Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Jet substructure data constrain the quark-gluon plasma resolution length to a finite, nonzero scale.

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 ↗

Jet substructure measurements from ALICE and ATLAS, modeled with the Hybrid Model, disfavor both fully coherent and fully incoherent energy loss, implying a finite QGP resolution length near 1/(pi T).

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection Model-dependent but honest attempt to bound QGP resolution length from below; the exclusion of L_res=0 is plausible but relies on the Hybrid Model's sharp-coherence ansatz. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.08881 v1 pith:KOYN7TYG submitted 2025-09-10 hep-ph nucl-exnucl-th

Constraining the Resolution Length of Quark-Gluon Plasma with New Jet Substructure Measurements

Arjun Srinivasan Kudinoor , Daniel Pablos , Krishna Rajagopal This is my paper
classification hep-ph nucl-exnucl-th PACS 25.75.-q13.87.-a
keywords quark-gluon plasmajet suppressionjet substructureresolution lengthsoft drophard grouphybrid modelheavy-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 reading

Recent measurements of how jets lose energy in heavy-ion collisions can now constrain a fundamental property of the quark-gluon plasma: the resolution length L_res, the minimum separation at which the plasma treats two partons as independent color charges. The paper shows, using Hybrid Model calculations, that ALICE data on the Soft Drop angle rule out fully coherent energy loss (L_res = ∞), while ATLAS data on the dR_12 observable rule out fully incoherent energy loss (L_res = 0). The data prefer a finite, nonzero resolution length L_res ~ (1–2)/(πT), comparable to the Debye screening length. This is the first time jet substructure measurements bracket the resolution length from both above and below.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the QGP resolution length L_res — the separation above which the plasma resolves two partons as independent color charges — is neither zero nor infinite. Using Hybrid Model calculations, the ALICE measurement of the scaled Soft Drop angle θ_g for R=0.2 jets rules out fully coherent energy loss (L_res = ∞), and the ATLAS measurement of R_AA as a function of dR_12 for large-radius jets built from skinny subjets rules out fully incoherent energy loss (L_res = 0). The model matches the data when L_res ≈ (1–2)/(πT), comparable to the Debye screening length, and the authors show that this conclusion cannot be reproduced by changes in quark-versus-gluon jet fractio

What carries the argument

The resolving power comes from the resolution length L_res implemented in the Hybrid Model: two daughter partons lose energy coherently, as a single object, until their separation exceeds L_res, after which they lose energy independently. The paper's discriminating observables are the Soft Drop angle θ_g (ALICE), the Hard Group angle ΔR_12 (ATLAS), and the combined dR_12 (ATLAS), which span a wide range of angular separations between subjets. The suppression R_AA as a function of these angles has a characteristic shape that depends on L_res, allowing the data to exclude both extremes.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the Hybrid Model's specific mapping between parton separation and the transition from coherent to independent energy loss; if that mapping is not faithful to real plasma physics, the exclusion of L_res = 0 could be an artifact of the model rather than a property of QGP.

What would settle it

A calculation of R_AA versus dR_12 that includes elastic scattering and uses a different energy-loss implementation, compared to the same ATLAS data; if it reproduces the data with L_res = 0, the claim that L_res is nonzero would be falsified.

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

If this is right

  • Fully incoherent energy-loss models (L_res = 0) are disfavored by the ATLAS dR_12 measurement, so jet quenching calculations should incorporate a nonzero resolution scale.
  • Fully coherent energy loss (L_res = ∞) is ruled out, confirming that the plasma resolves jet substructure.
  • The preferred L_res ≈ (1–2)/(πT) is consistent with color-screening expectations, supporting a strongly coupled picture of QGP.
  • Substructure-dependent jet suppression can now be used to extract L_res and the coupling κ_sc from data via Bayesian methods.
  • The same Soft Drop and Hard Group observables can be applied to photon-jet and Z-jet events to reduce selection bias and sharpen the constraint.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the finite-L_res constraint holds, then the energy loss of a jet depends on its entire angular profile, not just its total energy; this could be probed by comparing R_AA of jets with identical p_T but very different opening angles.
  • The model's current neglect of elastic scattering means the preferred L_res range may shift once elastic collisions are included; the paper itself notes the CMS Lund-plane data favor L_res = 0, so a unified description across all observables may require additional physics ingredients.
  • The dR_12 observable could be pushed to even smaller angles with higher statistics, potentially distinguishing L_res = 1/(πT) from 2/(πT) and checking whether L_res scales with local temperature as 1/T.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This Letter uses the Hybrid Model, with a parton-shower resolution length L_res implemented as in Ref. [7], to compare with ALICE scaled soft-drop angle theta_g measurements and ATLAS dR12 suppression measurements. Four values of L_res are considered (0, 1/(pi T), 2/(pi T), and infinity), with kappa_sc retuned for each nonzero L_res so that the inclusive 100–200 GeV jet suppression matches the L_res = 0 calculation. The authors find that L_res = infinity is ruled out by both the ALICE theta_g shape and the ATLAS dR12 shape, that L_res = 0 is ruled out by the ATLAS dR12 shape, and that L_res ~ 1–2/(pi T) is preferred. A supplement argues that quark/gluon fraction changes alone cannot explain the dR12 dependence.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is the first experimental indication that the QGP resolution length is nonzero and finite, with a scale near the Debye screening length. The paper is commendably explicit about its own limitations: it reports that the CMS Lund-plane measurement appears to favor L_res = 0 and that elastic scattering is not incorporated in the model. The shape comparison is not circular, since kappa_sc is retuned per L_res scenario rather than fitted to the dR12 observable used for the conclusion. However, the absence of a quantitative goodness-of-fit statistic and the model-dependence of the L_res implementation leave the central 'rules out L_res = 0' claim conditional. The paper's contribution is valuable, but the strength of the abstract exceeds what the current analysis can establish.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2 / 'Constraining L_res with Soft Drop and Hard Group'] The central exclusion of L_res = 0 is based on a visual comparison. The text says 'Strikingly, the ATLAS data also rule out L_res = 0' and 'L_res = 2/(pi T) seems to fit the data somewhat better than L_res = 1/(pi T)', but no chi-square, likelihood, or uncertainty band is provided. Because the ATLAS data points carry sizable statistical and systematic uncertainties (shown as bars and boxes), a quantitative test is needed to support both the exclusion of L_res = 0 and the preference among finite values. Without such a test, 'agree best' is not an empirical statement. Please add a goodness-of-fit measure and, ideally, model uncertainty bands that include Monte Carlo statistics and kappa_sc variation.
  2. [Conclusion / L_res implementation from Ref. [7]] The exclusion of L_res = 0 hinges on the sharp-cutoff implementation of L_res from Ref. [7]: two partons become independent emitters only when separated by more than L_res, and each then loses energy with the same holographic formula. The discriminating dR12 region around 0.05–0.2 is generated by this abrupt switch. The manuscript itself flags two red flags: the CMS Lund-plane measurement appears to favor L_res = 0, and elastic scattering is not included. An independent implementation (e.g., a smooth resolution transition, an alternative energy-loss kernel, or inclusion of elastic contributions) is needed before the abstract's claim can be made as stated. At minimum, the abstract should be softened to match the Conclusion's statement that 'it is too soon to say that L_res = 0 is definitively ruled out', and a model-variation test should be added.
  3. [Hybrid Model section, kappa_sc matching] The text says that for nonzero L_res, kappa_sc is chosen so that the suppression of jets with 100–200 GeV matches the L_res = 0 calculation. However, the dR12 comparison in Fig. 2 is for 200 < pT < 251 GeV. The shape comparison therefore assumes that matching at 100–200 GeV controls the normalization at 200–251 GeV. This should be justified, or the matching should be performed at the pT of the observable being compared. In addition, no uncertainty on kappa_sc is propagated into the displayed curves.
  4. [Fig. 1 / ALICE theta_g comparison] The claim that the ALICE theta_g narrowing rules out L_res = infinity is also made without a quantitative comparison. The text acknowledges that the data do not discriminate among the finite L_res values, but the exclusion of infinity should be supported by the same kind of goodness-of-fit measure requested for Fig. 2, rather than by visual inspection alone.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Notation] The observable is sometimes called dR_12 and sometimes Delta R_12; define the notation once and use it consistently. Also, Eq. (2) is typeset in a garbled way; the normalized differential cross sections should be displayed cleanly, and R_AA should be defined explicitly before first use.
  2. [Figures] Figs. 1 and 2 show colored bands for the Hybrid Model calculations but do not state whether these bands include Monte Carlo statistical uncertainty, and if so, how it was estimated. Please clarify in the captions or text.
  3. [Reproducibility] The paper does not provide the numerical values of the ATLAS/ALICE data points or the calculated curves. An ancillary file with these numbers would aid reproduction and quantitative re-analysis.
  4. [Wording] The abstract says the ATLAS measurements are 'inconsistent with a picture of fully incoherent energy loss', while the Conclusion says it is 'too soon to say that L_res = 0 is definitively ruled out'. Please align the wording so that the abstract's strength matches the caveats in the body.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the L_res constraints come from fixed-L_res model predictions compared with external ATLAS/ALICE data, not from fitting the discriminating observables.

full rationale

The paper's central inferences—ALICE theta_g disfavoring L_res=infinity and ATLAS R_AA(dR12) disfavoring L_res=0—are drawn by computing Hybrid Model predictions at four fixed values of L_res and comparing the resulting shapes with published ALICE and ATLAS data. kappa_sc is not fitted to the discriminating observables: it is set to reproduce the inclusive suppression of 100-200 GeV jets for each L_res, so the dR12 and theta_g dependencies remain genuine predictions. No equation in the paper defines the predicted quantity in terms of the fitted input, and the paper even supplies an independent check showing that quark/gluon-fraction changes alone cannot reproduce the dR12 shape. The L_res implementation and energy-loss kernel originate in prior work by the same group, but the present comparisons are recalculated and confronted with external data; the citations are model provenance rather than a substitute for the data comparison. The sharp-cutoff nature of the L_res resolution, the omission of elastic scattering, and the CMS Lund-plane result that appears to favor L_res=0 are important model uncertainties that the paper itself flags in the Conclusion and Outlook, but they are correctness risks, not circularity. The derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on five model and normalization assumptions. The single adjustable parameter of the energy loss formula, kappa_sc, is retuned per L_res scenario to an inclusive suppression benchmark, and L_res itself is scanned only over discrete hand-picked values. No new particle or field entity is introduced; L_res is an existing model length scale from the same group's prior work. The most fragile assumptions are the L_res implementation and the omission of elastic scattering.

free parameters (5)
  • kappa_sc for L_res=0 = 0.404
    Fitted to inclusive jet and high-pT hadron suppression in prior work Ref [29].
  • kappa_sc for L_res=1/(pi T) = 0.434
    Chosen so inclusive suppression of 100-200 GeV jets matches the L_res=0 model, then the dR12 and theta_g shapes are compared.
  • kappa_sc for L_res=2/(pi T) = 0.447
    Same inclusive-normalization matching for the 2/(pi T) scenario.
  • kappa_sc for L_res=infinity = 0.475
    Same inclusive-normalization matching for the fully coherent scenario.
  • L_res candidate values = 0, 1/(pi T), 2/(pi T), infinity (no continuous extraction)
    The central parameter is scanned over four discrete values chosen by hand. The preferred range 1-2/(pi T) is asserted by visual agreement with data, not fitted with quantified uncertainties.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The holographic energy loss formula from N=4 SYM (stopping distance E_in^(1/3)/(2 kappa_sc T^(4/3))) describes the energy loss of each resolved parton in QGP.
    Invoked in 'The Hybrid Model' section via Refs [37,38]; applicability to strongly coupled QCD is assumed.
  • domain assumption Two partons separated by less than L_res lose energy as a single object and become independent energy losers only after separation exceeds L_res.
    Core implementation from Ref [7] by Hulcher, Pablos and Rajagopal; this mapping determines the dR12 dependence used to rule out L_res=0.
  • ad hoc to paper Matching the inclusive 100-200 GeV jet suppression across L_res scenarios by retuning kappa_sc is a valid way to isolate shape information.
    Stated in 'The Hybrid Model' section; no derivation or uncertainty is given for this renormalization.
  • domain assumption The QGP background is longitudinal boost invariant with small jet-induced perturbations, and wakes are described by the Cooper-Frye prescription.
    From Refs [28,40]; relevant for reconstruction, although the paper argues Soft Drop observables are insensitive to wake hadrons.
  • domain assumption Elastic scattering between jet partons and medium partons is omitted in the nonzero-L_res calculations.
    Stated in the conclusion. The paper says Lund-plane observables are sensitive to elastic scattering and that adding it is a priority. If elastic scattering changes the dR12 shape, the L_res inference shifts.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining the Resolution Length of Quark-Gluon Plasma with New Jet Substructure Measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KOYN7TYG

@misc{pith2026250908881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining the Resolution Length of Quark-Gluon Plasma with New Jet Substructure Measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KOYN7TYG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08881}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We show that recent measurements of substructure-dependent jet suppression constrain the value of the resolution length of the droplets of quark-gluon plasma (QGP) formed in heavy ion collisions. This resolution length, $L_{\rm res}$, is defined such that the medium can only resolve partons within a jet shower that are separated by more than $L_{\rm res}$. We first use Hybrid Model calculations to reproduce ALICE measurements of the scaled Soft Drop angle $\theta_g$ for anti-$k_t$ $R = 0.2$ jets reconstructed from charged-particle tracks. We find that the narrowing of the $\theta_g$-distribution in PbPb collisions compared to pp collisions that is seen in the ALICE data rules out a picture of fully coherent energy loss ($L_{\rm res} = \infty$) where each entire parton shower loses energy to the plasma as if it were a single unresolved colored object. We then use Hybrid Model calculations to reproduce ATLAS measurements of $dR_{12}$, the Soft Drop angle obtained by applying the Soft Drop grooming procedure to all charged-particle tracks in $R=1$ jets reconstructed from $R = 0.2$ skinny subjets. Our analysis demonstrates that the ATLAS measurements of $R_{\rm AA}$ for such $R = 1$ jets as a function of $dR_{12}$ are inconsistent with a picture of fully incoherent energy loss ($L_{\rm res} = 0$) in which every splitting in a parton shower is immediately resolved by the plasma. We find that our Hybrid Model calculations agree best with the ATLAS measurements if QGP has a finite, nonzero, resolution length $L_{\rm res}\sim (1-2)/(\pi T)$. For the first time, jet substructure measurements are constraining the resolution length of QGP from below, as well as from above.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08881 by Arjun Srinivasan Kudinoor, Daniel Pablos, Krishna Rajagopal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Ratio of the differential cross sections in Eq. (2) of jets in PbPb collisions to jets in pp collisions, as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Point markers: ATLAS experimental measurements [33], of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.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 2 Pith papers

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

  1. In-medium QCD splittings beyond the soft, large-$N_c$ and harmonic-oscillator approximations all at once

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    First complete numerical solution of BDMPS-Z equations for in-medium QCD splittings, going beyond soft, large-Nc and harmonic-oscillator approximations.

  2. A dynamical implementation of colour coherence for quenched jets in JEWEL

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A per-interaction resolution check in JEWEL dynamically breaks colour coherence, suppressing hard radiation and reducing scattering rates in quenched jets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 51 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Adcox et al

    K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX), Nucl. Phys. A757, 184 (2005), nucl-ex/0410003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    Arsene et al

    I. Arsene et al. (BRAHMS), Nucl. Phys. A757, 1 (2005), nucl-ex/0410020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    B. B. Back et al. (PHOBOS), Nucl. Phys. A757, 28 (2005), nucl-ex/0410022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR), Nucl. Phys. A757, 102 (2005), nucl-ex/0501009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Gyulassy and L

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    D. Bak, A. Karch, and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP08, 049 (2007), 0705.0994

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Hulcher, D

    Z. Hulcher, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, JHEP03, 010 (2018), 1707.05245

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Casalderrey-Solana, G

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, JHEP01, 044 (2020), 1907.11248

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Casalderrey-Solana and E

    J. Casalderrey-Solana and E. Iancu, JHEP08, 015 (2011), 1105.1760

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  10. [10]

    Mehtar-Tani, C

    Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk, Phys. Lett. B707, 156 (2012), 1102.4317

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  11. [11]

    Armesto, H

    N. Armesto, H. Ma, Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk, JHEP01, 109 (2012), 1110.4343

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  12. [12]

    Mehtar-Tani, C

    Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk, JHEP 10, 197 (2012), 1205.5739

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  13. [13]

    Casalderrey-Solana, Y

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk, Phys. Lett. B725, 357 (2013), 1210.7765

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  14. [14]

    Dom ´ ınguez, J

    F. Dom ´ ınguez, J. G. Milhano, C. A. Salgado, K. Ty- woniuk, and V. Vila, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 11 (2020), 1907.03653

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Abreu, X

    S. Abreu, X. Mayo L´ opez, G. Milhano, and A. Soto- Ontoso (2024), 2410.24135

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Mehtar-Tani, C

    Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk, JHEP 04, 064 (2012), 1112.5031

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  17. [17]

    Casalderrey-Solana, D

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. Pablos, and K. Tywoniuk, JHEP11, 174 (2016), 1512.07561

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Pablos and A

    D. Pablos and A. Soto-Ontoso, Phys. Rev. D107, 094003 (2023), 2210.07901

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    A. S. Kudinoor, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal (2025), 2501.18683

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Caucal, E

    P. Caucal, E. Iancu, and G. Soyez, JHEP10, 273 (2019), 1907.04866

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Caucal, A

    P. Caucal, A. Soto-Ontoso, and A. Takacs, Phys. Rev. D 105, 114046 (2022), 2111.14768

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 262301 (2023), 2209.11236

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, JHEP09, 088 (2023), 2303.03413

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Cunqueiro, D

    L. Cunqueiro, D. Pablos, A. Soto-Ontoso, M. Spousta, A. Takacs, and M. Verweij, Phys. Rev. D110, 014015 (2024), 2311.07643

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    M. V. Kuzmin and J. M. Silva (2025), 2507.00143

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Casalderrey-Solana, D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  27. [27]

    Casalderrey-Solana, D

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. C. Gulhan, J. G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, JHEP03, 053 (2016), 1508.00815

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  28. [28]

    Casalderrey-Solana, D

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. Gulhan, G. Milhano, D. Pab- los, and K. Rajagopal, JHEP03, 135 (2017), 1609.05842

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    Casalderrey-Solana, Z

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, Z. Hulcher, G. Milhano, D. Pab- los, and K. Rajagopal, Phys. Rev. C99, 051901 (2019), 1808.07386. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Hulcher, D

    Z. Hulcher, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp.16, 1 (2023), 2208.13593

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (A Large Ion Collider Experiment, AL- ICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 102001 (2022), 2107.12984

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 172301 (2023), 2301.05606

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS) (2025), 2504.04805

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, JHEP05, 146 (2014), 1402.2657

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun.178, 852 (2008), 0710.3820

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  36. [36]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. De- sai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun.191, 159 (2015), 1410.3012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    P. M. Chesler and K. Rajagopal, JHEP05, 098 (2016), 1511.07567

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [39]

    Bossi, A

    H. Bossi, A. S. Kudinoor, I. Moult, D. Pablos, A. Rai, and K. Rajagopal (2024), 2407.13818

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Casalderrey-Solana, J

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, J. G. Milhano, D. Pablos, K. Ra- jagopal, and X. Yao, JHEP05, 230 (2021), 2010.01140

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, JHEP04, 063 (2008), 0802.1189

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  42. [42]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber, JHEP08, 001 (1997), hep-ph/9707323

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  43. [43]

    Wobisch and T

    M. Wobisch and T. Wengler, inWorkshop on Monte Carlo Generators for HERA Physics (Plenary Starting Meeting)(1998), pp. 270–279, hep-ph/9907280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  44. [44]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B861, 139088 (2025), 2405.02737

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Catani, Y

    S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. H. Seymour, and B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B406, 187 (1993)

    1993

  46. [46]

    S. D. Ellis and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D48, 3160 (1993), hep-ph/9305266

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  47. [47]

    Pablos, Phys

    D. Pablos, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 052301 (2020), 1907.12301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Chekhovsky et al

    V. Chekhovsky et al. (CMS) (2025), 2507.09307

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Yang and X.-N

    Z. Yang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 072302 (2025), 2501.03419

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    CMS (2025), CMS-PAS-HIN-24-016

    2025

  51. [51]

    Pablos and S

    D. Pablos and S. Sanjurjo, Phys. Rev. D110, L111502 (2024), 2406.08550

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Spousta and B

    M. Spousta and B. Cole, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 50 (2016), 1504.05169

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    J.-W. Qiu, F. Ringer, N. Sato, and P. Zurita, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 252301 (2019), 1903.01993

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    Ringer, B.-W

    F. Ringer, B.-W. Xiao, and F. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B808, 135634 (2020), 1907.12541

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. C107, 054909 (2023), 2211.11470

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    quark-initiated

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE) (2023), 2303.13347. SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL Quark- and Gluon-F raction Modifications Alone Cannot Describe A TLASdR 12 Measurements Some authors have speculated that the dependence ofRAA on variables that quantify the angular separation between jet substructures may be understood as resulting solely from changes in the fractions ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.