Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 minor 88 references

Jet cone size dependence of single inclusive jet suppression due to jet quenching in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV

T0 review · 1 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-18 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The nuclear modification factor R_AA for jets in Pb+Pb collisions increases with jet cone size R as in-cone energy loss decreases.

desk verdict This paper finds R_AA rising with jet cone radius R because elastic recoils and radiated gluons stay inside larger cones, but the trend rests on specific angular and thermalization assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07842 v2 submitted 2025-09-09 hep-ph

Qing-Fei Han , Man Xie , Han-Zhong Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords jetquenchingnuclearmodificationfactorconesizedependencePb+Pbcollisionsenergylossquark-gluonplasmaperturbativeQCDR_AA
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 studies how jet suppression in heavy-ion collisions varies with the chosen jet cone radius. It uses a perturbative QCD parton model that combines elastic scattering losses, including recoiling thermal partons, with inelastic losses from gluon radiation whose angles and soft thermalization are tracked. Calculations show that larger cones retain more of the jet's energy, producing a higher R_AA because fewer partons and gluons leave the cone. The resulting double ratios of R_AA at different radii are near unity at small R and high transverse momentum, matching data from ALICE, ATLAS, and CMS in both central and mid-central collisions at 5.02 TeV. This R dependence supplies information on the angular structure of jet quenching inside the quark-gluon plasma.

What carries the argument

The cone radius R applied to in-cone energy loss, where elastic contributions are reduced by recoiling thermal partons and inelastic contributions are shaped by the angular distribution of radiated gluons plus their thermalization.

What would settle it

Precision measurements showing R_AA decreasing with increasing R at high p_T, or double ratios far from unity beyond experimental uncertainties, would indicate that the reduction in in-cone energy loss with larger cones does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the perturbative QCD parton model that incorporates both elastic and inelastic energy loss, the jet nuclear modification factor R_AA increases with cone size R because the net in-cone energy loss decreases at larger radii. As R grows, the probability that elastically scattered partons escape the cone and the chance that radiated gluons fall outside the cone both drop, yielding less apparent suppression. The double ratios R_AA(R=0.4)/R_AA(R=0.2) and similar ratios up to R=1.0 remain approximately unity for small radii and for p_T above 200 GeV/c, consistent with the measured data within uncertainties.

Load-bearing premise

The specific angular distributions chosen for radiated gluons and the modeling of soft gluon thermalization correctly determine how much energy remains inside the jet cone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • R_AA increases with jet cone size R because in-cone energy loss falls at larger radii.
  • Double ratios of R_AA for different cone sizes stay close to one at small R and high p_T.
  • The calculated R dependence agrees with ALICE, ATLAS, and CMS data in 0-10% and 30-50% centrality classes.
  • The R dependence supplies direct information on the angular character of jet energy loss in the QGP.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same framework could be used to predict how cone-size choice affects other jet observables such as jet mass or substructure in the same collisions.
  • If the R dependence persists in future data at different beam energies, it would constrain the transport coefficients that govern gluon radiation angles.
  • Measurements with very large cones might reveal whether additional medium-induced effects outside the model become important.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a perturbative QCD parton model calculation of single-inclusive jet nuclear modification factors R_AA in Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, incorporating both elastic (with recoiling thermal partons) and inelastic (with angular gluon distributions, soft-gluon thermalization, and p_T broadening) energy-loss mechanisms. It computes R_AA(R) for cone sizes R = 0.2–1.0 and the double ratios R_AA(R)/R_AA(R=0.2), reporting that R_AA increases with R because the net in-cone energy loss decreases, and compares the results to ALICE, ATLAS, and CMS data in 0–10% and 30–50% centrality classes.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions are robust, the work provides a concrete link between observed R dependence and the relative importance of elastic recoil versus medium-induced radiation, offering a potential handle on QGP transport coefficients. The multi-experiment, multi-centrality comparison is a positive feature.

major comments (1)
  1. [inelastic energy loss modeling] The central claim that R_AA increases with R rests on the assumed angular distribution of radiated gluons and the thermalization cutoff for soft gluons (inelastic energy-loss implementation). No quantitative variation of these distributions or cutoffs is shown; altering them would directly modify the escape probability for scattered partons and the out-of-cone gluon fraction, thereby changing the predicted R dependence and double ratios at high p_T.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that double ratios are 'approximately unity' for R=0.4/0.2 at high p_T but does not quantify the deviation or propagate model uncertainties.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review, the positive assessment of the work's significance, and the constructive major comment. We address the concern on inelastic energy-loss modeling below and will strengthen the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [inelastic energy loss modeling] The central claim that R_AA increases with R rests on the assumed angular distribution of radiated gluons and the thermalization cutoff for soft gluons (inelastic energy-loss implementation). No quantitative variation of these distributions or cutoffs is shown; altering them would directly modify the escape probability for scattered partons and the out-of-cone gluon fraction, thereby changing the predicted R dependence and double ratios at high p_T.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative sensitivity study to the gluon angular distribution and soft-gluon thermalization cutoff would improve the robustness assessment. Our current implementation follows standard pQCD-based assumptions for medium-induced radiation (including angular spectra and thermalization), but the original manuscript does not display variations of these choices. In the revised version we will add such a study, varying the parameters over physically motivated ranges, and show that the qualitative rise of R_AA with R persists, although the precise magnitude of the double ratios can shift. We will also clarify that the net reduction in in-cone energy loss arises from the combined elastic-recoil and inelastic-radiation contributions, with the latter's out-of-cone fraction decreasing at larger R. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity in derivation of R_AA(R) dependence

full rationale

The paper implements a pQCD parton model with explicit elastic and inelastic energy loss, incorporating recoiling thermal partons for elastic processes and angular distributions plus thermalization for inelastic processes. The claimed increase of R_AA with jet cone size R follows directly from reduced in-cone energy loss at larger R, arising from lower escape probability for elastically scattered partons and lower fraction of radiated gluons outside the cone. These mechanisms are model inputs leading to numerical calculations of R_AA and double ratios, which are then compared to ALICE, ATLAS, and CMS data. No equations or steps in the provided text reduce the central result to a self-definition, a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation chain. The derivation remains self-contained with independent physical content.

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

The calculation rests on the standard perturbative QCD parton model for jet propagation plus specific modeling choices for gluon radiation angles and soft-gluon thermalization; no new free parameters or invented particles are introduced beyond those common in the field.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Perturbative QCD parton model remains valid for jet propagation through the QGP
    Invoked as the overall framework for both elastic and inelastic processes.
  • domain assumption Angular distribution of radiated gluons and thermalization of soft gluons follow the forms used in prior jet-quenching calculations
    These distributions control the R dependence and are taken from established literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Jet cone size dependence of single inclusive jet suppression due to jet quenching in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2509.07842

@misc{pith2026250907842,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Jet cone size dependence of single inclusive jet suppression due to jet quenching in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrts_\rm NN=5.02$ TeV},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2509.07842}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07842}
}
abstract

Jet suppression in high-energy heavy-ion collisions results from jet energy loss and transverse-momentum broadening during jet propagation through the quark-gluon plasma (QGP). The jet cone size ($R$) dependence of this suppression offers crucial insights into the energy loss mechanisms and QGP transport properties. In our study, we implement a comprehensive approach within the perturbative QCD parton model that incorporates both elastic and inelastic energy loss mechanisms. For elastic processes the contribution from recoiling thermal partons reduces the net in-cone energy loss for a given jet radius. For inelastic processes, we account for the angular distribution of radiated gluons, the thermalization of soft gluons, and transverse-momentum broadening. Using this framework, we calculate the jet nuclear modification factors ($R_{AA}$) and their double ratios $R_{AA}(R=0.2-1.0)/R_{AA}(R=0.2)$, and systematically compare with ALICE, ATLAS and CMS data in 0-10\% and 30-50\% Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02~TeV. Numerical results show that $R_{AA}$ increases with the cone size $R$ because the in-cone energy loss decreases at larger radii. Specifically, as the radius $R$ grows, the probability for elastically scattered partons to escape the jet cone and the likelihood for radiated gluons to fall outside the cone both decrease, resulting in a net reduction of energy loss. The $R_{AA}$ double ratios are approximately unity for small radii ($R=0.4$ relative to $R=0.2$) and at high $p_{\rm T}\gtrsim200$ GeV$/c$, in agreement with the data within uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07842 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Single-inclusive jet cross sections for various jet-radius parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The global fit χ 2 /d.o.f results from fitting to jet RAA in 0-10% Pb+Pb collisions at √ sNN = 5.02 TeV. Using αs = 0.189−0.223, we computed the nuclear modification factors RAA(pT) of single inclusive jet for various jet radii R with the NLO pQCD parton model in 0-10% Pb+Pb collisions at √ sNN = 5.02 TeV. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The nuclear modification factors RAA of single inclu￾sive jet as functions of pT for various jet radius parameters R in 0-10% Pb+Pb collisions at √ sNN = 5.02 TeV, compared with measurements from ALICE [28], ATLAS [26], and CMS [30] collaborations. From top to bottom, the subplots corre￾spond to R= 0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8 and 1.0, respectively. escape the jet cone decreases, and (ii) the likelihood that recoiling medium par… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The double ratios of the single-inclusive jet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The energy loss of a light-quark jet with cone-size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The nuclear modification factors RAA of single inclu￾sive jet as functions of pT for various jet radius parameters R in 30-50% Pb+Pb collisions at √ sNN = 5.02 TeV, compared with measurements from ALICE [28], ATLAS [26], and CMS [30] collaborations. From top to bottom,…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The global fit χ 2 /d.o.f results from fitting to jet RAA in 30-50% Pb+Pb collisions at √ sNN = 5.02 TeV. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 R A A ( p T ) ALICE(30-50%) CMS(30-50%) RAA(| jet| < 0.7) RAA(| jet| < 2.0) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 R A A ( p T ) ALICE(30-50%) CMS(30-50%)…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The double ratios of the single-inclusive jet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 88 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jet cone size dependence of single inclusive jet suppression due to jet quenching in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV

    and ALICE [27, 50] Collaborations also measured the suppression of inclusive jet production in 2.76 TeV Pb+Pb collisions and pointed out that the jet suppres- sion does not depend onR. For lower-p T jets, differences arXiv:2509.07842v1 [hep-ph] 9 Sep 2025 2 in background-subtraction methods and jet-selection cri- teria may affect the jet yield measurement...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    From top to bottom, the subplots corre- spond toR=0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8 and 1.0, respectively

    collaborations. From top to bottom, the subplots corre- spond toR=0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8 and 1.0, respectively. escape the jet cone decreases, and (ii) the likelihood that recoiling medium partons fall inside the cone increases. The data, however, exhibit a weakerRdependence than predicted, indicating that the in-cone energy-loss dynam- ics may require further r...

    work page

  3. [3]

    groups, coveringp T =40−800 GeV/c. Similar to, and in some cases even better than, the results in 0-10% centrality class, the theoretical results are consistent with the experimental data for all jet radii within the uncer- tainties, especially at highp T range. This phenomenon further points that in non-central collisions and at large pT, the sensitivity...

    work page

  4. [4]

    From top to bottom, the subplots corre- spond toR=0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8 and 1.0, respectively

    collaborations. From top to bottom, the subplots corre- spond toR=0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8 and 1.0, respectively. collaborations, covering jetp T =40−1000 GeV/c, radii R=0.2−1.0 and centrality classes 0-10% and 30-50%. A comprehensive treatment of the energy-loss mechanisms yields weaker jet suppression with increasing jet radius. Moreover,R AA increases withp T a...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Suppression of Hadrons with Large Transverse Momentum in Central Au+Au Collisions at $sqrt {s sub {sub {NN}}}_ = 130 GeV

    K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 022301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0109003

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    Centrality Dependence of the High p_T Charged Hadron Suppression in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 130 GeV

    K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Lett. B561, 82 (2003), arXiv:nucl-ex/0207009

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    S. S. Adler et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 072301 (2003), arXiv:nucl-ex/0304022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    Neutral pion production with respect to centrality and reaction plane in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=200 GeV

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C87, 034911 (2013), arXiv:1208.2254 [nucl-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Adams et al

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

    2003 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 162301 (2006), arXiv:nucl-ex/0604018

    2006 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C96, 024905 (2017), arXiv:1702.01108 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Aamodt et al

    K. Aamodt et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 252301 (2010), arXiv:1011.3916 [nucl-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aamodt et al

    K. Aamodt et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 032301 (2011), arXiv:1012.1657 [nucl-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), JHEP08, 141 (2011), arXiv:1107.4800 [nucl-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2012 (2012), arXiv:1201.3158 [nucl-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B707, 330 (2012), arXiv:1108.6018 [hep-ex]. 11

    2012 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP11, 183 (2013), arXiv:1305.2942 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gyulassy and X.-n

    M. Gyulassy and X.-n. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B420, 583 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9306003

    1994 arXiv

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    Gyulassy, P

    M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5535 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0005032

    2000 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Guo and X.-N

    X.-f. Guo and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 3591 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0005044

    2000 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Deng and X.-N

    W.-t. Deng and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C81, 024902 (2010), arXiv:0910.3403 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  15. [23]

    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

  16. [24]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 232301 (2008), arXiv:0801.4020 [nucl-ex]

    2008 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP09, 050 (2015), arXiv:1504.04337 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), JHEP04, 039 (2017), arXiv:1611.01664 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), JHEP11, 013 (2018), arXiv:1802.09145 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C102, 054913 (2020), arXiv:2006.00582 [nucl-ex]

    2020

  21. [29]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 072302 (2015), arXiv:1411.2357 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 172301 (2023), arXiv:2301.05606 [nucl-ex]

    2023

  23. [31]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B746, 1 (2015), arXiv:1502.01689 [nucl-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B849, 138412 (2024), arXiv:2303.00592 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  25. [33]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. C96, 015202 (2017), arXiv:1609.05383 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP05, 284 (2021), arXiv:2102.13080 [hep-ex]

    2021

  27. [35]

    Gyulassy and M

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

    1990

  28. [36]

    Wang and M

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

    1992

  29. [37]

    Zhang, J

    H. Zhang, J. F. Owens, E. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 032302 (2009), arXiv:0902.4000 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Zhang, J

    H. Zhang, J. F. Owens, E. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 212301 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0701045

    2007 arXiv

  31. [39]

    X.-F. Chen, T. Hirano, E. Wang, X.-N. Wang, and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C84, 034902 (2011), arXiv:1102.5614 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Xie, S.-Y

    M. Xie, S.-Y. Wei, G.-Y. Qin, and H.-Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 589 (2019), arXiv:1901.04155 [hep-ph]

    2019

  33. [41]

    Xie, X.-N

    M. Xie, X.-N. Wang, and H.-Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 103, 034911 (2021), arXiv:2003.02441 [hep-ph]

    2021

  34. [42]

    Schenke, C

    B. Schenke, C. Gale, and S. Jeon, Phys. Rev. C80, 054913 (2009), arXiv:0909.2037 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  35. [43]

    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

  36. [44]

    J. Xu, J. Liao, and M. Gyulassy, Chin. Phys. Lett.32, 092501 (2015), arXiv:1411.3673 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    K. M. Burke et al. (JET), Phys. Rev. C90, 014909 (2014), arXiv:1312.5003 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Kumar et al

    A. Kumar et al. (JETSCAPE), Phys. Rev. C107, 034911 (2023), arXiv:2204.01163 [hep-ph]

    2023

  39. [48]

    M. Xie, W. Ke, H. Zhang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C109, 064917 (2024), arXiv:2208.14419 [hep-ph]

    2024

  40. [49]

    M. Xie, W. Ke, H. Zhang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C108, L011901 (2023), arXiv:2206.01340 [hep-ph]

    2023

  41. [50]

    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

  42. [51]

    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

  43. [52]

    Q.-F. Han, M. Xie, and H.-Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 1056 (2022), arXiv:2201.02796 [hep-ph]

    2022

  44. [53]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B719, 220 (2013), arXiv:1208.1967 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), JHEP03, 013 (2014), arXiv:1311.0633 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C101, 034911 (2020), arXiv:1909.09718 [nucl-ex]

    2020

  47. [56]

    Aaboud et al

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

    2019 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Chien and I

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

    2016 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Z.-B. Kang, F. Ringer, and I. Vitev, Phys. Lett. B769, 242 (2017), arXiv:1701.05839 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [59]

    K. C. Zapp, F. Krauss, and U. A. Wiedemann, JHEP 03, 080 (2013), arXiv:1212.1599 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Kunnawalkam Elayavalli and K

    R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli and K. C. Zapp, JHEP07, 141 (2017), arXiv:1707.01539 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  52. [61]

    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

  53. [62]

    Pablos, Phys

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

    2020

  54. [63]

    Sa˘ glam, M

    U. Sa˘ glam, M. Paternostro, and ¨O. E. M¨ ustecaplıo˘ glu, Physica A612, 128480 (2023), arXiv:2101.01472 [quant- ph]

    2023

  55. [64]

    Wang, S.-Y

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

    2017 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Wang and X.-f

    X.-N. Wang and X.-f. Guo, Nucl. Phys. A696, 788 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0102230

    2001 arXiv

  57. [66]

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

    1987

  58. [67]

    Hou et al., Phys

    T.-J. Hou et al., Phys. Rev. D103, 014013 (2021), arXiv:1912.10053 [hep-ph]

    2021

  59. [68]

    Kidonakis and J

    N. Kidonakis and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D63, 054019 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0007268

    2001 arXiv

  60. [69]

    B. W. Harris and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D65, 094032 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0102128

    2002 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Jacobs and G

    P. Jacobs and G. Cooper, (2000), arXiv:nucl- ex/0008015

    2000

  62. [71]

    Wang, Phys

    X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rept.280, 287 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9605214

    1997

  63. [72]

    Li and X.-N

    S.-y. Li and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B527, 85 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0110075

    2002 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Emel’yanov, A

    V. Emel’yanov, A. Khodinov, S. R. Klein, and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. C61, 044904 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9909427

    2000 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Hirano and Y

    T. Hirano and Y. Nara, Phys. Rev. C69, 034908 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0307015

    2004 arXiv

  66. [75]

    K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 413 (2022), arXiv:2112.12462 [hep-ph]. 12

    2022

  67. [76]

    Eichten, I

    E. Eichten, I. Hinchliffe, K. D. Lane, and C. Quigg, Rev. Mod. Phys.56, 579 (1984), [Addendum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 58, 1065–1073 (1986)]

    1984

  68. [77]

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

    2016 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Zhang and X.-N

    B.-W. Zhang and X.-N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A720, 429 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0301195

    2003 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Zhang, E.-k

    B.-W. Zhang, E.-k. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A757, 493 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0412060

    2005 arXiv

  71. [80]

    S. K. Das, F. Scardina, S. Plumari, and V. Greco, Phys. Lett. B747, 260 (2015), arXiv:1502.03757 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Cao, L.-G

    S. Cao, L.-G. Pang, T. Luo, Y. He, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc.289-290, 217 (2017)

    2017

  73. [82]

    J. Xu, J. Liao, and M. Gyulassy, JHEP02, 169 (2016), arXiv:1508.00552 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  74. [83]

    S. Shi, J. Liao, and M. Gyulassy, Chin. Phys. C43, 044101 (2019), arXiv:1808.05461 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Ke and X.-N

    W. Ke and X.-N. Wang, JHEP05, 041 (2021), arXiv:2010.13680 [hep-ph]

    2021

  76. [85]

    L. Pang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C86, 024911 (2012), arXiv:1205.5019 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  77. [86]

    L.-G. Pang, Y. Hatta, X.-N. Wang, and B.-W. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D91, 074027 (2015), arXiv:1411.7767 [hep- ph]

    2015 arXiv

  78. [87]

    Wang, Phys

    X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C70, 031901 (2004), arXiv:nucl- th/0405029

    2004

  79. [88]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, JHEP04, 063 (2008), arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  80. [89]

    (ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of suppression of large-radius jets and its dependence on substructure in Pb+Pb at 5.02 TeV by ATLAS detector,ATLAS-CONF- 2019-056, (2019))

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed May 18, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.