Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 77 references

The paper reports the first measurements of the three lowest Upsilon states in oxygen-oxygen collisions and the two lowest in neon-neon collisions, finding that the excited states are strongly suppressed relative to the ground state, with t

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

2026-08-02 03:46 UTC pith:HXKL4SDQ

load-bearing objection First Upsilon(nS) double ratios in OO and NeNe are a solid new data point; the sequential-suppression interpretation is a conditional because the CNM cancellation claim is under-supported. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13758 v1 pith:HXKL4SDQ submitted 2026-07-15 nucl-ex hep-exnucl-th

Evidence for sequential Upsilon(nS) suppression in light ion collisions

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification nucl-ex hep-exnucl-th PACS 25.75.Nq
keywords quarkonium suppressionbottomoniumUpsilon statesoxygen-oxygen collisionsneon-neon collisionsquark-gluon plasmasequential suppressiondouble ratios
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 reports the first measurements of the three lowest-energy Upsilon states in oxygen-oxygen collisions, and the two lowest in neon-neon, at a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 5.36 TeV. Using double ratios of excited-to-ground-state yields relative to proton-proton collisions, the authors find that the Upsilon(2S) and Upsilon(3S) yields are significantly suppressed, and that the Upsilon(3S) is suppressed relative to the Upsilon(2S) by more than three standard deviations. This constitutes the first evidence for sequential Upsilon suppression in light ion collisions. The pattern matches what is seen in lead-lead and gold-gold collisions, suggesting that final-state medium effects, such as a quark-gluon plasma, can emerge in very small collision systems.

Core claim

The central claim is that in oxygen-oxygen collisions the double ratios D21 = 0.664 ± 0.055 ± 0.007, D31 = 0.392 ± 0.077 ± 0.023, and D32 = 0.59 ± 0.12 ± 0.04 are all below unity, with D21 and D31 deviating by more than five standard deviations and D32 by 3.2 standard deviations. In neon-neon collisions, D21 = 0.27 ± 0.12 ± 0.01 is even lower. The authors argue that these ratios, which cancel common uncertainties and initial-state effects, isolate final-state dissociation of the more weakly bound excited states, providing evidence for sequential suppression in systems with on average about ten participating nucleons.

What carries the argument

The key observable is the double ratio D_nm = (Y(nS)/Y(mS))_AA / (Y(nS)/Y(mS))_pp, where n,m denote the Upsilon states. Constructing the ratio of the nucleus-nucleus single ratio to the proton-proton single ratio cancels experimental uncertainties and cold-nuclear-matter effects that affect all Upsilon states alike, leaving a clean probe of state-dependent, final-state suppression. The hierarchy of binding energies — 1.10, 0.54, and 0.20 GeV for the 1S, 2S, and 3S states — is what makes 'sequential' suppression observable: the more weakly bound states should dissolve earlier in a hot medium.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that cold-nuclear-matter effects and feed-down contributions affect all three Upsilon states equally, so that any deficit in the double ratios can be attributed to final-state medium effects; if these effects are state-dependent, the observed pattern could arise without a quark-gluon plasma.

What would settle it

A measurement of the Upsilon(nS) double ratios in proton-lead (or proton-oxygen) collisions at the same energy, where a hot medium is less likely, that shows the same deficit would falsify the final-state interpretation. More straightforwardly, if the D32 significance drops below 3 sigma with additional oxygen-oxygen data, the claimed 'first evidence' for sequential suppression would be weakened.

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

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, quark-gluon plasma signatures do not require large fireballs; systems with only about 10 participating nucleons can produce the same sequential pattern as lead-lead.
  • The compatibility of D32 between oxygen-oxygen and lead-lead collisions suggests that the dissociation of the most weakly bound state is governed by similar medium conditions, not by total volume.
  • The measured suppression is stronger than current hydrodynamic-plus-dissociation model predictions, indicating that the underlying dissociation mechanisms are not fully captured.
  • The neon-neon D21 value being lower than oxygen-oxygen provides a new handle on how suppression scales with system size among light ions.
  • These results provide a bridge between proton-lead and lead-lead measurements, constraining models of bottomonium production across system sizes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If state-dependent cold-nuclear-matter effects (e.g., different nPDF modifications or feed-down for excited states) are later found to be sizable, the double-ratio interpretation would need revision; a measurement of the same states in proton-nucleus collisions at 5.36 TeV would provide a direct check.
  • The apparent pT-independence of D32, if confirmed with more statistics, would suggest that the suppression is dominated by the medium's early-time temperature rather than by energy-loss or formation-time effects.
  • One could test the 'small-system QGP' interpretation by measuring elliptic flow of the Upsilon states themselves in oxygen-oxygen collisions; a positive signal would tie the suppression to a thermalized medium.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the first measurements of the Upsilon(1S), Upsilon(2S), and Upsilon(3S) states in oxygen-oxygen collisions and of the Upsilon(1S,2S) states in neon-neon collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=5.36 TeV, using a pp reference at the same energy. The analysis is based on dimuon invariant mass fits, acceptance/efficiency corrections, and standard systematic variations. The central results are the double ratios D21=0.664+/-0.055+/-0.007, D31=0.392+/-0.077+/-0.023, and D32=0.59+/-0.12+/-0.04 in OO, and D21=0.27+/-0.12+/-0.01 in NeNe. The paper interprets the OO ratios, especially the 3.2-sigma D32 deficit, as evidence for sequential Upsilon(nS) suppression in small symmetric collision systems, compares the results with pPb and PbPb measurements and with the SHINCHON model, and reports multiplicity and pT differential trends.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the OO D32 deficit is the first indication that Upsilon(3S) is suppressed relative to Upsilon(2S) in light-ion collisions, extending the sequential-suppression pattern to systems with Npart of order 10. The experimental analysis is careful, the values are stated with separated statistical and systematic uncertainties, and the quoted significances are internally consistent with the reported numbers: D21 is about 6.1 sigma, D31 about 7.6 sigma, and D32 about 3.2 sigma below unity. The paper is appropriately cautious in calling D32 'evidence' rather than 'observation.' The primary weakness is that the final-state interpretation rests on the premise that initial-state nuclear effects cancel in D_nm because they affect all Upsilon(nS) states similarly; this premise is not quantitatively supported and is load-bearing for the central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, D_nm definition] The statement that D_nm and S_nm cancel initial-state nuclear effects 'expected to modify all of the Upsilon(nS) states similarly [49]' is load-bearing for the conclusion. Reference [49] is a coherent-photoproduction measurement and does not address hadroproduction cold-nuclear-matter effects. nPDF shadowing/anti-shadowing, coherent energy loss, and state-dependent feed-down can leave a state-dependent contribution in D_nm. The paper itself later, in the multiplicity paragraph, acknowledges 'possible differences in feed-down contributions.' Since D32 is only 3.2 sigma from unity, a modest state-dependent CNM correction could move it to unity. Please provide a quantitative bound on state-dependent CNM (e.g., from pPb double ratios or nPDF calculations) or explicitly weaken the final-state conclusion.
  2. [Figure 3 / SHINCHON comparison] The SHINCHON comparison is invoked as support for a final-state interpretation, but the model description given in the text contains no CNM component. The paper states that the calculation 'significantly underestimates the measured suppression,' but the gap is of the same order as the size of a CNM contribution that would be needed to explain the data. This comparison therefore does not close the loophole identified in the D_nm definition. The summary statement that these observables 'isolate final-state medium effects' is too strong. The manuscript should either add state-dependent CNM to the model comparison or state that the data are consistent with, but do not uniquely require, QGP-driven sequential suppression.
  3. [Results, NeNe D21] The measured NeNe D21 = 0.27 +/- 0.12 +/- 0.01 is quoted as 3.0 standard deviations lower than the OO D21 = 0.664. This is a striking difference between two small symmetric systems and is not discussed beyond the quoted significance. If taken at face value it complicates the 'clear hierarchy' in Fig. 2 and the system-size narrative. The authors should quantify the consistency between OO and NeNe with correlated systematics treated explicitly, and discuss whether the difference bears on the state-independence assumption for CNM effects.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract says 'The Upsilon(2S)/Upsilon(1S) ratio is found to be significantly below the measured pp reference value' without specifying the collision system. Since the OO and NeNe values differ substantially, this should be made explicit for both systems.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The text says the right panel presents pT-differential D21, D31, and D32, but the figure caption only names D32. Please make the caption consistent with the content of the panel.
  3. [Systematics paragraph] The systematic uncertainty ranges are useful, but a compact table listing all integrated and differential D_nm and S_nm values with statistical and systematic uncertainties would improve readability and reproducibility.
  4. [NeNe significance] The 3.0-standard-deviation difference between NeNe and OO D21 should state explicitly how the uncertainty was combined (statistical and systematic, with or without correlations between the two measurements) so that the claim is reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the double ratios are direct data ratios against an external pp baseline, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The central observables D_nm are defined directly as ratios of measured yields in AA collisions divided by the same ratio measured in a separately collected pp reference at the same collision energy (Eq. 1), so they are raw data products rather than outputs of a fitted model. The pp baseline is an external reference, not constructed from the AA data, and the paper explicitly reports the statistical and systematic uncertainties propagating from both samples. The claim of sequential suppression is a significance statement about the measured D21, D31, and D32 values being below unity, not a prediction obtained from a parameter fitted to those values. The only model comparison, SHINCHON, is an independent calculation that is compared with, not fitted to, the data; the model significantly underestimates the measured suppression, which is the opposite of a circular agreement. The assumption that initial-state nuclear effects modify all Upsilon(nS) states similarly is a physical premise used in interpreting the double ratio, but it is not derived from the data it is used to explain; the paper even acknowledges possible feed-down differences in the multiplicity-dependent discussion and notes that event activity alone does not fully determine suppression. The in-text caveats are therefore explicit assumptions, not hidden equivalences. There are numerous self-citations, but they are used for apparatus, previous measurements, and luminosity, not as the load-bearing justification for the central result. The cited reference [49] attached to the CNM-cancellation sentence concerns coherent Upsilon(1S) photoproduction and does not by itself establish the state-independence premise; this is a weakness in the support for a stated assumption, not a circular step. No equation reduces to another by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The measurement uses no fitted physics parameters; corrections are data-driven (MC pT reweighting, tag-and-probe scale factors) and the only model (SHINCHON) is external and disagrees with the data.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Cold nuclear matter and initial-state effects modify all Upsilon(nS) yields similarly, so they cancel in the double ratios D_nm.
    Invoked in the definition of D_nm and the stated cancellation of initial-state nuclear effects; if CNM effects are state-dependent, the attribution to final-state/QGP suppression is weakened.
  • domain assumption Upsilon production in simulations can be treated as unpolarized, with pT spectra reweighted to data.
    MC acceptance and efficiency depend on the assumed polarization and pT shape; the paper cites polarization measurements and reweights to data, but residual mismodeling enters the yield correction.
  • domain assumption Detector simulation (GEANT4), event generators (PYTHIA8, HIJING), and tag-and-probe scale factors accurately describe dimuon trigger, reconstruction, and selection efficiencies.
    All yields are corrected using simulation-derived acceptances and efficiencies; any unaccounted data-MC difference propagates to the double ratios.
  • domain assumption The background shape (error function times exponential, or Chebyshev alternative) correctly models the continuum under the Upsilon resonances.
    Signal yields depend on the background model; systematic variations are tested, but a common wrong shape would bias all ratios.
  • domain assumption The MC Glauber model provides a valid estimate of Npart for OO and NeNe collisions.
    Used to place the measurements on a system-size axis; geometry uncertainties are not propagated into the quoted D_nm uncertainties.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 34193 in / 14136 out tokens · 133797 ms · 2026-08-02T03:46:54.282582+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Bound states of heavy quark-antiquark pairs, known as quarkonia, have long been regarded as particularly sensitive probes of the quark-gluon plasma (QGP). Comparing quarkonium yields in collisions of heavy nuclei, such as gold or lead, with a proton-proton (pp) reference reveals a characteristic pattern of sequential suppression, in which weakly-bound excited states are more strongly suppressed than the ground states. We report the first measurements of the three lowest mass $\mathrm{S}$-wave vector bottomonium resonances, the ground state $\Upsilon$(1S) and the excited states $\Upsilon$(2S) and $\Upsilon$(3S), in oxygen-oxygen collisions at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.36 TeV. Measurements of the yields of the $\Upsilon$(1S) and $\Upsilon$(2S) resonances in neon-neon collisions, at the same $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$, are also presented. The $\Upsilon$(2S)/$\Upsilon$(1S) ratio is found to be significantly below the measured pp reference value, and the $\Upsilon$(3S)/$\Upsilon$(1S) ratio shows an even larger reduction. The significance of the relative $\Upsilon$(3S) to $\Upsilon$(2S) suppression exceeds three standard deviations. These results provide evidence for the sequential suppression of $\Upsilon$(nS) states in light ion collisions, similar to observations made in lead-lead and gold-gold collisions, generally attributed to the presence of a QGP medium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13758 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Muon pair invariant mass distributions in pp (left), OO (middle), and NeNe (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The measured double ratios D21 and D31 for pPb [26], OO, NeNe, and PbPb [19, 20] collisions (left), exhibiting a clear hierarchy that evolves with increasing system size. The ra￾pidity yCM is defined in the center-of-mass (CM) frame. The double ratios are separately shown as a function of ⟨Npart⟩ (right), and are compared with previous PbPb [21, 22] measurements performed at the LHC. For visibility purpose… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The single ratios S21 and S31 as a function of Ncorr trk (left), overlaid with LHC measure￾ments in pp [75] and PbPb [19, 20] collisions. Measured double ratios D32 (right) as a function of the muon pair pT in OO and PbPb [19, 20] collisions, with the two points at the far right showing the pT -integrated values for pT < 30 GeV and |y| < 2.4. For OO collisions, predictions obtained with the SHINCHON framew… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Personal memories of 50 years of quarkonia

    J. Ellis, “Personal memories of 50 years of quarkonia”,Nucl. Phys. B1018(2025) 117062, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.117062,arXiv:2506.10643

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    The search for the quark-gluon plasma

    J. W. Harris and B. Muller, “The search for the quark-gluon plasma”,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.46(1996) 71,doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.46.1.71, arXiv:hep-ph/9602235

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  3. [3]

    J/ψsuppression by quark-gluon plasma formation

    T. Matsui and H. Satz, “J/ψsuppression by quark-gluon plasma formation”,Phys. Lett. B 178(1986) 416,doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)91404-8

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)91404-8 1986

  4. [4]

    Quarkonia and deconfined quark-gluon matter in heavy ion collisions

    A. Andronic and R. Arnaldi, “Quarkonia and deconfined quark-gluon matter in heavy ion collisions”,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.75(2025) 351, doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-121423-101041,arXiv:2501.08290. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Heavy quarks and jets as probes of the QGP

    L. Apolin ´ario, Y.-J. Lee, and M. Winn, “Heavy quarks and jets as probes of the QGP”, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.127(2022) 103990,doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103990, arXiv:2203.16352

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Enhanced J/ψproduction in deconfined quark matter

    R. L. Thews, M. Schroedter, and J. Rafelski, “Enhanced J/ψproduction in deconfined quark matter”,Phys. Rev. C63(2001) 054905,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.63.054905, arXiv:hep-ph/0007323

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    (Non)thermal aspects of charmonium production and a new look at J/ψsuppression

    P . Braun-Munzinger and J. Stachel, “(Non)thermal aspects of charmonium production and a new look at J/ψsuppression”,Phys. Lett. B490(2000) 196, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00991-6,arXiv:nucl-th/0007059

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  8. [8]

    Color screening and regeneration of bottomonia in high-energy heavy ion collisions

    X. Du, M. He, and R. Rapp, “Color screening and regeneration of bottomonia in high-energy heavy ion collisions”,Phys. Rev. C96(2017) 054901, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.96.054901,arXiv:1706.08670

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    Coupled Boltzmann transport equations of heavy quarks and quarkonia in quark-gluon plasma

    X. Yao et al., “Coupled Boltzmann transport equations of heavy quarks and quarkonia in quark-gluon plasma”,JHEP01(2021) 046,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2021)046, arXiv:2004.06746

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Regeneration of bottomonia in an open quantum systems approach

    N. Brambilla et al., “Regeneration of bottomonia in an open quantum systems approach”,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) L011502,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.L011502, arXiv:2302.11826

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Bottomonium transport in a strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma

    B. Wu and R. Rapp, “Bottomonium transport in a strongly coupled quark-gluon plasma”, Phys. Lett. B873(2026) 140223,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2026.140223, arXiv:2508.20995

    arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Hadronic versus partonic J/ψproduction in the statistical hadronization model

    P . B. Bahavar, J. Uphoff, and C. Greiner, “Hadronic versus partonic J/ψproduction in the statistical hadronization model”,Phys. Rev. C90(2014) 061901, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.90.061901,arXiv:1404.4517

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  13. [13]

    Statistical hadronization of b quarks in PbPb collisions at LHC energy: a case for partial equilibration of b quarks?

    A. Andronic, P . Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, “Statistical hadronization of b quarks in PbPb collisions at LHC energy: a case for partial equilibration of b quarks?”, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp.16(2023) 1,doi:10.5506/APhysPolBSupp.16.1-A107, arXiv:2209.14562

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Comparative study of quarkonium transport in hot QCD matter

    A. Andronic et al., “Comparative study of quarkonium transport in hot QCD matter”, Eur. Phys. J. A60(2024) 88,doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01306-6, arXiv:2402.04366

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Review of particle physics

    Particle Data Group, S. Navas et al., “Review of particle physics”,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 030001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  16. [16]

    Overview of high-density QCD studies with the CMS experiment at the LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Overview of high-density QCD studies with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,Phys. Rept.1115(2025) 219,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.11.007, arXiv:2405.10785

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Indications of suppression of excitedΥstates in PbPb collisions at√sNN =2.76 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Indications of suppression of excitedΥstates in PbPb collisions at√sNN =2.76 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.107(2011) 052302, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.052302,arXiv:1105.4894

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  18. [18]

    Observation of sequentialΥsuppression in PbPb collisions

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of sequentialΥsuppression in PbPb collisions”,Phys. Rev. Lett.109(2012) 222301,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.222301, arXiv:1208.2826. [Erratum:doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.199903]. References 9

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  19. [19]

    Measurement of nuclear modification factors ofΥ (1S),Υ (2S), and Υ(3S) mesons in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of nuclear modification factors ofΥ (1S),Υ (2S), and Υ(3S) mesons in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B790(2019) 270, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.01.006,arXiv:1805.09215

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Observation of theΥ (3S) meson and suppression ofΥstates in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of theΥ (3S) meson and suppression ofΥstates in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) 022302, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.022302,arXiv:2303.17026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Υproduction and nuclear modification at forward rapidity in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “Υproduction and nuclear modification at forward rapidity in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B822(2021) 136579, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136579,arXiv:2011.05758

    arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Production ofΥ(nS) mesons in PbPb and pp collisions at 5.02 TeV

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Production ofΥ(nS) mesons in PbPb and pp collisions at 5.02 TeV”,Phys. Rev. C107(2023) 054912,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.054912, arXiv:2205.03042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Observation of sequentialΥsuppression in AuAu collisions at√sNN =200 GeV with the STAR experiment

    STAR Collaboration, “Observation of sequentialΥsuppression in AuAu collisions at√sNN =200 GeV with the STAR experiment”,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 112301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.112301,arXiv:2207.06568

    arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Υproduction in pPb collisions at √sNN =8.16 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “Υproduction in pPb collisions at √sNN =8.16 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B 806(2020) 135486,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135486,arXiv:1910.14405

    arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Measurement of quarkonium production in pPb and pp collisions at 5.02 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of quarkonium production in pPb and pp collisions at 5.02 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 171, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5624-4,arXiv:1709.03089

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Nuclear modification ofΥstates in pPb collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Nuclear modification ofΥstates in pPb collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B835(2022) 137397, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137397,arXiv:2202.11807

    arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Study ofΥproduction in pPb collisions at √sNN =8.16 TeV

    LHCb Collaboration, “Study ofΥproduction in pPb collisions at √sNN =8.16 TeV”, JHEP11(2018) 194,doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2018)194,arXiv:1810.07655. [Erratum:doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2020)093]

    arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Bottomonia in the quark gluon plasma and their production at RHIC and LHC

    A. Emerick, X. Zhao, and R. Rapp, “Bottomonia in the quark gluon plasma and their production at RHIC and LHC”,Eur. Phys. J. A48(2012) 72, doi:10.1140/epja/i2012-12072-y,arXiv:1111.6537

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  29. [29]

    Does quarkonia suppression serve as a probe for the deconfinement in small systems?

    P . Bagchi, A. Das, and A. P . Mishra, “Does quarkonia suppression serve as a probe for the deconfinement in small systems?”,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 014017, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.014017,arXiv:2310.12267

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Possible formation of QGP-droplets in proton-proton collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider

    R. Sahoo, “Possible formation of QGP-droplets in proton-proton collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”,AAPPS Bull.29(2019) 16, doi:10.22661/AAPPSBL.2019.29.4.16,arXiv:1908.10566

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    Smallest drop of QGP: thermodynamic properties of pPb collisions

    F. G. Gardim, R. Krupczak, and T. N. da Silva, “Smallest drop of QGP: thermodynamic properties of pPb collisions”,Phys. Rev. C109(2024) 014904, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.014904,arXiv:2212.11710

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Searching for QGP droplets with high-pT hadrons and heavy flavor

    W. Ke and I. Vitev, “Searching for QGP droplets with high-pT hadrons and heavy flavor”, Phys. Rev. C107(2023) 064903,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.064903, arXiv:2204.00634. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Disentangling centrality bias and final-state effects in the production of high-pT neutral pions using direct photon in d+Au collisions at√sNN =200 GeV

    PHENIX Collaboration, “Disentangling centrality bias and final-state effects in the production of high-pT neutral pions using direct photon in d+Au collisions at√sNN =200 GeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 022302, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.022302,arXiv:2303.12899

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Is bottomonium suppression in proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions at LHC energies due to the same effects?

    E. G. Ferreiro and J.-P . Lansberg, “Is bottomonium suppression in proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions at LHC energies due to the same effects?”,JHEP10(2018) 094,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2018)094,arXiv:1804.04474. [Erratum: doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2019)063]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Event activity dependence of relative Y(nS) production in pPb collisions at 8.16 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Event activity dependence of relative Y(nS) production in pPb collisions at 8.16 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-HIN-25-005, 2026

    2026

  36. [36]

    Charting the luminosity capabilities of the CERN Large Hadron Collider with various nuclear species

    E. Waagaard et al., “Charting the luminosity capabilities of the CERN Large Hadron Collider with various nuclear species”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1083(2026) 171118, doi:10.1016/j.nima.2025.171118,arXiv:2508.19653

    arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Opportunities of OO and pO collisions at the LHC

    J. Brewer, A. Mazeliauskas, and W. van der Schee, “Opportunities of OO and pO collisions at the LHC”, inOpportunities of OO and pO collisions at the LHC. 2021. arXiv:2103.01939

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Evidence of nuclear geometry-driven anisotropic flow in OO and NeNe collisions at √sNN =5.36 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “Evidence of nuclear geometry-driven anisotropic flow in OO and NeNe collisions at √sNN =5.36 TeV”, 2025.arXiv:2509.06428. Submitted toPhys. Rev. Lett

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Measurement of the azimuthal anisotropy of charged particles in√sNN =5.36 TeV 16O+ 16O and 20Ne+ 20Ne collisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the azimuthal anisotropy of charged particles in√sNN =5.36 TeV 16O+ 16O and 20Ne+ 20Ne collisions with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. C113(2026) 045205,doi:10.1103/xqxz-8bhf,arXiv:2509.05171

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Observation of long-range collective flow in OO and NeNe collisions and implications for nuclear structure studies

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of long-range collective flow in OO and NeNe collisions and implications for nuclear structure studies”, 2025.arXiv:2510.02580. Accepted byPhys. Rev. Lett

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Observation of suppressed charged-particle production in ultrarelativistic oxygen-oxygen collisions

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of suppressed charged-particle production in ultrarelativistic oxygen-oxygen collisions”,Phys. Rev. Lett.136(2026) 162301, doi:10.1103/89sf-9t1x,arXiv:2510.09864

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    System-size dependence of charged-particle suppression in ultrarelativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions

    CMS Collaboration, “System-size dependence of charged-particle suppression in ultrarelativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions”, 2026.arXiv:2602.21325. Accepted by Phys. Lett. B

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Study of nuclear effects on charm production in light ion collisions

    LHCb Collaboration, “Study of nuclear effects on charm production in light ion collisions”, 2026.arXiv:2605.27273. Preprint

    arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Centrality dependence of charged-hadron pseudorapidity distributions in oxygen-oxygen collisions at √sNN =5.36 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Centrality dependence of charged-hadron pseudorapidity distributions in oxygen-oxygen collisions at √sNN =5.36 TeV”, 2026. arXiv:2606.02285. Submitted toPhys. Lett. B

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    Evidence for parton energy loss in oxygen-oxygen collisions at√sNN =5.36 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “Evidence for parton energy loss in oxygen-oxygen collisions at√sNN =5.36 TeV”, 2026.arXiv:2606.19967. Submitted toPhys. Rev. Lett

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    Measurements of charged-particle pseudorapidity and transverse momentum distributions in OO and NeNe collisions at √sNN =5.36 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurements of charged-particle pseudorapidity and transverse momentum distributions in OO and NeNe collisions at √sNN =5.36 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, 2026.arXiv:2606.20257. Submitted toPhys. Rev. C. References 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Observation of centrality-dependent dijet transverse momentum imbalance in OO and NeNe collisions at √sNN =5.36 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of centrality-dependent dijet transverse momentum imbalance in OO and NeNe collisions at √sNN =5.36 TeV with the ATLAS detector”, 2026.arXiv:2606.20463. Submitted toPhys. Rev. Lett

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    Luminosity measurement for lead-lead collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV in 2015 and 2018 at CMS

    CMS Collaboration, “Luminosity measurement for lead-lead collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV in 2015 and 2018 at CMS”, 2025.arXiv:2503.03946. Submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [49]

    Observation of nuclear suppression in coherentΥ (1S) photoproduction off heavy nuclei at the LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of nuclear suppression in coherentΥ (1S) photoproduction off heavy nuclei at the LHC”, 2026.arXiv:2604.05814. Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Suppression of excitedΥstates relative to the ground state in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Suppression of excitedΥstates relative to the ground state in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 142301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.142301,arXiv:1706.05984

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    HEPData record for this analysis

    CMS Collaboration, “HEPData record for this analysis”, 2026. doi:10.17182/hepdata.180655

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.180655 2026

  52. [52]

    The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST3(2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008

  53. [53]

    Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3

    CMS Collaboration, “Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3”, JINST19(2024) P05064,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05064, arXiv:2309.05466

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Performance of the CMS level-1 trigger in pp collisions at√s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS level-1 trigger in pp collisions at√s=13 TeV”,JINST15(2020) P10017,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10017, arXiv:2006.10165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    The CMS trigger system

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,JINST12(2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020,arXiv:1609.02366

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  56. [56]

    Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in pp collisions at √s=8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in pp collisions at √s=8 TeV”,JINST10(2015) P06005, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/10/06/P06005,arXiv:1502.02701

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  57. [57]

    Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with pp collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with pp collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P06015, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015,arXiv:1804.04528

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  58. [58]

    Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS detector in pp collisions at √s=8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS detector in pp collisions at √s=8 TeV”,JINST10(2015) P08010, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/10/08/P08010,arXiv:1502.02702

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  59. [59]

    Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker

    CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,JINST9(2014) P10009, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009,arXiv:1405.6569

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [60]

    Technical proposal for the Phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid

    CMS Collaboration, “Technical proposal for the Phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid”, CMS Technical Proposal CERN-LHCC-2015-010, CMS-TDR-15-02, CERN, 2015. 12

    2015

  61. [61]

    Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,JINST12(2017) P10003,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

    Performance of CMS muon reconstruction from pp to heavy ion collisions

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of CMS muon reconstruction from pp to heavy ion collisions”,JINST19(2024) P09012,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/09/P09012, arXiv:2404.17377

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage ofPYTHIA8.3

    C. Bierlich et al., “A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage ofPYTHIA8.3”, SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022(2022) 8,doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8, arXiv:2203.11601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    Extraction and validation of a new set of CMSPYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMSPYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 4, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4,arXiv:1903.12179

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  65. [65]

    Measurement of theΥ (1S),Υ (2S), andΥ (3S) polarizations in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of theΥ (1S),Υ (2S), andΥ (3S) polarizations in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.110(2013) 081802, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.081802,arXiv:1209.2922

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  66. [66]

    Υ(nS)polarizations versus particle multiplicity in pp collisions at√s=7 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Υ(nS)polarizations versus particle multiplicity in pp collisions at√s=7 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B761(2016) 31,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.065, arXiv:1603.02913

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    Measurement of theΥpolarizations in pp collisions at √s=7 and 8 TeV

    LHCb Collaboration, “Measurement of theΥpolarizations in pp collisions at √s=7 and 8 TeV”,JHEP12(2017) 110,doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2017)110,arXiv:1709.01301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [68]

    First measurement of quarkonium polarization in nuclear collisions at the LHC

    ALICE Collaboration, “First measurement of quarkonium polarization in nuclear collisions at the LHC”,Phys. Lett. B815(2021) 136146, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136146,arXiv:2005.11128

    arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    Measurement of the azimuthal anisotropy ofΥ (1S) andΥ (2S) mesons in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the azimuthal anisotropy ofΥ (1S) andΥ (2S) mesons in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B819(2021) 136385, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136385,arXiv:2006.07707

    arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    HIJING: a Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in pp, pPb and AA collisions

    X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, “HIJING: a Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in pp, pPb and AA collisions”,Phys. Rev. D44(1991) 3501, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.44.3501

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.44.3501 1991

  71. [71]

    GEANT4—a simulation toolkit

    GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250,doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003

  72. [72]

    A study of the reactionsψ ′ →γγψ

    M. J. Oreglia, “A study of the reactionsψ ′ →γγψ”. PhD thesis, Stanford University,

  73. [73]

    Charmonium spectroscopy from radiative decays of the J/ψandψ ′

    J. E. Gaiser, “Charmonium spectroscopy from radiative decays of the J/ψandψ ′”. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1982. SLAC Report SLAC-R-255

    1982

  74. [74]

    Glauber predictions for oxygen and neon collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider

    C. Loizides, “Glauber predictions for oxygen and neon collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”,Phys. Rev. C113(2026) 014914, doi:10.1103/mkp8-zgxh,arXiv:2507.05853

    arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

    Investigation into the event-activity dependence ofΥ (nS) relative production in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Investigation into the event-activity dependence ofΥ (nS) relative production in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV”,JHEP11(2020) 001, doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2020)001,arXiv:2007.04277. References 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  76. [76]

    Model study onΥ (nS) modification in small collision systems

    J. Kim et al., “Model study onΥ (nS) modification in small collision systems”,Phys. Rev. C107(2023) 054905,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.054905,arXiv:2209.12303. 14 15 A The CMS Collaboration Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia A. Belyaev , A. Gevorgyan , A. Hayrapetyan, A. Tumasyan1 Institut f ¨ ur Hochenergiephysik, Vienna, Austria P .S. Hussain , M....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  77. [1980]

    SLAC Report SLAC-R-236