Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Hybrid Hadronization -- A Study of In-Medium Hadronization of Jets

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that in a quark-gluon plasma, jet partons recombine with thermal partons during hadronization, that this channel grows with plasma size, and that collective flow of the medium is imprinted onto the emerging hadrons.

desk verdict A solid brick-medium baseline for hybrid hadronization with a real flow-transfer physics message, but the quantitative case would be stronger with error bars, a better name for Eq. (2), and a sensitivity study of the wave-packet assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16482 v1 pith:RXQKBOOX submitted 2025-01-27 hep-ph nucl-exnucl-th

A. Sengupta , R. J. Fries , M. Kordell II , B. Kim , A. Angerami , R. Arora , S. A. Bass , Y. Chen
show 45 more authors
R. Datta L. Du R. Ehlers H. Elfner C. Gale Y. He B. V. Jacak P. M. Jacobs S. Jeon Y. Ji F. Jonas L. Kasper A. Kumar R. Kunnawalkam-Elayavalli J. Latessa Y.-J. Lee R. Lemmon M. Luzum A. Majumder S. Mak A. Mankolli C. Martin H. Mehryar T. Mengel C. Nattrass J. Norman C. Parker J.-F. Paquet J. H. Putschke H. Roch G. Roland B. Schenke L. Schwiebert C. Shen M. Singh C. Sirimanna D. Soeder R. A. Soltz I. Soudi Y. Tachibana J. Velkovska G. Vujanovic X.-N. Wang X. Wu W. Zhao (JETSCAPE Collaboration)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-exnucl-th
keywords quark-gluonplasmajethadronizationquarkrecombinationhybridbaryon-to-mesonratiocollectiveflowfragmentationfunctionsshape
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that hadronization of jets inside a quark-gluon plasma is not just string fragmentation: shower partons recombine with thermal partons from the medium, and this channel is substantial for soft and intermediate jet hadrons. The authors use a controlled brick of quark-gluon plasma to show that shower-thermal recombination switches on smoothly as the medium appears and grows with its length, and that collective flow of the medium is transferred onto the emerging hadrons. They also show a shift in hadron chemistry: proton-to-pion and Lambda-to-kaon ratios rise with medium size, reaching close to unity for large media. A sympathetic reader would care because these are the signature recombination effects seen in heavy-ion collisions, and the paper connects them to a single in-medium hadronization mechanism.

What carries the argument

The central object is Hybrid Hadronization, a two-part mechanism that offers each jet parton a chance to hadronize by direct quark recombination and hadronizes the leftovers through string fragmentation. The recombination probability for a candidate hadron is the product of a phase-space overlap $P_{\mathrm{ps}}(r,q)$, a spin factor, and a color factor; the phase-space overlap is computed from the overlap of Gaussian wave packets centered on the partons' space-time and momentum coordinates with Wigner distributions of mesons and baryons calibrated to vacuum charge radii. Thermal partons are sampled from the hadronization surface of the medium, and, because they carry no color information, they enter the overlap with randomized color tags. A shower Monte Carlo module supplies the parton coordinates and a transport module propagates low-virtuality partons through the medium, so the parton list reaching hadronization carries medium-modified space-time information. The mechanism that carries the argument is simply that the phase-space overlap is large for nearby, velocity-matched partons, so when a medium supplies soft partons with a collective velocity, those partons capture shower partons into recombined hadrons and transfer the flow.

What would settle it

One concrete test is to rerun the brick calculation with thermal-parton wave-packet widths rescaled by the medium temperature instead of fixed by vacuum charge radii; if the baryon-to-meson peak near unity and the transverse-flow dipole disappear or move far in momentum, the results rest on that overlap assumption. An experimental check is to compare jet-associated proton-to-pion ratios in $p+p$ and central nucleus-nucleus collisions at matched jet momentum, since the claimed size dependence requires this ratio to rise with centrality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a hadronization model which lets shower partons either form strings or recombine with thermal partons naturally continues jet-medium interaction into the non-perturbative stage. In a brick of quark-gluon plasma at fixed temperature, with hadronization at the critical temperature and 100 GeV light-quark initiators, the authors find that shower-thermal recombination is negligible in vacuum, becomes visible at low momenta for a 1 fm medium, and dominates below 2 GeV/c for an 8 fm medium; with longitudinal flow it dominates up to about 4 GeV/c and contributes out to 8 GeV/c. Fragmentation functions are enhanced at low momentum and suppressed at high momentum, with the enhancement growing faster than linearly with medium length. Baryon-to-meson ratios increase monotonically with medium size, with the proton-to-pion ratio reaching close to 1 for the largest medium, and the peaks shift to intermediate momenta when flow is present. Transverse flow produces a dipole-like deformation of intermediate-momentum hadrons while leaving leading jet hadrons essentially unchanged.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the recombination overlap for a shower parton and a thermal parton from the plasma is the same vacuum-calibrated Gaussian wave-packet overlap used for vacuum coalescence, even though the thermal partons' effective wave-packet sizes are not independently known.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Shower-thermal recombination is a substantial channel for soft and intermediate jet hadrons in nucleus-nucleus collisions, not a small correction.
  • Jet-associated baryon-to-meson ratios should grow with medium size and approach or exceed unity at a few GeV/c in large plasmas.
  • Collective flow of the medium should appear in jet hadrons at low and intermediate transverse momentum, with longitudinal flow shifting the enhancement to higher momentum and transverse flow creating a dipole deformation.
  • Leading jet hadrons remain nearly unaffected by in-medium hadronization, so the high-momentum core of a jet keeps vacuum-like fragmentation.
  • Longitudinal flow during hadronization broadens the transverse jet shape more than transverse flow, because boosted thermal partons give additional transverse momentum kicks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would be to vary the brick temperature and flow profile continuously, since the paper fixes temperature and varies only medium length and flow direction; this would separate size effects from energy-deposition effects.
  • Because flow is switched on only at hadronization, the reported flow transfer is probably a lower bound; in a realistic dynamical medium, flow built up during the partonic phase could move the enhancement to higher momentum and sharpen the chemistry signal.
  • The single-parton initiator forces every remnant string to borrow a thermal antiquark to form a color singlet, so the jump in the fragmented-with-thermal channel at small medium size is likely inflated; multi-parton events with beam remnants could change that channel decomposition.
  • Applying the same mechanism to heavy quarks would test whether recombination also controls D- and B-meson flow and baryon-to-meson ratios, a direction the paper leaves to future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a systematic study of in-medium hadronization of jets using the Hybrid Hadronization model within JETSCAPE 3.0. A 100 GeV light-quark shower is evolved through a static brick of QGP at T = 300 MeV using MATTER and LBT, with variable brick length L and with or without collective flow, and is then hadronized by quark recombination plus PYTHIA string fragmentation. The authors report the channel decomposition of hadron production (Fig. 1), fragmentation-function ratios (Fig. 2), baryon/meson ratios (Fig. 3), transverse momentum distributions (Figs. 4-5), and transverse jet shapes (Fig. 6). They conclude that shower-thermal recombination switches on smoothly with medium size, that medium flow is imprinted on jet hadrons, and that baryon/meson ratios grow with medium size and approach unity in large media.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a useful controlled baseline for in-medium hadronization: it isolates hadronization-stage effects from earlier parton-medium interactions, varies medium size and flow systematically, and gives qualitative predictions that can eventually be tested in realistic A+A simulations. The model is not a toy: it uses an established framework, JETSCAPE, and the recombination wave packets are anchored to vacuum charge radii, giving the vacuum part external grounding. The authors are also explicit that no tuning to data is attempted and that soft thermal-only hadrons are excluded. The main weaknesses are the uncontrolled extrapolation of vacuum-calibrated wave packets to thermal partons, the absence of statistical error bars on any Monte Carlo curve, and the absence of released code or data artifacts, which together limit the precision and reproducibility of the quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (1)] The phase-space recombination probability Pps is constructed from Gaussian wave packets whose sizes are fixed using vacuum squared charge radii, and this same Pps is applied without modification to shower-thermal pairs with thermal partons sampled from the T = Tc hypersurface. The paper itself notes that the correct shape of the wave packets is not known. This is a load-bearing assumption: a different effective size for thermal partons, e.g., set by the thermal de Broglie wavelength, would directly change the channel decomposition in Fig. 1, the momentum range over which longitudinal flow transfers in Fig. 2 (bottom), and the magnitude and peak position of the baryon/meson ratios in Fig. 3, including the claim that p/pi approaches unity in large media. Please add a sensitivity study varying the thermal wave-packet widths, or justify quantitatively why the vacuum-calibrated widths should also describe thermal partons at T = Tc.
  2. [Sec. II.B and Sec. IV.A] The color-singlet repair of the single-quark jet is implemented by adding one antiquark with vanishing momentum and the missing color tag. This repair forces every remnant string to contain at least one thermal/repair parton, which the authors acknowledge makes the distinction between 'Fragmented, Thermal' and 'Fragmented, Shower' unreliable for small media. Because the repair antiquark also enters the candidate list for recombination, its zero-momentum assignment can bias the recombination probability and the momentum balance of the resulting hadrons, and hence affect the in-medium enhancement and baryon/meson claims. Please quantify the sensitivity of the results to this repair prescription, for example by comparing with a repair antiquark carrying a finite thermal momentum or with a parton gun that starts from a color-singlet configuration.
  3. [Sec. IV, Figs. 1-6] No statistical error bars are shown on any Monte Carlo curve. The paper's quantitative claims include smooth turn-on with medium size, a 'monotonous increase' of baryon/meson ratios, and p/pi 'peaking around 1' in large media. Without error bars or a statement of the number of events and statistical precision, it is difficult to determine whether the differences between L = 1, 2, 4, and 8 fm curves in Figs. 2 and 3 are significant or partly Monte Carlo fluctuations. Please provide statistical uncertainties on the central curves, or at least a clear statement of the statistical precision and how it affects the reported ratios.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (2)] The ratio in Eq. (2) is labelled RAA, but it is a jet-associated fragmentation-function ratio dN/dpx, excluding thermal-only hadrons, not the standard inclusive nuclear modification factor. The text does define the ratio, but the name is misleading and invites inappropriate comparison to measured R_AA. Please rename it, e.g., R_jet or R_FF, and note explicitly that no comparison to inclusive R_AA data is intended.
  2. [Sec. IV.D, Figs. 4 and 5] The color scales in Figs. 4 and 5 differ between panels (a) and (b) and the axis labels appear to render powers of ten without the minus sign. This makes the visual comparison of the deformation effect unnecessarily difficult.
  3. [Sec. IV.D] The Liquefier is used for the transverse-flow study, but there is no discussion of how its soft-parton removal affects the transverse momentum distributions and jet shapes in Figs. 4-6. A brief statement of the sensitivity to the Liquefier cutoff would be helpful.
  4. [Sec. III and Sec. IV] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'Tor' at the end of Sec. I, 'probablities' in Sec. II.A, 'close close' in Sec. II.A, 'loose' for 'lose' in Sec. IV.B, 'intermadiate' in Sec. IV.D, 'createsa' in Sec. IV.D, 'significanly' in Sec. IV.D, and 'quantiative' in Sec. V.
  5. [References] Reference [32] is incomplete as given: 'A. Kumar et al. (JETSCAPE) (2019)' lacks a title, journal, or arXiv identifier. Please complete the citation.
  6. [Sec. IV.B] In Fig. 2, the left panels label the y-axis 'Rch' and the right panels 'R', while Eq. (2) uses RAA for both. Please make the notation consistent across the equation and the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: recombination probabilities are calibrated to external vacuum charge radii, and the brick study is an explicit, untuned model demonstration whose outputs are not fed back into the model inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities — the fraction of hadrons from shower-thermal recombination, the transfer of collective flow to jet hadrons, and the baryon/meson ratios — are all outputs of a Monte Carlo simulation that combines MATTER/LBT parton showers with the Hybrid Hadronization recombination algorithm. No parameter in the study is fitted to any of the reported in-medium observables. The recombination probability Pps(r,q) is taken from prior work (Refs. [14,18]), and its Gaussian wave-packet widths are fixed using vacuum squared charge radii, which are external data; the paper explicitly states that the correct shape of the in-medium wave packets is not known (Sec. II.A), which is a stated physics assumption rather than a circular definition. The paper also states that direct comparison to data or tuning is not the goal (Sec. I), so the 'confirmations' in the summary are checks that the model exhibits the behavior it was designed to exhibit, not empirical derivations of that behavior. The cited formalism is parameter-free with stated assumptions that do not include the target in-medium results, and it is externally falsifiable through the ongoing comparisons to e+e− and p+p data mentioned in Sec. V. The growth of recombination with medium size follows from the increased availability of thermal partons in the simulation, and the flow transfer follows from momentum conservation in coalescence; both are kinematic consequences of a well-defined model, not inputs renamed as predictions. The acknowledged uncertainty about wave-packet sizes affects the quantitative strength of the predictions but does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The study rests entirely on the JETSCAPE plus Hybrid Hadronization machinery. The free parameters are the global settings in Table I, the Liquefier cutoff, and the vacuum-calibrated Gaussian widths in the recombination Wigner functions. The most fragile assumptions are the applicability of vacuum-calibrated recombination overlaps to thermal partons and the zero-momentum antiquark repair, which the authors themselves flag as limiting conclusions about thermal string fragmentation.

free parameters (7)
  • alpha_s (fixed) = 0.2
    Fixed strong coupling used in the MATTER shower; controls splitting rates and hence the parton spectrum entering hadronization (Table I).
  • Q0 (virtuality cutoff) = 1.0 GeV
    Partons below this virtuality leave MATTER and are handed to LBT or hadronization; sets the boundary between the perturbative shower and the hadronization stage (Table I).
  • T_brick = 300 MeV
    Uniform brick temperature chosen to represent a hot QGP medium; affects the parton shower evolution through MATTER and LBT (Table I).
  • T_c = 160 MeV
    Hadronization temperature at which thermal partons are sampled; defines the hadronization hypersurface at t = L/c (Table I).
  • N (excitation levels) = 2
    Number of excited hadron states beyond the ground states in Hybrid Hadronization; affects decay feed-down and hadron chemistry (Table I).
  • Liquefier cutoff = 3.2 T (local temperature)
    Soft-parton removal threshold chosen to roughly recover the original jet energy; affects the transverse flow and jet shape results (Section III, Liquefier paragraph).
  • Gaussian wave-packet widths in recombination = Set by vacuum squared charge radii (values not listed)
    The coalescence probabilities Pps depend on harmonic-oscillator wave-function sizes fixed from hadron charge radii in Ref. [14]; all in-medium recombination results inherit these widths.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Shower parton space-time coordinates from MATTER/LBT are the centroids of Gaussian wave packets used in recombination phase-space overlaps.
    Needed to compute Pps(r,q) in Eq. (1); shower Monte Carlos do not intrinsically provide wave packets (Section II).
  • domain assumption The medium is a static brick at T=300 MeV with a sudden drop to T_c=160 MeV at t=L/c; hadronization happens on a spacelike hypersurface at fixed time.
    The brick replaces a dynamically evolving medium; this is a simplified test bed, not a full A+A simulation (Section III).
  • domain assumption Thermal partons are sampled from an equilibrium distribution at T=Tc with zero color tags, and only shower partons are required to hadronize.
    Hybrid Hadronization uses thermal partons as a reservoir; background-only hadrons are excluded by design (Section II).
  • domain assumption Collective flow is assigned only to thermal partons at hadronization, not to the parton-shower phase.
    Isolates hadronization-stage flow effects; the authors note this underestimates full flow effects (Section IV.A).
  • ad hoc to paper A single quark-jet remnant is repaired into a color singlet by adding one antiquark with vanishing momentum and a matching color tag.
    Needed because a single high-pT quark is not a color singlet; this invents a zero-momentum thermal antiquark (Section II.B).
  • domain assumption Recombination Wigner functions calibrated to vacuum charge radii remain valid when one parton is a thermal parton in equilibrium.
    Central assumption for all thermal-shower recombination results; not tested against in-medium data in this paper (Section II.A).
invented entities (1)
  • Zero-momentum thermal antiquark (color-repair parton)
    purpose: Repair the remnant string system of a single-quark jet into a color singlet before PYTHIA fragmentation.
    Introduced ad hoc in Section II.B; the paper itself warns that this makes the fragmented-with-thermal channel ambiguous in small systems: 'We can therefore not draw strong conclusions from the distinction of the two recombination channels.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid Hadronization -- A Study of In-Medium Hadronization of Jets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RXQKBOOX

@misc{pith2026250116482,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid Hadronization -- A Study of In-Medium Hadronization of Jets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RXQKBOOX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16482}
}
read the original abstract

QCD jets are considered important probes for quark gluon plasma created in collisions of nuclei at high energies. Their parton showers are significantly altered if they develop inside of a deconfined medium. Hadronization of jets is also thought to be affected by the presence of quarks and gluons. We present a systematic study of the effects of a thermal bath of partons on the hadronization of parton showers. We use the JETSCAPE framework to create parton showers both in vacuum and in a brick of quark gluon plasma. The brick setup allows important parameters, like the size of the plasma as well as the collective flow of partons, to be varied systematically. We hadronize the parton showers using Hybrid Hadronization, which permits shower partons to form strings with thermal partons, or to recombine directly with thermal partons as well as with each other. We find a sizeable amount of interaction of shower partons with thermal partons during hadronization, indicating a natural continuation of the interaction of jet and medium during this stage. The observed effects grow with the size of the medium. Collective flow easily transfers from the thermal partons onto the emerging jet hadrons. We also see a significant change in hadron chemistry as expected in the presence of quark recombination processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16482 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Contributions of different channels to total hadron production numbers from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Ratios of fragmentation functions [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Proton/pion (left panels) and Λ/kaon ratios as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Transverse distribution, 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Same as Fig. 4 for the leading jet hadrons. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Transverse jet shape [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The BdryMat\'ern GP: Reliable incorporation of boundary information on irregular domains for Gaussian process modeling

    stat.ME 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new Gaussian process kernel, derived from a stochastic PDE with boundary conditions, enforces Dirichlet, Neumann, or Robin boundaries on irregular domains with smoothness control and provable approximation error.

  2. Deformation of Jets Induced by Ambient Medium Flow

    nucl-th 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Simulations show that transverse medium flow deforms jet substructures into dipole and quadrupole shapes whose angles are correlated with the flow direction.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, JHEP 05, 026 (2006), hep-ph/0603175

    arXiv 2006

  2. [2]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, 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

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Marchesini, B

    G. Marchesini, B. R. Webber, G. Abbiendi, I. G. Knowles, M. H. Seymour, and L. Stanco, Comput. Phys. Commun. 67, 465 (1992)

    work page 1992

  4. [4]

    Bellm et al., Eur

    J. Bellm et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 196 (2016), 1512.01178

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    J. H. Putschke et al. (2019), 1903.07706

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B 238, 492 (1984)

    1984

  7. [7]

    Andersson, G

    B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman, and T. Sjos- trand, Phys. Rept. 97, 31 (1983)

    1983

  8. [8]

    K. P. Das and R. C. Hwa, Phys. Lett. B 68, 459 (1977), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 73, 504 (1978)]

    work page 1977

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    R. J. Fries, B. Muller, C. Nonaka, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 68, 044902 (2003), nucl-th/0306027

    2003 arXiv

  2. [10]

    R. J. Fries, J. Phys. G 30, S853 (2004), nucl-th/0403036

    2004 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Greco, C

    V. Greco, C. M. Ko, and P. Levai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 202302 (2003), nucl-th/0301093

    2003 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Greco, C

    V. Greco, C. M. Ko, and P. Levai, Phys. Rev. C 68, 034904 (2003), nucl-th/0305024

    2003 arXiv

  5. [13]

    R. J. Fries, V. Greco, and P. Sorensen, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58, 177 (2008), 0807.4939

    2008 arXiv

  6. [14]

    K. C. Han, R. J. Fries, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C 93, 045207 (2016), 1601.00708

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Majumder, Phys

    A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. C 88, 014909 (2013), 1301.5323

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    S. Cao, T. Luo, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 94, 014909 (2016), 1605.06447

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Huovinen and H

    P. Huovinen and H. Petersen, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 171 (2012), 1206.3371

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Kordell, II, R

    M. Kordell, II, R. J. Fries, and C. M. Ko, Annals Phys. 443, 168960 (2022), 2112.12269

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Tachibana et al

    Y. Tachibana et al. (JETSCAPE), Nucl. Phys. A 1005, 121920 (2021), 2002.12250

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Buskulic et al

    D. Buskulic et al. (ALEPH), Z. Phys. C 66, 355 (1995)

    1995

  13. [21]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C 88, 024906 (2013), 1304.3410

    2013

  14. [22]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C 101, 044907 (2020), 1910.07678

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Hirano and Y

    T. Hirano and Y. Nara, Phys. Rev. C 69, 034908 (2004), nucl-th/0307015

    2004 arXiv

  16. [24]

    B. I. Abelev et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 77, 054901 (2008), 0801.3466

    2008 arXiv

  17. [25]

    B. B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), JHEP 06, 190 (2015), 1405.4632

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Wang and X.-f

    X.-N. Wang and X.-f. Guo, Nucl. Phys. A 696, 788 (2001), hep-ph/0102230

    2001 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Gyulassy, I

    M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, X.-N. Wang, and B.-W. Zhang, pp. 123–191 (2004), nucl-th/0302077

    2004 arXiv

  20. [28]

    C. A. Salgado and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. D 68, 014008 (2003), hep-ph/0302184

    2003 arXiv

  21. [29]

    G.-Y. Qin, J. Ruppert, C. Gale, S. Jeon, G. D. Moore, 12 and M. G. Mustafa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 072301 (2008), 0710.0605

    2008 arXiv

  22. [30]

    K. M. Burke et al. (JET), Phys. Rev. C 90, 014909 (2014), 1312.5003

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Casalderrey-Solana, D

    J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. C. Gulhan, J. G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, JHEP 10, 019 (2014), [Er- ratum: JHEP09,175(2015)], 1405.3864

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kumar et al

    A. Kumar et al. (JETSCAPE) (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012), 1111.6097

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kumar et al

    A. Kumar et al. (JETSCAPE), Phys. Rev. C107, 034911 (2023), 2204.01163

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Fan et al

    W. Fan et al. (JETSCAPE), Phys. Rev. C 109, 064903 (2024), 2307.09641

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.