Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Measurement of forward jet suppression in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$$ TeV with the ATLAS detector

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first forward-rapidity measurement of inclusive jet suppression in heavy-ion collisions, finding significant suppression that grows with centrality.

desk verdict First forward-rapidity jet R_AA measurement, solid and worth refereeing, but the central-region JES extrapolation to forward rapidity needs a careful look. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03261 v1 pith:4CBFV4GM submitted 2026-08-04 nucl-ex hep-ex

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper
classification nucl-exhep-ex
keywords forwardrapidityjetsjetquenchingnuclearmodificationfactorPb+Pbcollisionsquark-gluonplasmapartonenergylossinclusiveproduction
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

The paper reports the first measurement of jet suppression in the forward-rapidity region of heavy-ion collisions. For anti-$k_t$ jets with radius $R=0.4$ and $p_{\mathrm{T}}>74$ GeV, it measures the nuclear modification factor $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ in the rapidity intervals $2.8<|y|<3.2$ and $3.2<|y|<3.6$ for Pb+Pb and $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV. The key finding is that forward jets are significantly suppressed in central Pb+Pb collisions, that the suppression increases monotonically from peripheral to central events, and that in the $2.8<|y|<3.2$ bin the suppression tends to be stronger than at mid-rapidity ($|y|<2.8$). Because the forward region samples a different mix of quark- and gluon-initiated jets and a different path length through the quark-gluon plasma, this places new constraints on the flavor and geometric dependence of parton energy loss.

What carries the argument

The central object is the nuclear modification factor $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$, the ratio of the per-event Pb+Pb jet yield normalized by the mean nuclear overlap function $\langle T_{\mathrm{AA}}\rangle$ to the $pp$ jet cross section. The measurement is carried out with jets reconstructed by the anti-$k_t$ algorithm with radius $R=0.4$ from calorimeter towers after event-by-event underlying-event subtraction, with spectra corrected by Bayesian unfolding. What makes the forward bins informative is the change in jet flavor composition and in the path of the jet through the longitudinally expanding medium: the quark-initiated jet fraction and the spectral steepness both grow with rapidity, so the same

What would settle it

Recompute $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ after adding a forward-specific jet energy scale uncertainty estimated from $\gamma$-jet or track-based $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ balance at $2.8<|y|<3.6$; if the $2.8<|y|<3.2$ suppression then becomes statistically consistent with the $|y|<2.8$ data, the claimed stronger forward suppression would be falsified. A complementary check is a high-statistics $pp$ jet-fragmentation measurement in the forward bins: a rapidity-dependent fragmentation pattern would invalidate the assumption on which the forward energy-scale correction rests.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that inclusive jet production in Pb+Pb collisions is measurably suppressed at forward rapidity, with $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ significantly below unity for both $2.8<|y|<3.2$ and $3.2<|y|<3.6$ at all centralities. The suppression is ordered by centrality, with the smallest $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ in 0--10% central collisions and the largest in 50--80%; it also increases mildly with jet $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ without a strong centrality-dependent change of its slope. In the $2.8<|y|<3.2$ interval the measured $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ is systematically lower than the previous mid-rapidity measurement, a tendency consistent with earlier hints; in the $3.2<|y|<3.6$ interval the statistical precision

Load-bearing premise

The measurement assumes that the calorimeter's jet momentum scale correction for the heavy-ion environment, derived in the central region, applies unchanged at forward rapidity; if forward jets fragment differently or the calorimeter responds differently there, the reported suppression could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $p_{\mathrm{T}}>74$ GeV, jets remain suppressed even at forward rapidity, showing that jet quenching is not confined to mid-rapidity.
  • $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ falls monotonically from peripheral to central Pb+Pb collisions, extending the established centrality ordering to the forward region.
  • The tendency for stronger suppression at $2.8<|y|<3.2$ than at $|y|<2.8$ indicates that flavor composition or medium path length, not just parton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$, controls the observed quenching.
  • Comparisons with theoretical models favour hybrid strong/weak-coupling calculations that include Moli\`ere scattering and the medium wake over models that underpredict or overpredict the suppression.
  • These data provide new constraints on the flavor, geometric, and medium-density dependence of parton energy loss in a previously unmeasured kinematic region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the forward/mid-rapidity difference persists with more data, it suggests that the naive expectation of a higher quark fraction with rapidity is outweighed by other effects, such as a longer effective path through the medium or a different sampled medium density.
  • A natural extension would be forward photon+jet or dijet measurements, which could separate selection bias from genuine medium effects more cleanly than inclusive jets alone.
  • The inconclusive $3.2<|y|<3.6$ result means that a modest increase in integrated luminosity or a wider rapidity bin could convert the current 'tendency' into a quantitative statement.
  • Forward jet fragmentation or substructure measurements would directly test the paper's central assumption that no rapidity-dependent jet energy scale correction is needed.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first measurement of inclusive jet suppression at forward rapidity in heavy-ion collisions, using ATLAS data from Pb+Pb and pp collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=5.02 TeV. Jets are reconstructed with the anti-k_t algorithm (R=0.4) for pT>74 GeV in two forward rapidity intervals, 2.8<|y|<3.2 and 3.2<|y|<3.6, and the nuclear modification factor R_AA is presented in four centrality intervals between 0% and 80%. The analysis uses the standard ATLAS heavy-ion jet reconstruction chain: underlying-event subtraction with a flow-modulated energy density, calorimeter-based jet calibration, and Bayesian unfolding. The paper reports a clear suppression of forward jet yields in central Pb+Pb collisions relative to pp, a monotonic increase of R_AA from central to peripheral collisions, a mild pT dependence, and a comparison with mid-rapidity R_AA from Ref. [13] indicating stronger suppression in 2.8<|y|<3.2 than in |y|<2.8, while the 3.2<|y|<3.6 region is not conclusive. Comparisons with LBT, Hybrid, and Parametric model predictions are also provided.

Significance. If the measurement holds, this is a genuinely new kinematic regime for jet quenching: forward rapidity changes the quark/gluon fraction, the spectral steepness, and the average in-medium path length, so the result has the potential to constrain flavor- and geometry-dependent energy-loss models. The central values of R_AA are obtained as a direct ratio of measured Pb+Pb yields to measured pp cross-sections, with no parameters fitted to produce the physics result; the theory comparisons are external. The analysis follows well-established ATLAS procedures, gives a detailed systematic breakdown, and includes a cross-check of the forward UE-jet rejection via a fluctuation study, which is important because tracking is unavailable in the forward region. The main weakness is the extrapolation of the heavy-ion-specific jet energy scale uncertainty from the central tracking region to the forward calorimeter-only region, which is directly relevant to the central forward-vs-mid comparison. This is a correctness-risk concern rather than an internal inconsistency, and it is addressable with additional quantification or an explicit conservative treatment.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, heavy-ion-specific JES uncertainty] The heavy-ion-specific JES uncertainty is derived from a comparison of calorimeter jet pT with the scalar sum of charged-particle pT for |y|<2.1, and is then applied unchanged to 2.8<|y|<3.6, justified by the statement that no significant rapidity dependence of jet fragmentation was observed in Ref. [64]. This is a load-bearing extrapolation for the paper's central comparison of forward R_AA with the |y|<2.8 measurement from Ref. [13]. The forward region has no tracking, and Table 2 shows that the detector response is materially different there: the JER constant term is about 0.12 in 3.2<|y|<3.6 versus about 0.05 in 2.8<|y|<3.2. A rapidity-dependent quenching-induced fragmentation modification, which is precisely the effect the HI JES uncertainty is meant to cover, would bias the forward R_AA and its comparison with mid-rapidity. I ask the authors to (a) state explicitly the rapidity cov
  2. [Section 6 and abstract: significance of the forward/mid comparison] The abstract states that comparison with previous ATLAS measurements indicates stronger jet suppression in 2.8<|y|<3.2 than in |y|<2.8. The figures show a tendency, but the paper does not quantify the statistical significance of this difference or the extent to which partially correlated systematic uncertainties (e.g., common JES components, T_AA, and luminosity) cancel in the ratio. Since this forward-vs-mid comparison is a central physics claim, the authors should provide a numerical significance estimate, for example a p-value or a confidence interval for the ratio R_AA(2.8<|y|<3.2)/R_AA(|y|<2.8), and clarify whether the claim survives after accounting for the rapidity-dependent JES concern raised above. If the evidence is not significant, the abstract and summary should be correspondingly softened.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 5 caption] The caption of Figure 5 states 'rapidity interval of 2.8<|y|<3.2', but the figure is for 3.2<|y|<3.6. This typo should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4, UE-jet contamination] The statement that UE-jet contamination 'does not exceed 0.1% in any reported pT interval' is based on a power-law-plus-Gaussian fit cross-checked by a fluctuation study. It would be useful to state the statistical precision of the cross-check and whether the 0.1% bound is an upper limit including systematic variations of the fit, not just the nominal fit.
  3. [Section 5, JER parameterization] Equation (1) parameterizes the JER with three terms, but the text notes that this parameterization is not used in corrections. It would be clearer to state explicitly that this is a characterization only, to avoid confusion with the JER uncertainty described later in the same section.
  4. [References] Reference [64] is cited for the absence of rapidity dependence of jet fragmentation. The manuscript should specify the rapidity range covered by that measurement, since the forward intervals in this paper extend well beyond the central tracking acceptance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: R_AA is a direct ratio of independently measured Pb+Pb yields and pp cross-sections, with no fitted parameter producing the central values.

full rationale

The jet nuclear modification factor R_AA is defined as the ratio of the ⟨T_AA⟩-normalized per-event Pb+Pb jet yield to the measured pp jet production cross-section (Section 6 and Figs. 4–5). No parameter is fitted to produce the central values, and the pp and Pb+Pb spectra are unfolded independently using response matrices derived from Monte Carlo simulation. The only data-driven adjustment is a reweighting of the unfolding prior by the reconstructed jet pT spectrum ratio, which is a standard stabilization step and does not enforce a target R_AA. The theoretical comparisons (LBT, Hybrid, Parametric Model) are external models and are not used as inputs to the measurement. The reanalysis of Ref. [13] serves as a cross-check and is reported to be consistent with the published values; it does not define the forward-region result. The most assumption-dependent step is the application of the central-region heavy-ion JES uncertainty to forward rapidities, justified by the absence of significant rapidity dependence in measured jet fragmentation [64]. This is a systematic uncertainty extrapolation and concerns the quoted uncertainty bands rather than the central R_AA values; Ref. [64] is a published data measurement, not an unverified assertion equivalent to the present result. No self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation pattern is present. Therefore the paper is self-contained in its derivation and receives a circularity score of 0.

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

The measurement relies on standard jet reconstruction algorithms, established ATLAS background subtraction and calibration procedures, and the Glauber model for centrality. No new parameters, entities, or forces are introduced by the analysis itself; the free-parameter entry is empty because the fitted JER parameters in Eq. (1) are explicitly not used in the corrections.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math The anti-k_t algorithm with R=0.4 as implemented in FastJet correctly defines jets in the forward region.
    Used for jet reconstruction throughout (Section 4).
  • domain assumption The underlying event density rho(eta,phi), estimated from calorimeter towers with harmonic flow modulation, adequately describes the UE in the forward region.
    UE subtraction procedure in Section 4; standard ATLAS method applied here to a new rapidity range.
  • domain assumption Glauber model values of <T_AA> in Table 1 correctly describe the nuclear overlap in Pb+Pb collisions.
    Used to normalize yields and define R_AA; from Ref [11].
  • domain assumption Pythia8 plus Geant4 simulation with Pb+Pb data overlay reliably models the detector response for forward jets.
    Response matrices and unfolding rely on this simulation (Section 3).
  • domain assumption The heavy-ion-specific JES uncertainty determined in the central region |y|<2.1 is applicable to the forward region.
    Section 5; justified by Ref [64] showing no significant rapidity dependence of jet fragmentation.
  • domain assumption The pp reference data (2017) and Pb+Pb data (2018) are compatible after cross-calibration and luminosity scaling.
    R_AA denominator and normalization; described in Sections 2, 3, and 5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of forward jet suppression in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$$ TeV with the ATLAS detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4CBFV4GM

@misc{pith2026260803261,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of forward jet suppression in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrts_\mathrmNN=5.02$$ TeV with the ATLAS detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4CBFV4GM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03261}
}
abstract

Inclusive jet production is measured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV in Pb+Pb and $pp$ collisions, using data samples corresponding to integrated luminosities of 1.72 nb$^{-1}$ and 255 pb$^{-1}$, respectively. The jet nuclear modification factor, $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$, is reported for anti-$k_t$ jets with radius parameter $R=0.4$ in the forward-rapidity intervals $2.8<|y|<3.2$ and $3.2<|y|<3.6$, probing transverse momenta $p_\mathrm{T}>74$ GeV. The observed $R_{\mathrm{AA}}$ values show a significant suppression of jet yields in Pb+Pb collisions relative to those measured in $pp$ collisions. The suppression increases monotonically from peripheral to central collisions and exhibits a mild jet $p_\mathrm{T}$ dependence. A comparison with previous ATLAS measurements indicates stronger jet suppression in the $2.8<|y|<3.2$ region than in the $|y| < 2.8$ region. In the $3.2<|y|<3.6$ region, the precision of the measurement does not allow a conclusive comparison with the $|y|<2.8$ region. These results constitute the first measurement of inclusive jet suppression at forward rapidity in heavy-ion collisions and provide new constraints on flavor, geometric, and medium-density dependence of parton energy loss.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the nuclear modification factor for inclusive jets in Pb+Pb collisions at√𝑠NN=5.02TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B790(2019) 108, arXiv:1805.05635 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [64]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of jet fragmentation in Pb+Pb and𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠NN=5.02TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C98(2018) 024908, arXiv:1805.05424 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [1]

    Harrison, T

    M. Harrison, T. Ludlam, and S. Ozaki,RHIC project overview, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A499(2003) 235

    work page 2003

  4. [2]

    Evans and P

    L. Evans and P. Bryant,LHC Machine, JINST3(2008) S08001

    2008

  5. [3]

    Busza, K

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, Heavy Ion Collisions: The Big Picture, and the Big Questions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68(2018) 339, arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [4]

    Shuryak,Strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma in heavy ion collisions, Rev

    E. Shuryak,Strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma in heavy ion collisions, Rev. Mod. Phys.89(2017) 035001, arXiv:1412.8393 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [5]

    U. A. Wiedemann,Jet Quenching in Heavy Ion Collisions, Landolt-Bornstein (2010) 521, ed. by R. Stock, arXiv:0908.2306 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2010

  8. [6]

    Mehtar-Tani, J

    Y. Mehtar-Tani, J. G. Milhano, and K. Tywoniuk,Jet physics in heavy-ion collisions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28(2013) 1340013, arXiv:1302.2579 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2013

Show all 72 references
  1. [7]

    Cao and X.-N

    S. Cao and X.-N. Wang, Jet quenching and medium response in high-energy heavy-ion collisions: a review, Rept. Prog. Phys.84(2021) 024301, arXiv:2002.04028 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Connors, C

    M. Connors, C. Nattrass, R. Reed, and S. Salur,Jet measurements in heavy ion physics, Rev. Mod. Phys.90(2018) 025005, arXiv:1705.01974 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Cunqueiro and A

    L. Cunqueiro and A. M. Sickles,Studying the QGP with Jets at the LHC and RHIC, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.124(2022) 103940, arXiv:2110.14490 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Apolinário, Y.-T

    L. Apolinário, Y.-T. Chien, and L. Cunqueiro Mendez,Jet substructure, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33(2024) 2430003

    2024

  5. [11]

    M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, Glauber modeling in high energy nuclear collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.57(2007) 205, arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025

    2007 arXiv

  6. [12]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurements of the Nuclear Modification Factor for Jets in Pb+Pb Collisions at√𝑠NN=2.76TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) 072302, arXiv:1411.2357 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [14]

    CMS Collaboration, First measurement of large area jet transverse momentum spectra in heavy-ion collisions, JHEP05(2021) 284, arXiv:2102.13080 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    ALICE Collaboration,Measurement of the radius dependence of charged-particle jet suppression in Pb–Pb collisions at√s𝑁𝑁 =5.02TeV, Phys. Lett. B849(2024) 138412, arXiv:2303.00592 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of Suppression of Large-Radius Jets and Its Dependence on Substructure in Pb+Pb Collisions at√𝑠NN=5.02TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 172301, arXiv:2301.05606 [nucl-ex]. 15

    2023 arXiv

  10. [17]

    CMS Collaboration, Search for medium effects using jets from bottom quarks in PbPb collisions at√𝑠NN=5.02TeV, Phys. Lett. B844(2023) 137849, arXiv:2210.08547 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    ALICE Collaboration,Investigating charm quark energy loss in medium with the nuclear modification factor of D0-tagged jets, Phys. Lett. B875(2026) 140299, arXiv:2409.11939 [nucl-ex]

    2026 arXiv

  12. [19]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the nuclear modification factor of𝑏-jets in5.02TeV Pb+Pb collisions with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 438, arXiv:2204.13530 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    CMS Collaboration,Study of jet quenching with isolated-photon+jet correlations in PbPb and𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠NN=5.02TeV, Phys. Lett. B785(2018) 14, arXiv:1711.09738 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [21]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Comparison of inclusive and photon-tagged jet suppression in5.02TeV Pb+Pb collisions with ATLAS, Phys. Lett. B846(2023) 138154, arXiv:2303.10090 [nucl-ex], Erratum: Phys. Lett. B858(2024) 138998

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Spousta and B

    M. Spousta and B. Cole,Interpreting single jet measurements in Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 50, arXiv:1504.05169 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [23]

    J.-W. Qiu, F. Ringer, N. Sato, and P. Zurita, Factorization of jet cross sections in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.122(2019) 252301, arXiv:1903.01993 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Zhang, E

    S.-L. Zhang, E. Wang, H. Xing, and B.-W. Zhang, Flavor dependence of jet quenching in heavy-ion collisions from a Bayesian analysis, Phys. Lett. B850(2024) 138549, arXiv:2303.14881 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Ogrodnik, M

    A. Ogrodnik, M. Rybář, and M. Spousta, Flavor and path-length dependence of jet quenching from inclusive jet and𝛾-jet suppression, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 899, arXiv:2407.11234 [hep-ph]

    2025

  19. [26]

    R. K. Ellis, W. J. Stirling, and B. R. Webber,QCD and collider physics, vol. 8, Cambridge University Press, 2011,isbn: 978-0-511-82328-2, 978-0-521-54589-1

    2011

  20. [27]

    Pablos and A

    D. Pablos and A. Soto-Ontoso, Pushing forward jet substructure measurements in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 094003, arXiv:2210.07901 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [28]

    ALICE Collaboration,Measurement of the inclusive isolated-photon production cross section in pp and Pb–Pb collisions at√s𝑁𝑁 =5.02TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 553, arXiv:2409.12641 [nucl-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    CMS Collaboration, The production of isolated photons in PbPb and𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠NN=5.02TeV, JHEP07(2020) 116, arXiv:2003.12797 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [30]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Centrality, rapidity, and transverse momentum dependence of isolated prompt photon production in lead–lead collisions at√𝑠NN=2.76TeV measured with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C93(2016) 034914, arXiv:1506.08552 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Brewer, Q

    J. Brewer, Q. Brodsky, and K. Rajagopal, Disentangling jet modification in jet simulations and in Z+jet data, JHEP02(2022) 175, arXiv:2110.13159 [hep-ph]. 16

    2022 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Casalderrey-Solana, D

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. Gulhan, G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, Angular Structure of Jet Quenching Within a Hybrid Strong/Weak Coupling Model, JHEP03(2017) 135, arXiv:1609.05842 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez,The anti-𝑘𝑡 jet clustering algorithm, JHEP04(2008) 063, arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  27. [34]

    S. P. Adhya, C. A. Salgado, M. Spousta, and K. Tywoniuk, Multi-partonic medium induced cascades in expanding media, Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 20, arXiv:2106.02592 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [35]

    S. P. Adhya, K. Kutak, W. Placzek, M. Rohrmoser, and K. Tywoniuk, Predictions for photon-jet correlations at forward rapidities in heavy-ion collisions, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 343, arXiv:2409.06675 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [36]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, JINST3(2008) S08003

    2008

  30. [37]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Insertable B-Layer Technical Design Report, ATLAS-TDR-19; CERN-LHCC-2010-013, 2010, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1291633, Addendum: ATLAS-TDR-19-ADD-1; CERN-LHCC-2012-009, 2012,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1451888

    2010

  31. [38]

    Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST13(2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

    B. Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST13(2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Avoni et al., Upgrades of the ATLAS zero degree calorimeter system for Run 3 at the Large Hadron Collider, JINST20(2025) P11021, arXiv:2509.05948 [physics.ins-det]

    G. Avoni et al., Upgrades of the ATLAS zero degree calorimeter system for Run 3 at the Large Hadron Collider, JINST20(2025) P11021, arXiv:2509.05948 [physics.ins-det]

    2025

  33. [40]

    Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST13(2018) P07017

    G. Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST13(2018) P07017

    2018

  34. [41]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Operation of the ATLAS trigger system in Run 2, JINST15(2020) P10004, arXiv:2007.12539 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [42]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Trigger Menu in 2017, ATL-DAQ-PUB-2018-002, 2018, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2625986

    2017

  36. [43]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Trigger Menu in 2018, ATL-DAQ-PUB-2019-001, 2019, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2693402

    2018

  37. [44]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS Collaboration Software and Firmware, ATL-SOFT-PUB-2021-001, 2021,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2767187

    2021

  38. [45]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of substructure-dependent jet suppression in Pb+Pb collisions at5.02TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C107(2023) 054909, arXiv:2211.11470 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [46]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Prompt and non-prompt𝐽/𝜓and𝜓(2S)suppression at high transverse momentum in5.02TeV Pb+Pb collisions with the ATLAS experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 762, arXiv:1805.04077 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [47]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of photon-jet transverse momentum correlations in5.02TeV Pb+Pb and𝑝𝑝collisions with ATLAS, Phys. Lett. B789(2019) 167, arXiv:1809.07280 [nucl-ex]. 17

    2019 arXiv

  41. [48]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of𝑊 ± boson production in Pb+Pb collisions at√𝑠NN=5.02TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 935, arXiv:1907.10414 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput

    T. Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [50]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to7TeV data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/1966419

    2014

  44. [51]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball, et al.,Parton distributions with LHC data, Nucl. Phys. B867(2013) 244, arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Agostinelli et al.,Geant4– a simulation toolkit, Nucl

    S. Agostinelli et al.,Geant4– a simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506(2003) 250

    2003

  46. [53]

    ATLAS Collaboration,The ATLAS Simulation Infrastructure, Eur. Phys. J. C70(2010) 823, arXiv:1005.4568 [physics.ins-det]

    2010 arXiv

  47. [54]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurements of azimuthal anisotropies of jet production in Pb+Pb collisions at√𝑠NN=5.02TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C105(2022) 064903, arXiv:2111.06606 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Cacciari, G

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

    2012 arXiv

  49. [56]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Jet energy measurement with the ATLAS detector in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=7TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013) 2304, arXiv:1112.6426 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [57]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the azimuthal anisotropy of charged particles produced in√𝑠NN=5.02TeV Pb+Pb collisions with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 997, arXiv:1808.03951 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  51. [58]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Jet energy scale and its uncertainty for jets reconstructed using the ATLAS heavy ion jet algorithm, ATLAS-CONF-2015-016, 2015,url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2008677

    2015

  52. [59]

    Abelev et al.,Measurement of Event Background Fluctuations for Charged Particle Jet Reconstruction in Pb-Pb collisions at√𝑠𝑁𝑁 =2.76TeV, JHEP03(2012) 053, arXiv:1201.2423 [hep-ex]

    B. Abelev et al.,Measurement of Event Background Fluctuations for Charged Particle Jet Reconstruction in Pb-Pb collisions at√𝑠𝑁𝑁 =2.76TeV, JHEP03(2012) 053, arXiv:1201.2423 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  53. [60]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the jet radius and transverse momentum dependence of inclusive jet suppression in lead–lead collisions at√𝑠NN=2.76TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B719(2013) 220, arXiv:1208.1967 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [61]

    D’Agostini,A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem, Nucl

    G. D’Agostini,A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A362(1995) 487

    1995

  55. [62]

    Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold,

    T. Adye, “Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold,” Proceedings, 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and Unfolding (PHYSTAT 2011)(CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, Jan. 17–20, 2011) 313, arXiv:1105.1160 [physics.data-an]

    2011 arXiv

  56. [63]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Jet energy scale and resolution measured in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠=13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 689, arXiv:2007.02645 [hep-ex]. 18

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    CMS Collaboration,Jet properties in PbPb and𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠NN=5.02TeV, JHEP05(2018) 006, arXiv:1803.00042 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Luminosity determination in𝑝𝑝collisions at√𝑠=13TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 982, arXiv:2212.09379 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Y. He, T. Luo, X.-N. Wang, and Y. Zhu,Linear Boltzmann Transport for Jet Propagation in the Quark-Gluon Plasma: Elastic Processes and Medium Recoil, Phys. Rev. C91(2015) 054908, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 97, 019902 (2018)], arXiv:1503.03313 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    He et al.,Interplaying mechanisms behind single inclusive jet suppression in heavy-ion collisions, Phys

    Y. He et al.,Interplaying mechanisms behind single inclusive jet suppression in heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C99(2019) 054911, arXiv:1809.02525 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Casalderrey-Solana, D

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. C. Gulhan, J. G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, A Hybrid Strong/Weak Coupling Approach to Jet Quenching, JHEP10(2014) 019, [Erratum: JHEP 09, 175 (2015)], arXiv:1405.3864 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  62. [70]

    D’Eramo, K

    F. D’Eramo, K. Rajagopal, and Y. Yin, Molière scattering in quark-gluon plasma: finding point-like scatterers in a liquid, JHEP01(2019) 172, arXiv:1808.03250 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Casalderrey-Solana, E

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, E. V. Shuryak, and D. Teaney,Conical flow induced by quenched QCD jets, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.27(2005) 22, ed. by G. Roland and T. Trainor, arXiv:hep-ph/0411315

    2005 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Demokritos

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Computing Acknowledgements, ATL-SOFT-PUB-2026-001, 2026, url:https://cds.cern.ch/record/2952666. 19 The ATLAS Collaboration G. Aad 102, E. Aakvaag 17, B. Abbott 121, S. Abdelhameed 83b, K. Abeling 54, N.J. Abicht 48, S.H. Abidi 30, M. Aboelela 44, A. ...

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.