Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 6 cited by

A single medium-scale choice unifies hadron and jet suppression.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 01:06 UTC pith:5CDCRLXQ

load-bearing objection Two genuinely new LBT ingredients—a medium scale inserted into the vacuum shower and color-flow tracking through scatterings—but the key Q_M mechanism is asserted, not cleanly shown, because the scan refits α_s. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.10395 v2 pith:5CDCRLXQ submitted 2026-02-11 nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex

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

Yichao Dang , Wen-Jing Xing , Shanshan Cao , Guang-You Qin This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-phnucl-ex PACS 25.75.-q12.38.Mh
keywords jet quenchinghadron suppressionnuclear modification factorlinear Boltzmann transport modelquark-gluon plasmamedium scalecolor flowheavy-ion collisions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that the long-standing difficulty of describing hadron and jet suppression with one model is not fundamental but a modeling issue: where in the parton shower the medium starts acting, and how color connections are assigned for hadronization. It inserts the transport simulation into the vacuum shower at a medium scale (about 1–2 GeV) instead of after the shower is complete, and it tracks color flow through elastic and inelastic scatterings so that string fragmentation reflects the medium-modified shower history. Both changes shift the predicted ratio of hadron to jet quenching. With these two ingredients, a single parameter set describes the nuclear modification factors of charged hadrons, D and B mesons, inclusive jets, and heavy-flavor-tagged jets in 5.02 TeV lead–lead collisions.

Core claim

The central claim on the paper's own terms is that raising the scale at which partons begin scattering with the plasma — from 0.5 GeV up to around 1–2 GeV — reduces hadron suppression relative to jet suppression even after the strong coupling is re-tuned to the jet data, and that including color flow in hadronization lowers the hadron R_AA further. The mechanism is that a higher medium scale makes softer partons spend more time interacting with the plasma, enhancing their medium modification, while the leading parton's energy loss is comparatively weakly affected; hadron spectra are dominated by the leading parton, full jets by the whole parton ensemble. With the medium scale at 1–2 GeV and

What carries the argument

The central object is the medium scale Q_M, the virtuality at which the vacuum parton shower is interrupted and linear Boltzmann transport of the jet partons begins. While inside the plasma, jet partons are taken to keep their virtuality fixed at Q_M, a balance between virtuality gain from scatterings and virtuality loss from medium-induced splittings; this assumption justifies starting transport at an intermediate scale. Raising Q_M shortens parton formation times and extends the interaction time for softer partons, which is what redistributes energy loss and changes the ratio of hadron to jet suppression. The second device is a color-flow bookkeeping scheme in the large-N_c approximation,

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the premise that a jet parton's virtuality stays pinned at Q_M while it scatters inside the plasma, because gains from collisions and losses from emissions are assumed to balance; if that balance is wrong, the claimed redistribution of energy loss between leading and subleading partons—and with it the improved hadron-to-jet ratio—does not follow.

What would settle it

Computing the same observables with a version of the model in which parton virtuality evolves dynamically with the local scattering rate, rather than staying fixed at Q_M, would test the balance assumption; if the simultaneous description of hadron and jet R_AA disappears, the fixed-virtuality premise is falsified. Alternatively, an independent extraction of Q_M from an observable not used in the fit (e.g., the energy dependence of the onset of medium-induced emission) that falls outside 1–2 GeV would undermine the claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • One fitted coupling then reproduces hadron and jet R_AA across light and heavy flavors, so future fits can combine all these observables simultaneously.
  • The medium scale Q_M emerges as a physical parameter of the quark–gluon plasma itself, to be extracted rather than fixed arbitrarily.
  • Hadron-level jet observables become computable in this transport framework, because medium-modified partons can be hadronized with color-correlated strings.
  • The model provides a baseline for hadron-triggered jet studies, since a joint description of hadron and jet suppression is a prerequisite for acoplanarity analyses.
  • Jet fragmentation functions are expected to depend on the color-flow scheme, a prediction the paper says it will test next.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the fixed-virtuality assumption were replaced by a dynamical evolution of parton virtuality inside the plasma, the fitted Q_M range of 1–2 GeV could shift; the paper's choice of Q_M=2 GeV is partly driven by the fit quality, so it is not an out-of-sample measurement.
  • The color-flow effect on hadron R_AA could be probed directly by comparing jet fragmentation functions and hadron momentum distributions generated with and without color tracking, an observable distinction the paper has not yet published.
  • The same two modifications could be transplanted into other transport models; whether the hadron-to-jet ratio shift is generic would then be testable.
  • A Bayesian calibration over Q_M, α_s, and the low-momentum enhancement parameter would show how strongly the simultaneous description depends on the specific non-perturbative treatment.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents two modifications to the LBT parton-transport model for jet quenching in heavy-ion collisions. First, hard partons produced by Pythia are no longer evolved all the way to the hadronization scale before interacting with the medium; instead the vacuum shower is interrupted at a prescribed medium scale Q_M, and transport is inserted there, with parton virtuality assumed fixed at Q_M inside the medium. Second, color-flow information is tracked through LBT 2→2 scatterings and 1→2 splittings, so that Pythia string fragmentation can be applied to medium-modified partons. Using this framework, the authors compute R_AA for inclusive charged hadrons, D and B mesons, inclusive jets, D-tagged jets, and b-tagged jets in Pb+Pb at 5.02 TeV, and compare with CMS, ATLAS, and ALICE data. They find that raising Q_M reduces hadron quenching more than jet quenching, and that including color-flow information changes hadron R_AA relative to a colorless hadronization scheme, and they interpret this as progress toward a unified description of hadron and jet suppression.

Significance. If the central mechanism were cleanly established, the paper would be a valuable step: it offers a concrete, physically motivated way to reconcile hadron and jet R_AA within a single LBT setup, extends LBT to color-aware hadronization, and provides a public implementation. The broad data comparison across flavor-tagged jets and hadrons is a strength, as is the explicit acknowledgment of model limitations and the availability of source code. However, the central demonstration is currently weakened by two confounded comparisons—Q_M with α_s, and color-flow with hadronization model—so the paper's headline claim is not yet fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Fig. 3] The claimed mechanism—that raising Q_M reduces hadron and jet R_AA less for jets—rests on a fixed-α_s comparison, but Fig. 3 varies Q_M together with α_s (0.1/0.2/0.44), each α_s refit to the jet R_AA. The fixed-α_s panel needed to isolate the Q_M effect is never shown. The improvement at Q_M=2 GeV may therefore be driven by the refitted coupling. In addition, the Summary itself concedes that Q_M is uncalibrated, so 'Q_M around 1–2 GeV' is an in-sample choice. Please show R_AA vs Q_M at fixed α_s (or an equivalent control) before attributing the hadron-to-jet ratio change to Q_M.
  2. [§III, Fig. 5] The with-CF / without-CF comparison changes both the color-flow information and the hadronization prescription (Pythia color-tracking strings vs. the colorless hadronization model of Refs. [128–130]). The conclusion that hadron R_AA is sensitive to 'partonic color configurations' is therefore not uniquely established; the difference could come from the alternative momentum-space string-connection rule. A control in which the hadronization model is held fixed and only the color labels are randomized/reassigned is needed to support the stated conclusion.
  3. [Sec. II, paragraph after Eq. (8)] The premise that 'the virtualities of jet partons maintain Q_M inside the QGP due to the balance between virtuality gain from scatterings and virtuality loss from medium-induced splittings' is not derived or tested. Because the change in the hadron-to-jet R_AA ratio is driven by where the vacuum shower is interrupted, the result depends on this balance being correct. Please provide at least a sensitivity study (e.g., allowing virtuality to evolve between Q_M and a higher scale) or a quantitative estimate of the two competing rates.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Secs. I and IV] Typo: 'Bayesian interference' should be 'Bayesian inference'.
  2. [Figs. 3 and 4] Legend labels use 's = 0.1' etc.; write 'α_s = 0.1' for clarity. Also indicate rapidity cuts explicitly, e.g., '|η_jet| < 2.8', in captions.
  3. [Fig. 5] Uncertainty bands are shown for the color-tracking setup but not for the colorless setup; adding bands for both would help judge whether the hadron R_AA difference is significant.
  4. [Eq. (1)] The subscript notation 'm_i,j,k' is ambiguous; write m_i, m_j, m_k explicitly and state clearly that light-flavor masses are set to zero.
  5. [Sec. II] The statement that 'soft partons usually reach a given scale later than hard partons' is central to the Q_M argument; a citation or a simple formation-time illustration would help the reader assess this point.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

D-meson R_AA comparison is in-sample via K_p fitted to D data; central Q_M and color-flow results remain independent model outputs.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II (K_p definition) and Sec. III, Fig. 4(b) D0 R_AA comparison]
    "The amplitude and width parameters are set as A_p = 5 and σ_p = 5 GeV based on an earlier fit to the D meson data at RHIC and the LHC [111]. ... In general, our improved LBT model provides a consistent description of the nuclear modification factors across hadrons and jets with different flavors."

    K_p is a momentum-dependent multiplier on qhat whose amplitude and width were calibrated to D-meson R_AA in the same LBT framework (Cao et al., including two present authors). The D0 R_AA in Fig. 4(b) is then presented as part of the claimed unified description. At the fitted kinematic range this agreement is enforced by construction rather than being an independent prediction. The Q_M scan and color-flow comparison do not share this defect: they vary model dynamics and are not simply re-expressions of fitted parameters, so the circularity is partial and confined to the flavor set where K_p was trained.

full rationale

The paper's main mechanism - interrupting vacuum showers at Q_M and tracking color flow - is a model output, not a fit: the text explicitly refits alpha_s to jet R_AA for each Q_M and then examines hadron R_AA, so the hadron-vs-jet split is a genuine in-model result. The Q_M choice (1-2 GeV) is a calibration claim and the summary itself calls for Bayesian calibration of Q_M; that is parameter extraction, not circularity. No self-definitional identity links Q_M or color-flow output to the input data. The one real in-sample element is K_p: it is fitted to D-meson data in prior work by the same authors and then D-meson R_AA is included in the 'consistent description' claim, so that particular comparison reduces to its calibration input. The absence of a fixed-alpha_s version of Fig. 3 is a weakness in isolating the Q_M effect, but a missing control is not a definitional reduction, so it does not count as circularity here.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard LBT transport framework plus a new ad hoc medium-scale assumption (Q_M virtuality pinning), a color-flow assignment scheme, and several fitted parameters (α_s, Q_M, K_p). The hadron R_AA comparison is a genuine cross-check at fixed α_s, but the overall demonstration is weakened by the post-hoc selection of Q_M and by the use of a K_p factor inherited from an earlier D-meson fit.

free parameters (3)
  • fixed α_s (strong coupling for thermal-parton vertices) = 0.34–0.44 for Q_M=2 GeV; refit per Q_M (0.1, 0.2, 0.44 for Q_M=0.5, 1, 2 GeV)
    Model parameter constrained by jet R_AA data; adjusted separately for each Q_M in Fig. 3.
  • Q_M (medium scale) = 2 GeV (final choice; tested 0.5, 1, 2 GeV)
    Introduced scale at which Pythia shower is interrupted; final value selected because it gives the best simultaneous hadron+jet R_AA description. No first-principles determination is offered.
  • K_p non-perturbative enhancement parameters A_p, σ_p = A_p=5, σ_p=5 GeV
    Taken from an earlier fit to D-meson data (Ref. [111]); the same factor is used for all flavors, a stated simplification.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Leading-order pQCD matrix elements with double-θ regulator for elastic scatterings and Debye screening mass μ_D^2=4πα_s T^2(N_c+N_f/2)/3.
    Used in Eq. (3) to compute elastic scattering rates.
  • domain assumption Higher-twist medium-induced gluon spectrum Eq. (5) from Refs. [28,29,113] is valid for the LBT inelastic rate.
    Central input for inelastic energy loss.
  • ad hoc to paper Jet parton virtuality remains fixed at Q_M inside the QGP: 'We assume the virtualities of jet partons maintain Q_M inside the QGP due to the balance between virtuality gain from scatterings and virtuality loss from medium-induced splittings.'
    Load-bearing assumption for improvement #1; no independent derivation is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Large-N_c color scheme and the designed 2→2 color-flow assignments (Fig. 2) determine string connections; quarks/gluons carry color labels as in Pythia 8.
    Color tracking is a new model implementation; assignments are chosen to conserve color, not derived from QCD.
  • domain assumption CLVisc (3+1)-D hydrodynamic profiles describe the QGP background with switching temperature T_pc=165 MeV and initial time τ_0=0.6 fm.
    External input; model conclusions depend on the medium geometry.
  • domain assumption Formation-time formula Eq. (1) and free-streaming before formation apply to jet partons.
    Used to decide when partons begin interacting with the medium.
invented entities (2)
  • Fake partons no independent evidence
    purpose: Stand-ins for negative partons (energy holes) during string fragmentation of positive partons, with p_x=p_y=p_z=0.1 GeV, to avoid unphysical string breaking.
    Numerical device without physical counterpart; the 0.1 GeV choice is arbitrary though motivated by avoiding pathological string breaking.
  • Negative partons / back-reaction no independent evidence
    purpose: Energy holes representing medium response; their hadrons are subtracted from positive-hadron jets.
    Already a construct in earlier LBT versions; a computational accounting device rather than an independently observable particle species.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15326 in / 13149 out tokens · 122277 ms · 2026-08-03T01:06:12.617776+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Jets serve as powerful tomographic probes of the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) created in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. While the expanding landscape of jet observables reveals multi-faceted aspects of jet-medium interactions, a precise and simultaneous description of the nuclear modification factors of hadrons and full jets remains a challenge for theoretical models. In this work, we present two essential improvements to the linear Boltzmann transport (LBT) model to bridge this gap. First, instead of implementing in-medium parton transport after vacuum parton showers complete, we introduce a medium scale at which in-medium parton transport is inserted into the vacuum parton showers, providing a more physical picture of parton-QGP interactions. Second, we incorporate color flow information into the LBT model, enabling string connections between partons whose configurations are correlated with the medium-modified parton showers before hadronization. We demonstrate that both improvements alter the predicted ratio of hadron to jet quenching, leading to a satisfactory unified description of the nuclear modification factors of hadrons and jets with different flavors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.10395 by Guang-You Qin, Shanshan Cao, Wen-Jing Xing, Yichao Dang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (Color online) Schematic illustration of color flows in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Color online) The nuclear modification factors of (a) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Color online) Schematic illustration of color flows in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online) The nuclear modification factors of (a) charged hadrons, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Color online) The nuclear modification factors of inclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Measurements of jet quenching with semi-inclusive hadron-jet correlations in Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=200$ GeV

    nucl-ex 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    First semi-inclusive hadron-jet measurement in Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr at 200 GeV finds recoil-jet suppression and intra-jet broadening in central relative to peripheral collisions.

  2. Energy-energy correlators inside single inclusive jets in heavy-ion collisions with CoLBT-hydro model

    hep-ph 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    A multi-stage CoLBT-hydro simulation with a 2 GeV medium scale reproduces the CMS in-jet EEC and predicts rank- and rapidity-gap-dependent modifications that encode path length and the diffusion wake.

  3. Measurements of jet quenching with semi-inclusive hadron-jet correlations in Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=200$ GeV

    nucl-ex 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Suppression of recoil jet yields and intra-jet broadening is observed in central Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions, indicating medium-induced partonic energy loss.

  4. Geometric Bias and Centrality Dependence of Jet Quenching in High-Energy Nuclear Collisions

    nucl-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A refined HIJING initial-condition model with geometric bias from impact-parameter effects, combined with Boltzmann jet transport, describes the centrality dependence of charged-hadron suppression in 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb co...

  5. Geometric Bias and Centrality Dependence of Jet Quenching in High-Energy Nuclear Collisions

    nucl-th 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    Suppression of high-pT hadrons in peripheral Pb+Pb collisions is predominantly driven by initial-state geometric bias rather than final-state jet quenching.

  6. Energy-energy correlators inside single inclusive jets in heavy-ion collisions with CoLBT-hydro model

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Updated CoLBT-hydro simulations with Q_M=2.0 GeV reproduce CMS in-jet EEC data, validate background subtraction, and show path-length and diffusion-wake effects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

135 extracted references · 119 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Busza, K

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68, 339 (2018), arXiv:1802.04801

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Elfner and B

    H. Elfner and B. M ¨uller, J. Phys. G50, 103001 (2023), arXiv:2210.12056

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    J. W. Harris and B. M ¨uller, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 247 (2024), arXiv:2308.05743

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Adareet al., Phys

    PHENIX, A. Adareet al., Phys. Rev. C87, 034911 (2013), arXiv:1208.2254

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    Chatrchyanet al., Eur

    CMS, S. Chatrchyanet al., Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1945 (2012), arXiv:1202.2554

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1945

  6. [6]

    Abelevet al., Phys

    ALICE, B. Abelevet al., Phys. Lett. B720, 52 (2013), arXiv:1208.2711

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Wang and M

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

    1992

  8. [8]

    Qin and X.-N

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    Majumder and M

    A. Majumder and M. Van Leeuwen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66, 41 (2011), arXiv:1002.2206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  10. [10]

    Cao and X.-N

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Wang and U

    X.-N. Wang and U. A. Wiedemann, QGP@50: More than Four Decades of Jet Quenching, 2025, arXiv:2508.18794

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Mehtar-Tani, (2025), arXiv:2509.26394

    Y . Mehtar-Tani, (2025), arXiv:2509.26394

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    JET, K. M. Burkeet al., Phys. Rev. C90, 014909 (2014), arXiv:1312.5003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [14]

    Caoet al., Phys

    JETSCAPE, S. Caoet al., Phys. Rev. C104, 024905 (2021), arXiv:2102.11337

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Gyulassy and X.-n

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  16. [16]

    X.-N. Wang, M. Gyulassy, and M. Plumer, Phys. Rev. D51, 3436 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9408344

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  17. [17]

    Gyulassy, P

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  18. [18]

    Gyulassy, P

    M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev, Nucl. Phys. B594, 371 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0006010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  19. [19]

    Djordjevic, M

    M. Djordjevic, M. Gyulassy, and S. Wicks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 112301 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0410372

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  20. [20]

    Baier, Y

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

    arXiv 1997

  21. [21]

    Baier, Y

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

    arXiv 1997

  22. [22]

    B. G. Zakharov, JETP Lett.63, 952 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9607440

    arXiv 1996

  23. [23]

    B. G. Zakharov, JETP Lett.65, 615 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9704255

    arXiv 1997

  24. [24]

    B. G. Zakharov, Phys. Atom. Nucl.61, 838 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9807540

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  25. [25]

    U. A. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. B588, 303 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/0005129

    arXiv 2000

  26. [26]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP06, 030 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0204343

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  27. [27]

    Guo and X.-N

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  28. [28]

    Wang and X.-f

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  29. [29]

    Majumder, Phys

    A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. D85, 014023 (2012), arXiv:0912.2987

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  30. [30]

    Sirimanna, S

    C. Sirimanna, S. Cao, and A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. C105, 024908 (2022), arXiv:2108.05329

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    P. M. Chesler and K. Rajagopal, Phys. Rev. D90, 025033 (2014), arXiv:1402.6756

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    B. Chen, X. Chen, X. Li, Z.-R. Zhu, and K. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D111, 086033 (2025), arXiv:2404.18217

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    S. Cao, A. Majumder, R. Modarresi-Yazdi, I. Soudi, and Y . Tachibana, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33, 2430002 (2024), arXiv:2401.10026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Armesto, L

    N. Armesto, L. Cunqueiro, and C. A. Salgado, Eur. Phys. J. C63, 679 (2009), arXiv:0907.1014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  35. [35]

    K. Zapp, G. Ingelman, J. Rathsman, J. Stachel, and U. A. Wiedemann, Eur. Phys. J. C60, 617 (2009), arXiv:0804.3568

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  36. [36]

    K. C. Zapp, F. Krauss, and U. A. Wiedemann, JHEP03, 080 (2013), arXiv:1212.1599. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  37. [37]

    Casalderrey-Solana, D

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. C. Gulhan, J. G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, JHEP10, 019 (2014), arXiv:1405.3864, [Erratum: JHEP 09, 175 (2015)]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    Cao and A

    S. Cao and A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. C101, 024903 (2020), arXiv:1712.10055

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    T. Luo, Y . He, S. Cao, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C109, 034919 (2024), arXiv:2306.13742

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Schenke, C

    B. Schenke, C. Gale, and S. Jeon, Phys. Rev. C80, 054913 (2009), arXiv:0909.2037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  41. [41]

    W. Ke, Y . Xu, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C100, 064911 (2019), arXiv:1810.08177

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  42. [42]

    Ke and X.-N

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Caoet al., Phys

    JETSCAPE, S. Caoet al., Phys. Rev. C96, 024909 (2017), arXiv:1705.00050

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  44. [44]

    J. H. Putschkeet al., (2019), arXiv:1903.07706

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP11, 057 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0109064

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  46. [46]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  47. [47]

    Vitev and M

    I. Vitev and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 252301 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0209161

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  48. [48]

    Vitev, J

    I. Vitev, J. Phys. G30, S791 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0403089

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  49. [49]

    Dainese, C

    A. Dainese, C. Loizides, and G. Paic, Eur. Phys. J. C38, 461 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0406201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  50. [50]

    Armesto, A

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

    arXiv 2005

  51. [51]

    Wicks, W

    S. Wicks, W. Horowitz, M. Djordjevic, and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. A784, 426 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0512076

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  52. [52]

    S. A. Basset al., Phys. Rev. C79, 024901 (2009), arXiv:0808.0908

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  53. [53]

    Armesto, M

    N. Armesto, M. Cacciari, T. Hirano, J. L. Nagle, and C. A. Salgado, J. Phys. G37, 025104 (2010), arXiv:0907.0667

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  54. [54]

    Marquet and T

    C. Marquet and T. Renk, Phys. Lett. B685, 270 (2010), arXiv:0908.0880

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  55. [55]

    X.-F. Chen, C. Greiner, E. Wang, X.-N. Wang, and Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. C81, 064908 (2010), arXiv:1002.1165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  56. [56]

    Majumder and B

    A. Majumder and B. Muller, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 252002 (2010), arXiv:1008.1747

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  57. [57]

    Renk, Phys

    T. Renk, Phys. Rev. C83, 024908 (2011), arXiv:1010.4116

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  58. [58]

    T. Renk, H. Holopainen, R. Paatelainen, and K. J. Eskola, Phys. Rev. C84, 014906 (2011), arXiv:1103.5308

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  59. [59]

    W. A. Horowitz and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. A872, 265 (2011), arXiv:1104.4958

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  60. [60]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  61. [61]

    S. Cao, T. Luo, G.-Y . Qin, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 777, 255 (2018), arXiv:1703.00822

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  62. [62]

    Majumder, E

    A. Majumder, E. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 152301 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0412061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  63. [63]

    Zhang, J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  64. [64]

    Renk, Phys

    T. Renk, Phys. Rev. C78, 034904 (2008), arXiv:0803.0218

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  65. [65]

    Cao, G.-Y

    S. Cao, G.-Y . Qin, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C92, 054909 (2015), arXiv:1505.01869

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  66. [66]

    Zhang, J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  67. [67]

    G.-Y . Qin, J. Ruppert, C. Gale, S. Jeon, and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. C80, 054909 (2009), arXiv:0906.3280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  68. [68]

    Wang and Y

    X.-N. Wang and Y . Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 062301 (2013), arXiv:1302.5874

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  69. [69]

    W. Chen, S. Cao, T. Luo, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B777, 86 (2018), arXiv:1704.03648

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  70. [70]

    Qin and B

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  71. [71]

    W. Dai, I. Vitev, and B.-W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 142001 (2013), arXiv:1207.5177

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  72. [72]

    Chang and G.-Y

    N.-B. Chang and G.-Y . Qin, Phys. Rev. C94, 024902 (2016), arXiv:1603.01920

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  73. [73]

    Kumaret al., Phys

    JETSCAPE, A. Kumaret al., Phys. Rev. C107, 034911 (2023), arXiv:2204.01163

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    Cao and G.-Y

    S. Cao and G.-Y . Qin, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73, 205 (2023), arXiv:2211.16821

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  75. [75]

    Yang and X.-N

    Z. Yang and X.-N. Wang, Research8, 0941 (2025), arXiv:2509.23780

    arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Heet al., Phys

    Y . Heet al., Phys. Rev. C99, 054911 (2019), arXiv:1809.02525

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  77. [77]

    Heet al., Phys

    Y . Heet al., Phys. Rev. C106, 044904 (2022), arXiv:2201.08408

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  78. [78]

    Tachibana, N.-B

    Y . Tachibana, N.-B. Chang, and G.-Y . Qin, Phys. Rev. C95, 044909 (2017), arXiv:1701.07951

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  79. [79]

    Casalderrey-Solana, D

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. Gulhan, G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, JHEP03, 135 (2017), arXiv:1609.05842

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  80. [80]

    Kunnawalkam Elayavalli and K

    R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli and K. C. Zapp, JHEP07, 141 (2017), arXiv:1707.01539

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

Showing first 80 references.