pith. sign in

arxiv: 2504.02638 · v2 · pith:U46H3D7Knew · submitted 2025-04-03 · ⚛️ nucl-ex · hep-ex

Characterization of nuclear breakup as a function of hard-scattering kinematics using dijets measured by ATLAS in p+Pb collisions

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 21:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-ex hep-ex
keywords p+Pb collisionsdijetsnuclear breakupevent geometryBjorken-xZero-Degree CalorimeterForward CalorimeterATLAS
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dijets show that nuclear geometry estimators in p+Pb collisions depend on proton Bjorken-x

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

This paper investigates how event geometry estimators respond to the initial kinematics of hard scattering in proton-lead collisions. It employs dijets measured within -2.8 < η < 4.5 as a proxy for the parton-parton scattering configuration and correlates them with energy deposits recorded by the Zero-Degree Calorimeter and Forward Calorimeter in the Pb-going direction. The analysis of 8.16 TeV data reveals that both estimators vary with xp, the Bjorken-x of the parton originating from the proton. The Zero-Degree Calorimeter energy exhibits about six times weaker dependence on xp than the Forward Calorimeter transverse energy. These results characterize the link between nuclear breakup and hard-scattering kinematics.

Core claim

In p+Pb collisions at a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 8.16 TeV, dijets serve as a proxy for parton-parton scattering and are correlated with calorimeter-based event geometry estimators. Both the energy deposited in the Zero-Degree Calorimeter and the transverse energy in the Forward Calorimeter depend on xp, with the former about six times less sensitive to xp than the latter.

What carries the argument

Dijets within -2.8 < η < 4.5 used as proxy for parton-parton scattering configuration to correlate with ZDC and FCal energies

If this is right

  • Centrality selection in p+Pb collisions must account for xp dependence in geometry estimators.
  • The reduced xp sensitivity of ZDC energy relative to FCal transverse energy offers a more stable estimator for nuclear breakup.
  • Interpretations of hard-process observables in nuclear collisions require correction for initial-state kinematic variations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The observed sensitivities could influence models that combine hard scattering with soft nuclear geometry.
  • ZDC-based centrality might reduce kinematic bias in studies of jet modification compared with FCal-based selection.

Load-bearing premise

Dijets accurately proxy the parton-parton scattering configuration without large nuclear modification biases in the selected kinematics.

What would settle it

A dataset in the same or extended kinematic range showing no dependence of either estimator on xp would falsify the reported sensitivity.

read the original abstract

This Letter analyzes the sensitivity of event geometry estimators to the initial-state kinematics of hard scattering in proton-lead collisions. This analysis uses dijets as a proxy for the parton-parton scattering configuration, correlating it with event geometry estimators, namely the energy deposited in the Zero-Degree Calorimeter and the transverse energy recorded in the Forward Calorimeter in the Pb-going direction. The analysis uses data recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider with a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 8.16 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 56 nb$^{-1}$. The jets are measured within the pseudorapidity interval $-$2.8 $<$ $\eta$ $<$ 4.5, where positive $\eta$ values correspond to the direction of the proton beam. Results are presented as a function of the Bjorken-$x$ of the parton originating from the proton, $x_{p}$. Both event geometry estimators are found to be dependent on $x_{p}$, with the energy deposited in the Zero-Degree Calorimeter about six times less sensitive to $x_{p}$ compared with the transverse energy deposited in the Forward Calorimeter.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the sensitivity of two event geometry estimators—the energy deposited in the Zero-Degree Calorimeter (ZDC) and the transverse energy in the Forward Calorimeter (FCal) in the Pb-going direction—to the Bjorken-x of the proton parton (xp) in p+Pb collisions. Using 56 nb^{-1} of 8.16 TeV ATLAS data, dijets measured in -2.8 < η < 4.5 are employed as a proxy for the parton-parton scattering configuration. The central result is that both estimators depend on xp, with the ZDC energy approximately six times less sensitive to xp than the FCal ET.

Significance. If the dijet proxy assumption holds without significant xp-dependent biases, the result provides a quantitative measure of how hard-scattering kinematics correlate with soft nuclear breakup observables. The factor-of-six differential sensitivity between ZDC and FCal is a clear, falsifiable experimental finding that could inform centrality estimators in pA and AA collisions. The use of real collision data with stated luminosity and kinematics is a strength.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract, paragraph describing the proxy choice] Abstract, paragraph describing the proxy choice: the headline claim that ZDC is ~6× less sensitive to xp than FCal treats the selected dijets in -2.8 < η < 4.5 as an unbiased proxy for the parton-parton scattering configuration. No quantitative bound is provided on possible xp-dependent nuclear modification biases in jet production, fragmentation, or acceptance that could differ between forward and central regions or between the two calorimeters; such biases would induce an apparent xp dependence that is not purely geometric.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed review and for identifying a key assumption in our analysis. We respond to the single major comment below. A partial revision will be made to clarify the proxy assumptions and note potential biases.

read point-by-point responses
  1. Referee: [Abstract, paragraph describing the proxy choice] Abstract, paragraph describing the proxy choice: the headline claim that ZDC is ~6× less sensitive to xp than FCal treats the selected dijets in -2.8 < η < 4.5 as an unbiased proxy for the parton-parton scattering configuration. No quantitative bound is provided on possible xp-dependent nuclear modification biases in jet production, fragmentation, or acceptance that could differ between forward and central regions or between the two calorimeters; such biases would induce an apparent xp dependence that is not purely geometric.

    Authors: We agree that the headline result relies on the dijet selection serving as a proxy for the underlying parton-parton kinematics without large xp-dependent biases from nuclear effects. The analysis reconstructs xp from the dijet four-momenta under a leading-order 2→2 assumption and uses a broad pseudorapidity interval (-2.8 < η < 4.5) to sample a range of scattering configurations. While the manuscript does not supply a quantitative bound on possible nuclear modification of jet production or fragmentation (which would require dedicated modeling beyond the scope of the Letter), the observed factor-of-six difference is presented as an experimental correlation within this proxy. To address the concern, we will revise the abstract to qualify the proxy language and add a short paragraph in the discussion section outlining the main sources of potential bias and why they are not expected to dominate the reported sensitivity difference. This is a partial revision. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Direct experimental measurement; no derivation reduces to inputs by construction

full rationale

The paper reports measured correlations between dijet kinematics (used as xp proxy) and calorimeter-based geometry estimators in p+Pb data. No equations, fits, or self-citations are presented that define the reported xp sensitivities in terms of themselves or reduce the factor-of-six ratio to a fitted parameter. The proxy choice is an analysis assumption, not a self-definitional step. The result is data-driven and self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard ATLAS jet reconstruction and calorimeter calibration procedures established in prior publications; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5746 in / 1025 out tokens · 38741 ms · 2026-05-22T21:37:08.720536+00:00 · methodology

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

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 23 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Evans and P

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

  2. [2]

    J. L. Nagle and W. A. Zajc, Small System Collectivity in Relativistic Hadronic and Nuclear Collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68 (2018) 211, arXiv:1801.03477 [nucl-ex]

  3. [3]

    J. L. Albacete et al., Predictions for cold nuclear matter effects in𝑝+Pb Collisions at√𝑠NN = 8.16TeV, Nucl. Phys. A972 (2018) 18, arXiv:1707.09973 [hep-ph]

  4. [4]

    J. J. Ethier and E. R. Nocera,Parton Distributions in Nucleons and Nuclei, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70 (2020) 43, arXiv:2001.07722 [hep-ph]

  5. [5]

    Klasen and H

    M. Klasen and H. Paukkunen, Nuclear Parton Distribution Functions After the First Decade of LHC Data, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.74 (2024) 49, arXiv:2311.00450 [hep-ph]

  6. [6]

    CMS Collaboration, Study of𝑊 boson production in𝑝Pb collisions at√𝑠NN 5.02TeV, Phys. Lett. B750 (2015) 565, arXiv:1503.05825 [hep-ex]

  7. [7]

    ATLAS Collaboration, 𝑍 boson production in𝑝 + 𝑃𝑏 collisions at√𝑠NN = 5.02TeV measured with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C92 (2015) 044915, arXiv:1507.06232 [hep-ex]

  8. [8]

    CMS Collaboration,Studies of dijet transverse momentum balance and pseudorapidity distributions in 𝑝Pb collisions at√𝑠NN = 5.02TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 2951, arXiv: 1401.4433 [hep-ex]

  9. [9]

    CMS Collaboration, Measurement of inclusive jet production and nuclear modifications in𝑝Pb collisions at√𝑠NN = 5.02TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 372, arXiv:1601.02001 [hep-ex]

  10. [10]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of photonuclear jet production in ultra-peripheral Pb+Pb collisions at√𝑠NN = 5.02TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D.111(2025) 052006, arXiv: 2409.11060 [nucl-ex]

  11. [11]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Observation of𝑡¯𝑡 production in the lepton+jets and dilepton channels in 𝑝+Pb collisions at√𝑠NN = 8.16TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP11(2024) 101, arXiv: 2405.05078 [nucl-ex]

  12. [12]

    CMS Collaboration, Observation of Top Quark Production in Proton–Nucleus Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (2017) 242001, arXiv:1709.07411 [hep-ex]

  13. [13]

    LHCb Collaboration, Study of prompt D0 meson production in𝑝Pb collisions at√𝑠NN = 5 TeV, JHEP 10(2017) 090, arXiv:1707.02750 [hep-ex]

  14. [14]

    ALICE Collaboration, Centrality dependence of particle production in p-Pb collisions at√𝑠NN = 5.02TeV, Phys. Rev. C91 (2015) 064905, arXiv:1412.6828 [nucl-ex]

  15. [16]

    PHENIX Collaboration,Centrality-dependent modification of jet-production rates in deuteron-gold collisions at√𝑠NN = 200GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (2016) 122301, arXiv: 1509.04657 [nucl-ex]. 18

  16. [17]

    STAR Collaboration,Correlations of event activity with hard and soft processes in p+Au collisions at sNN=200 GeV at the RHIC STAR experiment, Phys. Rev. C110 (2024) 044908, arXiv: 2404.08784 [nucl-ex]

  17. [18]

    Global analysis of color fluctuation effects in proton- and deuteron-nucleus collisions at RHIC and the LHC

    M. Alvioli, L. Frankfurt, D. V. Perepelitsa, and M. Strikman,Global analysis of color fluctuation effects in proton– and deuteron–nucleus collisions at RHIC and the LHC, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 071502, arXiv:1709.04993 [hep-ph]

  18. [19]

    Topics in High-Energy Perturbative QCD Including Interactions with Nuclear Matter,

    A. H. Mueller, “Topics in High-Energy Perturbative QCD Including Interactions with Nuclear Matter,” 17th Rencontres de Moriond on Elementary Particle Physics: I. Electroweak Interactions and Grand Unified Theories, 1982 13

  19. [20]

    Testing Quantum Chromodynamics,

    S. J. Brodsky, “Testing Quantum Chromodynamics,” XIII International Symposium on Multiparticle Dynamics, 1982

  20. [21]

    Bertsch, S

    G. Bertsch, S. J. Brodsky, A. S. Goldhaber, and J. G. Gunion, Diffractive Excitation in Quantum Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.47(1981) 297

  21. [22]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, Onset of Color Transparency in Holographic Light-Front QCD, MDPI Physics4(2022) 633, arXiv: 2202.13283 [hep-ph]

  22. [23]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the centrality dependence of the dijet yield in p+Pb collisions at√𝑠NN = 8.16TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) 102301, arXiv: 2309.00033 [nucl-ex]

  23. [24]

    D. V. Perepelitsa, Contribution to differential𝜋0 and 𝛾dir modification in small systems from color fluctuation effects, Phys. Rev. C110 (2024) L011901, arXiv:2404.17660 [nucl-th]

  24. [25]

    ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, JINST 3 (2008) S08003

  25. [26]

    ALICE Collaboration, Constraints on jet quenching in p-Pb collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV measured by the event-activity dependence of semi-inclusive hadron-jet distributions, Phys. Lett. B783 (2018) 95, arXiv:1712.05603 [nucl-ex]

  26. [27]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Strong constraints on jet quenching in centrality-dependent𝑝+Pb collisions at 5.02TeV from ATLAS, Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023) 072301, arXiv:2206.01138 [nucl-ex]

  27. [28]

    ALICE Collaboration,Study of very forward energy and its correlation with particle production at midrapidity in pp and p-Pb collisions at the LHC, JHEP08(2022) 086, arXiv: 2107.10757 [nucl-ex]

  28. [29]

    Alvioli, V

    M. Alvioli, V. Guzey, and M. Strikman, Slicing Pomerons in ultraperipheral collisions using forward neutrons from nuclear breakup, Phys. Rev. C110 (2024) 025205, arXiv:2402.19060 [hep-ph]

  29. [30]

    Determination of electron-nucleus collision geometry with forward neutrons

    L. Zheng, E. C. Aschenauer, and J. H. Lee, Determination of electron-nucleus collision geometry with forward neutrons, Eur. Phys. J. A50(2014) 189, arXiv:1407.8055 [hep-ex]

  30. [31]

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

  31. [32]

    Production and Integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer

    B. Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST 13 (2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

  32. [33]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Topological cell clustering in the ATLAS calorimeters and its performance in LHC Run 1, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 490, arXiv:1603.02934 [hep-ex]

  33. [34]

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

  34. [35]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS trigger system in 2015, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 317, arXiv:1611.09661 [hep-ex]

  35. [36]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Software and computing for Run 3 of the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 234, arXiv:2404.06335 [hep-ex]

  36. [37]

    O. Adriani et al.,Study of forward physics in√𝑠NN = 8.1 TeV proton-Lead ion collisions with the LHCf detector at the LHC, CERN-LHCC-2016-003, LHCC-I-027, 2016, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2135330

  37. [38]

    The anti-k_t jet clustering algorithm

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

  38. [39]

    FastJet user manual

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

  39. [40]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Dijet azimuthal correlations and conditional yields in𝑝 𝑝and 𝑝 + Pb collisions at√𝑠NN = 5.02TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C100 (2019) 034903, arXiv: 1901.10440 [nucl-ex]

  40. [41]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the centrality dependence of the charged-particle pseudorapidity distribution in proton–lead collisions at√𝑠NN = 5.02TeVwith the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 199, arXiv:1508.00848 [hep-ex]

  41. [42]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Transverse momentum and process dependent azimuthal anisotropies in√𝑠NN = 8.16TeV 𝑝+Pb collisions with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C80 (2020) 73, arXiv: 1910.13978 [nucl-ex]

  42. [43]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Two-particle azimuthal correlations in photonuclear ultraperipheral Pb+Pb collisions at5.02TeV with ATLAS, Phys. Rev. C104 (2021) 014903, arXiv: 2101.10771 [nucl-ex]

  43. [44]

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

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

  44. [45]

    An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2

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

  45. [46]

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

  46. [47]

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

  47. [48]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Centrality and rapidity dependence of inclusive jet production in√𝑠NN = 5.02TeV proton-lead collisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B748 (2015) 392, arXiv: 1412.4092 [hep-ex]

  48. [49]

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

    G. D’Agostini,A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A362 (1995) 487. 20

  49. [50]

    Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold

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

  50. [51]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Evaluating statistical uncertainties and correlations using the bootstrap method, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2021-011, 2021,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2759945

  51. [52]

    ALICE Collaboration, Neutron emission in ultraperipheral Pb-Pb collisions at√𝑠𝑁 𝑁 = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. C107 (6 2023) 064902, arXiv:2209.04250 [nucl-ex]

  52. [53]

    Demokritos

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Computing Acknowledgements, ATL-SOFT-PUB-2025-001, 2025, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2922210. 21 The ATLAS Collaboration G. Aad 104, E. Aakvaag 17, B. Abbott 123, S. Abdelhameed 119a, K. Abeling 55, N.J. Abicht 49, S.H. Abidi 30, M. Aboelela 45, A. Aboulhorma 36e, H. Abramowicz 157, Y. Abulaiti 120, B.S. Acharya 69a,69b,n, A...