Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV using a Bayesian parameter estimation framework. The extracted mean transverse expansion velocity decreases, while the kinetic freeze-out temperature increases, from central to peripheral collisions. Additionally, the freeze-out temperatures inferred from $v_0(p_\mathrm{T})$ are systematically higher than those obtained from conventional $p_\mathrm{T}$-spectra fits, likely due to the reduced sensitivity of $v_0(p_\mathrm{T})$ to resonance decay contributions.
Figures
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Thermal and geometric normal modes of spectral fluctuations in heavy-ion collisions
Rotated PCA of simulated Pb+Pb spectra separates spectral fluctuations into a coherent thermal mode that fully explains v0(pT) and a double-node geometric mode that drives the low-pT sign change of v02(pT).
-
Collision energy and system size dependence of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$-differential radial flow fluctuations $v_{0}(p_{\mathrm{T}})$ at RHIC
First RHIC measurements of v0(pT) in Au+Au and O+O show multiplicity-driven v0 and a factorized hydrodynamic response, with model comparisons pointing to bulk-viscosity sensitivity.
-
Enhanced hydrodynamic predictions for $v_{02}(p_T)$
Ideal hydrodynamics plus a v2-fitted correction predicts v02(pT): a high-pT decrease for charged hadrons, meson-baryon splitting, and a non-monotonic proton v02 in mid-central Pb+Pb.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[24]
ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Production of charged pions, kaons, and (anti-)protons in Pb-Pb and inelastic pp collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) 044907, arXiv:1910.07678 [nucl-ex]
arXiv 2020
-
[1]
Quark-Gluon Plasma and Hadronic Production of Leptons, Photons and Psions
E. V. Shuryak, “Quark-Gluon Plasma and Hadronic Production of Leptons, Photons and Psions”, Phys. Lett. B 78 (1978) 150
work page 1978
-
[2]
Quarks and Gluons at High Temperatures and Densities
J. Cleymans, R. V. Gavai, and E. Suhonen, “Quarks and Gluons at High Temperatures and Densities”, Phys. Rept. 130 (1986) 217
work page 1986
-
[3]
Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC
ALICE Collaboration, B. B. Abelev et al., “Performance of the ALICE Experiment at the CERN LHC”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29 (2014) 1430044, arXiv:1402.4476 [nucl-ex]
arXiv 2014
-
[4]
Relativistic hydrodynamics for heavy-ion collisions
J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Relativistic hydrodynamics for heavy-ion collisions”, Eur. J. Phys.29 (2008) 275–302, arXiv:0708.2433 [nucl-th]
arXiv 2008
-
[5]
Anisotropy as a signature of transverse collective flow
J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Anisotropy as a signature of transverse collective flow”, Phys. Rev. D46 (1992) 229–245
work page 1992
-
[6]
S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang, “Flow study in relativistic nuclear collisions by Fourier expansion of Azimuthal particle distributions”, Z. Phys. C70 (1996) 665–672, arXiv:hep-ph/9407282
arXiv 1996
-
[7]
Collective flow in 10 heavy-ion collisions
W. Reisdorf and H. G. Ritter, “Collective flow in 10 heavy-ion collisions”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.47 (1997) 663–709
work page 1997
Show all 30 references
-
[8]
Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions
U. Heinz and R. Snellings, “Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63 (2013) 123–151, arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th]
2013 arXiv
-
[9]
Elliptic flow in Au + Au collisions at √sNN = 130 GeV
STAR Collaboration, K. H. Ackermann et al., “Elliptic flow in Au + Au collisions at √sNN = 130 GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett.86 (2001) 402–407, arXiv:nucl-ex/0009011
2001 arXiv
-
[10]
Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration
PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox et al., “Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration”, Nucl. Phys. A757 (2005) 184–283, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003
2005 arXiv
-
[11]
Elliptic flow of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV
ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Elliptic flow of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett.105 (2010) 252302, arXiv:1011.3914 [nucl-ex]
2010 arXiv
-
[12]
Higher harmonic anisotropic flow measurements of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN=2.76 TeV
ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al., “Higher harmonic anisotropic flow measurements of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN=2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett.107 (2011) 032301, arXiv:1105.3865 [nucl-ex]
2011 arXiv
-
[13]
Measurement of the azimuthal anisotropy for charged particle production in √sNN = 2.76 TeV lead-lead collisions with the ATLAS detector
ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Measurement of the azimuthal anisotropy for charged particle production in √sNN = 2.76 TeV lead-lead collisions with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Rev. C86 (2012) 014907, arXiv:1203.3087 [hep-ex]
2012 arXiv
-
[14]
Measurement of Higher-Order Harmonic Azimuthal Anisotropy in PbPb Collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV
CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Measurement of Higher-Order Harmonic Azimuthal Anisotropy in PbPb Collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C89 (2014) 044906, arXiv:1310.8651 [nucl-ex]
2014 arXiv
-
[15]
Anisotropic flow of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV
ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al., “Anisotropic flow of charged particles in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (2016) 132302, arXiv:1602.01119 [nucl-ex]
2016 arXiv
-
[16]
Skewness and kurtosis of mean transverse momentum fluctuations at the LHC energies
ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Skewness and kurtosis of mean transverse momentum fluctuations at the LHC energies”, Phys. Lett. B850 (2024) 138541, arXiv:2308.16217 [nucl-ex]
2024 arXiv
-
[17]
System size and energy dependence of the mean transverse momentum fluctuations at the LHC
ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “System size and energy dependence of the mean transverse momentum fluctuations at the LHC”, arXiv:2411.09334 [nucl-ex]
-
[18]
Disentangling Sources of Momentum Fluctuations in Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb Collisions with the ATLAS Detector
ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Disentangling Sources of Momentum Fluctuations in Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb Collisions with the ATLAS Detector”, Phys. Rev. Lett.133 (2024) 252301, arXiv:2407.06413 [nucl-ex]
2024 arXiv
-
[19]
Transverse momentum fluctuations in ultrarelativistic Pb + Pb and p + Pb collisions with “wounded
P. Bo˙ zek and W. Broniowski, “Transverse momentum fluctuations in ultrarelativistic Pb + Pb and p + Pb collisions with “wounded” quarks”, Phys. Rev. C96 (2017) 014904, arXiv:1701.09105 [nucl-th]
2017 arXiv
-
[20]
Skewness of mean transverse momentum fluctuations in heavy-ion collisions
G. Giacalone, F. G. Gardim, J. Noronha-Hostler, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Skewness of mean transverse momentum fluctuations in heavy-ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 024910, arXiv:2004.09799 [nucl-th]
2021 arXiv
-
[21]
Non-Gaussian transverse momentum fluctuations from impact parameter fluctuations
R. Samanta, J. a. P. Picchetti, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Non-Gaussian transverse momentum fluctuations from impact parameter fluctuations”, Phys. Rev. C 108 (2023) 024908, arXiv:2306.09294 [nucl-th]
2023 arXiv
-
[22]
Thermal phenomenology of hadrons from 200-A/GeV S+S collisions
E. Schnedermann, J. Sollfrank, and U. W. Heinz, “Thermal phenomenology of hadrons from 200-A/GeV S+S collisions”, Phys. Rev. C48 (1993) 2462–2475, arXiv:nucl-th/9307020
1993 arXiv
-
[23]
Bulk Properties of the Medium Produced in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions from the Beam Energy Scan Program
STAR Collaboration, L. Adamczyk et al., “Bulk Properties of the Medium Produced in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions from the Beam Energy Scan Program”, Phys. Rev. C96 (2017) 044904, arXiv:1701.07065 [nucl-ex]
2017 arXiv
-
[25]
Transverse momentum fluctuations and their correlation with elliptic flow in nuclear collision
B. Schenke, C. Shen, and D. Teaney, “Transverse momentum fluctuations and their correlation with elliptic flow in nuclear collision”, Phys. Rev. C102 (2020) 034905, arXiv:2004.00690 [nucl-th]
2020 arXiv
-
[26]
Probing collectivity in heavy-ion collisions with fluctuations of the pT spectrum
T. Parida, R. Samanta, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Probing collectivity in heavy-ion collisions with fluctuations of the pT spectrum”, Phys. Lett. B857 (2024) 138985, arXiv:2407.17313 [nucl-th]
2024 arXiv
-
[27]
Long-range transverse momentum correlations and radial flow in Pb−Pb collisions at the LHC
ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al., “Long-range transverse momentum correlations and radial flow in Pb−Pb collisions at the LHC”, arXiv:2504.04796 [nucl-ex]
-
[28]
Evidence for the collective nature of radial flow in Pb+Pb collisions with the ATLAS detector
ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Evidence for the collective nature of radial flow in Pb+Pb collisions with the ATLAS detector”, arXiv:2503.24125 [nucl-ex]
-
[29]
Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular Correlations in Proton-Proton Collisions at the LHC
CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., “Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular Correlations in Proton-Proton Collisions at the LHC”, JHEP 09 (2010) 091, arXiv:1009.4122 [hep-ex]
2010 arXiv
-
[30]
Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular Correlations in Proton-Lead Collisions at the LHC
CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular Correlations in Proton-Lead Collisions at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B718 (2013) 795–814, arXiv:1210.5482 [nucl-ex]
2013 arXiv
Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.