Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Probing jet-medium interactions via jet substructure observables in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that the enhancement of groomed jet mass in central lead-lead collisions originates from elastic jet-medium scattering at large angles, not from hadronization or hadronic rescatterings.

desk verdict Useful AMPT stage-decomposition study of groomed jet mass, but the headline 'large-angle scattering' claim is confounded: the two Soft Drop settings change both z_cut and beta, so the null under strong grooming does not isolate angular dependence. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19033 v1 pith:ZAMCRABT submitted 2025-06-23 nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex

Xiang-Pan Duan , Tan Luo , Guo-Liang Ma This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-exhep-phnucl-ex PACS 25.75.-q12.38.Mh
keywords jetsubstructuregroomedmasssoftdropgroomingjet-mediuminteractionsAMPTmodelpartoncascadeheavy-ioncollisionslarge-anglescattering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the enhancement of the groomed jet mass over jet transverse momentum ($M_g/p_{T,\mathrm{jet}}$) seen in central lead-lead collisions at 5.02 TeV is produced by elastic jet-medium interactions in the partonic phase, and that these interactions act predominantly at large angles from the jet axis. The claim is established by comparing transport-model simulations with and without partonic scatterings, and by turning the Soft Drop grooming handles: a weak grooming setting ($z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.1,\beta=0.0$) preserves the enhancement, while a strong setting ($z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.5,\beta=1.5$) removes it. The paper therefore identifies soft-drop groomed jet mass as a practical observable for isolating large-angle elastic energy transport in the quark-gluon plasma.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Soft Drop grooming algorithm applied with two parameter sets, operating on jets reconstructed with the anti-$k_T$ algorithm ($R=0.4$) after constituent subtraction. The weak setting ($z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.1,\beta=0.0$) keeps peripheral subjets, exposing the large-angle medium response; the strong setting ($z_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.5,\beta=1.5$) restricts the groomed jet to its core, hiding that response. The argument also relies on the stage-by-stage decomposition of the AMPT model (initial state, parton cascade, hadronization, hadronic rescatterings), which isolates the parton-cascade contribution from non-perturbative late-stage effects.

What would settle it

Run the same AMPT setup with radiative energy loss added while leaving elastic scatterings unchanged: if the high-mass tail in $M_g/p_{T,\mathrm{jet}}$ disappears rather than persisting, the claim that elastic large-angle scattering is the dominant mechanism is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In central PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$ TeV, the Soft Drop groomed jet mass ratio $M_g/p_{T,\mathrm{jet}}$ develops a pronounced high-mass tail that grows as events become more central and as $p_{T,\mathrm{jet}}$ decreases, while the splitting fraction $z_g$ shows only a slight shift toward asymmetric splittings. Tracing the observable stage by stage through the AMPT multi-phase transport model evolution, the entire enhancement appears at the parton-cascade stage, where the jet's partons undergo two-body elastic scatterings with medium partons; hadronization and hadronic rescatterings add negligible contribution after grooming. Switching off partonic interactions (0 mb cross section) removes the modification entirely, and applying a stronger grooming condition that suppresses large-angle subjets also removes it, indicating that the modification is carried by large-angle scattering.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the AMPT parton cascade, which contains only two-body elastic scatterings and no radiative energy loss, captures the dominant jet-medium interactions behind the mass enhancement; if inelastic processes such as medium-induced gluon radiation are required to produce the tail, the paper's large-angle elastic interpretation is weakened.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, $M_g/p_{T,\mathrm{jet}}$ can serve as a targeted probe of large-angle elastic energy transport in the quark-gluon plasma, complementing $z_g$ and $r_g$.
  • The enhancement is largest in 0-10% central events and at $p_{T,\mathrm{jet}}<160$ GeV, giving a concrete scaling benchmark for models that include medium response.
  • The absence of modification under strong grooming implies that the jet core remains essentially unmodified, so the medium acts primarily on the periphery of the jet.
  • Because the enhancement appears entirely at the parton-cascade stage in this model, late-stage hadronic interactions cannot be its source.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension not drawn out in the paper would be to correlate the size of the high-mass tail with the jet path length through the medium; a centrality-selected measurement at fixed $p_{T,\mathrm{jet}}$ could test that dependence directly.
  • Applying the same stage-decomposition to the groomed splitting radius $r_g$ would likely show almost no medium modification, since small-angle splittings are dominated by vacuum radiation.
  • If radiative energy loss were added to the cascade, the generated small-angle splittings might dilute the large-angle high-mass tail; the paper itself flags radiative loss as a future direction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents an AMPT (string melting) study of the Soft Drop groomed observables z_g and M_g/pT_jet in pp and PbPb collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 5.02 TeV, using constituent subtraction to mitigate background and the CMS-like smearing procedure for pp comparisons. The authors report a slight enhancement of asymmetric z_g splittings in central PbPb events, a pronounced enhancement of the high-M_g/pT_jet tail at low pT_jet and in central events, and a stage-by-stage analysis indicating that this enhancement appears during the parton cascade and is largely preserved through hadronization and hadronic rescatterings. They further find that a stronger grooming setting (z_cut=0.5, beta=1.5) removes the M_g/pT_jet modification, and interpret this as evidence that the medium-induced modification is predominantly associated with large-angle scattering. The paper compares the model with CMS data in pp and PbPb and reports qualitative agreement, with the 0 mb parton-cross-section setting serving as a no-interaction baseline.

Significance. If the conclusions are supported, the paper offers a controlled and parameter-free-with-respect-to-the-target-observables model study of jet-medium interactions, with a clean 3 mb versus 0 mb comparison and a dynamical-stage decomposition. The strengths are that the parton cross section (3 mb) is fixed by earlier flow studies rather than fitted to the substructure data, and that the four-stage analysis in Fig. 7 is a useful diagnostic for separating partonic and hadronic effects. The comparison with CMS data for both z_g and M_g/pT_jet also anchors the model. However, the central attribution of the effect to large-angle scattering is not uniquely determined by the presented grooming comparison, and the quantitative significance of the enhancement is not established because the model curves carry no statistical uncertainties. These points are load-bearing for the abstract's claims, so the current version is not yet ready for acceptance.

major comments (2)
  1. [III B, Figs. 4–7] All model curves are shown without statistical uncertainties, although the central positive claim is a 'pronounced enhancement' in the high-M_g/pT_jet region. Without uncertainties on the ratios, a reader cannot judge whether the enhancement in the last bin of Fig. 5 (left) or the low-pT_jet enhancement in Fig. 6 (left) is statistically significant or a fluctuation. The manuscript itself calls the effect 'a hint' in Sec. III B while the abstract calls it 'pronounced'; this inconsistency underscores the need for uncertainty quantification. The authors should either include statistical error bands on the AMPT ratios or explicitly report the statistical significance of the enhancement bins.
  2. [II A (2), IV] The AMPT parton cascade used here contains only two-body elastic scatterings; there are no radiative or inelastic energy-loss processes in the model. Since the claimed enhancement is traced entirely to the parton cascade stage, the conclusion that 'jet-medium interactions' produce the enhancement is a statement about elastic scattering only. The manuscript acknowledges this in Sec. IV, but the abstract and Sec. III B state the large-angle conclusion without this qualification. The wording should be changed to make explicit that the model predicts that elastic scattering produces the effect, and that a radiative-energy-loss implementation may alter the small-angle behavior, which is already noted in the final paragraph. This is a scope limitation rather than an internal inconsistency, but it is essential to the interpretation of the central claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and III B] The terminology is inconsistent: the abstract says a 'pronounced enhancement' while Sec. III B (after Fig. 5) calls the same effect 'a hint of enhancement'; the authors should use one consistent descriptor once statistical significance is quantified.
  2. [III B] The sentence 'In a word, our analysis demonstrates...' is informal for a journal article; 'In summary' would be more suitable.
  3. [Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 captions] The captions list centrality and pT_jet offset labels, but the figures themselves do not define the offset constants; a brief explanation of the '(+N)' notation in the caption would improve readability.
  4. [II C, Eq. (5)] The definition of M_g via the two Soft Drop subjets is correct for the working point used, but a sentence clarifying that the groomed jet mass is computed from the two subjets, rather than from all groomed constituents, would remove a possible ambiguity for readers familiar with other Soft Drop implementations.
  5. [III A] In the discussion of JEWEL, the phrase 'with four-momentum subtraction method' could be expanded to 'with the four-momentum subtraction scheme for medium response' to be more precise, though the reference is clear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AMPT comparison is a controlled model study with no fit to the target observables.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that AMPT with partonic interactions (3 mb) produces an enhancement in Mg/pT,jet that is absent at 0 mb and absent under stronger grooming. The 3 mb cross section is taken from prior flow calibration, not fitted to jet substructure; the 0 mb baseline is a controlled switch-off of jet-medium interactions. The Soft Drop parameters follow CMS choices. The stage-by-stage analysis in Fig. 7 directly isolates the parton cascade as the stage where the modification appears, rather than importing that conclusion from a citation. Self-citations such as [61] and [87,88] are contextual or auxiliary and are not used to define the result; Fig. 7 and the 0 mb/3 mb contrast stand independently. The only caveat is that the contrast between (z_cut=0.1, beta=0.0) and (z_cut=0.5, beta=1.5) changes two grooming parameters simultaneously, so the 'large-angle' attribution is underdetermined; that is a validity concern, not a circular reduction of output to input. No equation equals another by construction and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities and fits no constants to its target observables. Its conclusions rest on the standard AMPT stages and on the assumption that the chosen grooming settings and constituent subtraction isolate medium effects. The main free input is the parton cross section, 3 mb, calibrated in earlier flow studies; Soft Drop parameters and cuts follow CMS and are not free fits.

free parameters (1)
  • Parton cross section sigma = 3 mb
    Standard AMPT value calibrated in earlier flow studies [73-78], not fitted to jet substructure data here. The central claim depends on the contrast between 3 mb and 0 mb partonic interactions.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption AMPT string-melting model stages (HIJING initial conditions, ZPC cascade, coalescence, ART rescatterings) provide a realistic description of jet and bulk evolution at 5.02 TeV.
    The whole analysis is performed inside AMPT, as described in Sec. II A.
  • domain assumption ZPC two-body elastic parton scattering with the LO gluon-gluon cross section captures the jet-medium interactions relevant for groomed jet mass.
    Sec. II A (2) and Sec. IV. Radiative energy loss is absent, so the broad attribution to jet-medium interactions leans on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Constituent subtraction on smeared pp and PbPb events removes the underlying event without disturbing jet substructure.
    Sec. II B. This is required for the PbPb and smeared-pp comparisons.
  • domain assumption Soft Drop grooming with z_cut=0.1, beta=0.0 and z_cut=0.5, beta=1.5 plus Delta R12>0.1 cleanly separates the jet core from large-angle radiation.
    Sec. II C. The large-angle conclusion is inferred from the difference between these two settings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing jet-medium interactions via jet substructure observables in relativistic heavy-ion collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZAMCRABT

@misc{pith2026250619033,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing jet-medium interactions via jet substructure observables in relativistic heavy-ion collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZAMCRABT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19033}
}
abstract

We present a comprehensive study of jet substructure observables in $pp$ and PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$~TeV using a multi-phase transport model. To suppress background contamination, the constituent subtraction method is employed for both PbPb and smeared $pp$ events. The jet splitting momentum fraction ($z_g$) and the groomed jet mass to the ungroomed jet transverse momentum ($M_g / p_{T,\text{jet}}$) are reconstructed using the Soft Drop algorithm with two grooming parameter settings. With $z_\text{cut} = 0.1$ and $\beta = 0.0$, a slight modification in the $z_g$ distribution is observed in central PbPb collisions, whereas a pronounced enhancement in the high $M_g / p_{T,\text{jet}}$ region is found, particularly at low $p_{T,\text{jet}}$ and in more central events. A detailed analysis of the dynamical evolution stages reveals that this enhancement primarily originates from jet-medium interactions, whereas the contributions from hadronization and hadronic rescatterings are largely mitigated by the grooming procedure. In contrast, under a stronger grooming condition ($z_\text{cut} = 0.5$, $\beta = 1.5$), no significant changes in $M_g / p_{T,\text{jet}}$ are observed, indicating that the medium-induced modifications are predominantly associated with large-angle scattering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19033 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of two Soft Drop grooming parameter settings: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Ratios of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Distributions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Ratios of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Ratios of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Ratios of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

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

    nucl-th 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [61]

    Search for jet quenching effects on the plain jet mass in Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC with a multiphase transport model

    X.-P. Duan and G.-L. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 61 (2023), arXiv:2303.03773 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Arseneet al.(BRAHMS), Nucl

    I. Arseneet al.(BRAHMS), Nucl. Phys. A757, 1 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020

    arXiv 2005

  3. [2]

    B. B. Backet al.(PHOBOS), Nucl. Phys. A757, 28 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410022

    arXiv 2005

  4. [3]

    Adcoxet al.(PHENIX), Nucl

    K. Adcoxet al.(PHENIX), Nucl. Phys. A757, 184 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003

    arXiv 2005

  5. [4]

    Adamset al.(STAR), Nucl

    J. Adamset al.(STAR), Nucl. Phys. A757, 102 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009

    arXiv 2005

  6. [5]

    K. J. Eskola, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, JHEP 07, 102, arXiv:0802.0139 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  7. [6]

    Luo and N

    X. Luo and N. Xu, Nucl. Sci. Tech.28, 112 (2017), arXiv:1701.02105 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [7]

    Shen and L

    C. Shen and L. Yan, Nucl. Sci. Tech.31, 122 (2020), arXiv:2010.12377 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 101 references
  1. [8]

    Chenet al., Nucl

    J. Chenet al., Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 214 (2024), arXiv:2407.02935 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 252303 (2010), arXiv:1011.6182 [hep-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Aamodtet al.(ALICE), Phys

    K. Aamodtet al.(ALICE), Phys. Lett. B696, 30 (2011), arXiv:1012.1004 [nucl-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Eur

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1945 (2012), arXiv:1202.2554 [nucl-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  5. [12]

    H. Song, Y. Zhou, and K. Gajdosova, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 28, 99 (2017), arXiv:1703.00670 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Shouet al., Nucl

    Q.-Y. Shouet al., Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 219 (2024), arXiv:2409.17964 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Gyulassy and L

    M. Gyulassy and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A750, 30 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0405013

    2005 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Jiaet al., Nucl

    J. Jiaet al., Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 220 (2024), arXiv:2209.11042 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    He, Y.-G

    W.-B. He, Y.-G. Ma, L.-G. Pang, H.-C. Song, and K. Zhou, Nucl. Sci. Tech.34, 88 (2023), arXiv:2303.06752 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    G. F. Sterman and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.39, 1436 (1977)

    1977

  11. [18]

    R. P. Feynman, R. D. Field, and G. C. Fox, Phys. Rev. D18, 3320 (1978)

    1978

  12. [19]

    X.-P. Duan, L. Chen, G.-L. Ma, C. A. Salgado, and B. Wu, (2025), arXiv:2503.24200 [hep-ph]

    2025

  13. [20]

    Gyulassy and M

    M. Gyulassy and M. Plumer, Phys. Lett. B243, 432 (1990)

    1990

  14. [21]

    Wang and M

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

    1992

  15. [22]

    Baier, Y

    R. Baier, Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller, S. Peigne, and D. Schiff, Nucl. Phys. B484, 265 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9608322

    1997

  16. [23]

    C. A. Salgado and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 092303 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0204221

    2002 arXiv

  17. [24]

    C. A. Salgado and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. D68, 014008 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0302184

    2003 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Armesto, A

    N. Armesto, A. Dainese, C. A. Salgado, and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. D71, 054027 (2005), 10 arXiv:hep-ph/0501225

    2005 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Casalderrey-Solana and C

    J. Casalderrey-Solana and C. A. Salgado, Acta Phys. Polon. B38, 3731 (2007), arXiv:0712.3443 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Qin and X.-N

    G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E24, 1530014 (2015), arXiv:1511.00790 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Cao and X.-N

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

    2021 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Adamset al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamset al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 172302 (2003), arXiv:nucl-ex/0305015

    2003 arXiv

  23. [30]

    K. J. Eskola, H. Honkanen, C. A. Salgado, and U. A. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. A747, 511 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0406319

    2005

  24. [31]

    S. Cao, T. Luo, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B777, 255 (2018), arXiv:1703.00822 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    M. Aaboudet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B790, 108 (2019), arXiv:1805.05635 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [33]

    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

  27. [34]

    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

  28. [35]

    S. P. Adhya, C. A. Salgado, M. Spousta, and K. Tywo- niuk, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 20 (2022), arXiv:2106.02592 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Zhang and H

    S.-L. Zhang and H. Xing, Phys. Lett. B863, 139382 (2025), arXiv:2403.12704 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Qin and B

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

    2011 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Ma, Phys

    G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. C87, 064901 (2013), arXiv:1304.2841 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Chen, G.-Y

    L. Chen, G.-Y. Qin, S.-Y. Wei, B.-W. Xiao, and H.-Z. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B782, 773 (2018), arXiv:1612.04202 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Chen, G.-Y

    L. Chen, G.-Y. Qin, L. Wang, S.-Y. Wei, B.-W. Xiao, H.-Z. Zhang, and Y.-Q. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B933, 306 (2018), arXiv:1803.10533 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Chen, S.-Y

    L. Chen, S.-Y. Wei, and H.-Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1136 (2020), arXiv:2001.07606 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Y. Li, S. Shen, S. Wang, and B.-W. Zhang, Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 113 (2024), arXiv:2401.01706 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Z.-Q. Liu, H. Zhang, B.-W. Zhang, and E. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 20 (2016), arXiv:1506.02840 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [44]

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

    2024 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Xie, Q.-F

    M. Xie, Q.-F. Han, E.-K. Wang, B.-W. Zhang, and H.-Z. Zhang, Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 125 (2024), arXiv:2409.18773 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [46]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 142302 (2018), arXiv:1708.09429 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Lett. B811, 135846 (2020), arXiv:2003.02114 [hep-ex]

    2020

  41. [48]

    Acharyaet al.(A Large Ion Collider Experi- ment, ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(A Large Ion Collider Experi- ment, ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 102001 (2022), arXiv:2107.12984 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Wang, J.-W

    L. Wang, J.-W. Kang, Q. Zhang, S. Shen, W. Dai, B.- W. Zhang, and E. Wang, Chin. Phys. Lett.40, 032101 (2023), arXiv:2211.13674 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [50]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), JHEP10, 161, arXiv:1805.05145 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  44. [51]

    Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys

    M. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D104, 052007 (2021), arXiv:2103.13286 [hep-ex]

    2021

  45. [52]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Lett. B864, 139409 (2025), arXiv:2411.03106 [nucl-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Milhano, U

    G. Milhano, U. A. Wiedemann, and K. C. Zapp, Phys. Lett. B779, 409 (2018), arXiv:1707.04142 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Chien and I

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

    2017 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Tachibanaet al.(JETSCAPE), Phys

    Y. Tachibanaet al.(JETSCAPE), Phys. Rev. C110, 044907 (2024), arXiv:2301.02485 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Chang, S

    N.-B. Chang, S. Cao, and G.-Y. Qin, Phys. Lett. B781, 423 (2018), arXiv:1707.03767 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [57]

    J. G. Milhano and K. Zapp, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 1010 (2022), arXiv:2207.14814 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Luo, Nucl

    T. Luo, Nucl. Phys. A1005, 121992 (2021)

    2021

  52. [59]

    Casalderrey-Solana, D

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. C. Gulhan, J. G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, JHEP10, 019, [Erratum: JHEP 09, 175 (2015)], arXiv:1405.3864 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  53. [60]

    D’Eramo, K

    F. D’Eramo, K. Rajagopal, and Y. Yin, JHEP01, 172, arXiv:1808.03250 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Z.-W. Lin, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, B. Zhang, and S. Pal, Phys. Rev. C72, 064901 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0411110

    2005 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Lin and L

    Z.-W. Lin and L. Zheng, Nucl. Sci. Tech.32, 113 (2021), arXiv:2110.02989 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Wang and M

    X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. D44, 3501 (1991)

    1991

  57. [65]

    Gyulassy and X.-N

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

    1994 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Sjostrand, Comput

    T. Sjostrand, Comput. Phys. Commun.82, 74 (1994)

    1994

  59. [67]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, and B. Soderberg, Z. Phys. C20, 317 (1983)

    1983

  60. [68]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sjos- trand, Phys. Rept.97, 31 (1983)

    1983

  61. [69]

    D. W. Duke and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D30, 49 (1984)

    1984

  62. [70]

    J. F. Owens, Rev. Mod. Phys.59, 465 (1987)

    1987

  63. [71]

    Zhang, Comput

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

    1998 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Li and C

    B.-A. Li and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C52, 2037 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9505016

    1995 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Ma and A

    G.-L. Ma and A. Bzdak, Phys. Lett. B739, 209 (2014), arXiv:1404.4129 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Bzdak and G.-L

    A. Bzdak and G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 252301 (2014), arXiv:1406.2804 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Bozek, A

    P. Bozek, A. Bzdak, and G.-L. Ma, Phys. Lett. B748, 301 (2015), arXiv:1503.03655 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  68. [76]

    L. He, T. Edmonds, Z.-W. Lin, F. Liu, D. Mol- nar, and F. Wang, Phys. Lett. B753, 506 (2016), arXiv:1502.05572 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  69. [77]

    S.-Y. Tang, L. Zheng, X.-M. Zhang, and R.-Z. Wan, Nucl. Sci. Tech.35, 32 (2024), arXiv:2303.06577 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Duan, W.-Y

    X.-P. Duan, W.-Y. Wu, Y. Zhou, and G.-L. Ma, PoS ICHEP2024, 634 (2025)

    2025

  71. [79]

    Ma, Phys

    G.-L. Ma, Phys. Lett. B724, 278 (2013), arXiv:1302.5873 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Ma, Phys

    G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. C88, 021902 (2013), arXiv:1306.1306 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Ma, Phys

    G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. C89, 064909 (2014), arXiv:1310.3701 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  74. [82]

    X.-P. Duan, W. Zhao, and G.-L. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 669 (2023), arXiv:2209.05689 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  75. [83]

    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]. 11

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Ma, Phys

    G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. C89, 024902 (2014), arXiv:1309.5555 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Nie and G.-L

    M.-W. Nie and G.-L. Ma, Phys. Rev. C90, 014907 (2014), arXiv:1403.0328 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Zhou, G.-L

    F.-C. Zhou, G.-L. Ma, and Y.-G. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 70 (2020), arXiv:1902.00729 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Z. Gao, A. Luo, G.-L. Ma, G.-Y. Qin, and H.-Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C97, 044903 (2018), arXiv:1612.02548 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Luo, Y.-X

    A. Luo, Y.-X. Mao, G.-Y. Qin, E.-K. Wang, and H.-Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 156 (2022), arXiv:2107.11751 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Luo, Y.-X

    A. Luo, Y.-X. Mao, G.-Y. Qin, E.-K. Wang, and H.-Z. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B837, 137638 (2023), arXiv:2109.14314 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [90]

    A. Luo, S. Cao, and G.-Y. Qin, Phys. Lett. B866, 139520 (2025), arXiv:2412.19283 [nucl-th]

    2025 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, JHEP04, 063, arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  84. [92]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1896 (2012), arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Berta, M

    P. Berta, M. Spousta, D. W. Miller, and R. Leitner, JHEP06, 092, arXiv:1403.3108 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  86. [94]

    Soyez, G

    G. Soyez, G. P. Salam, J. Kim, S. Dutta, and M. Cacciari, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 162001 (2013), arXiv:1211.2811 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Cacciari and G

    M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam, Phys. Lett. B641, 57 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0512210

    2006 arXiv

  88. [96]

    A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, JHEP05, 146, arXiv:1402.2657 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  89. [97]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber, JHEP08, 001, arXiv:hep-ph/9707323

    arXiv

  90. [98]

    F. A. Dreyer, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, JHEP12, 064, arXiv:1807.04758 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  91. [99]

    H. A. Andrewset al., J. Phys. G47, 065102 (2020), arXiv:1808.03689 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Majumder, Phys

    A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. C88, 014909 (2013), arXiv:1301.5323 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Y. He, T. Luo, X.-N. Wang, and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. C91, 054908 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 97, 019902 (2018)], arXiv:1503.03313 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.