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

Raghav Kunnawalkam Elayavalli; Xin-Nian Wang; Zhong Yang

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

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

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A multi-stage jet-shower simulation reproduces the CMS in-jet energy-energy correlator in Pb+Pb collisions and attributes the wide-angle enhancement to the jet-induced medium response.

desk verdict Solid phenomenological paper: reproduces CMS in-jet EEC with CoLBT-hydro and proposes a clever diffusion-wake observable, but the wake claim needs a decomposition it currently lacks. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.28788 v3 pith:U5AMWDER submitted 2026-05-27 hep-ph

Zhong Yang , Raghav Kunnawalkam Elayavalli , Xin-Nian Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords energy-energycorrelatorjetsubstructureheavy-ioncollisionsquark-gluonplasmaquenchingmediumresponsediffusionwaketransportmodel

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 argues that the energy-energy correlator inside jets in Pb+Pb collisions can be described by a jet-shower model in which partons evolve in vacuum only down to a medium scale of 2 GeV, then interact with the quark-gluon plasma and resume vacuum radiation after exiting. With this updated treatment, the model reproduces the CMS measurement of the in-jet EEC ratio. The authors decompose the correlator into contributions from the hard shower, the positive wake front, and the negative diffusion wake, and find that the large-angle enhancement seen in data is dominated by the jet-induced medium response. They also show that the CMS mixed-event background-subtraction procedure reproduces the idealized theoretical subtraction, and that EECs of sub-leading jets and of same-side dijets are enhanced at wide angles, providing path-length and diffusion-wake signatures.

What carries the argument

The central object is the medium scale Q_M = 2.0 GeV, which separates the vacuum and in-medium stages of the parton shower: partons shower in vacuum only down to Q_M, then undergo linear Boltzmann transport and deposit energy into a (3+1)-dimensional viscous hydrodynamic medium; after exiting, they resume vacuum evolution down to hadronization. The isolating procedure is a pair of simulations with identical hydrodynamic initial conditions, one with and one without the jet, whose difference defines the jet-induced hydro response; this response is split into positive and negative contributions that enter the EEC with a minus sign for positive-negative pairs. This machinery lets the authors att

What would settle it

Re-run the same CoLBT-hydro calculation with Q_M varied (e.g., 1.5 and 3.0 GeV) and compare the Pb+Pb/p+p EEC ratio to the CMS data; if the good agreement disappears or the large-angle enhancement changes sign, the central claim is not robust. Alternatively, measure the leading-jet EEC ratio separately for same-side and opposite-side dijets in 0–10% Pb+Pb at 5.02 TeV with the proposed kinematic cuts; the predicted ordering—same-side above opposite-side at small angular separation, crossing to a mild suppression at intermediate separations—either appears in data or it does not.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that introducing a single medium scale of 2 GeV, below which the vacuum shower is paused while partons propagate through and exchange energy with the hydrodynamic medium, makes the CoLBT-hydro framework able to reproduce the CMS in-jet energy-energy correlator ratio in 0–10% Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV for both 1 and 2 GeV charged-hadron transverse-momentum cuts. Decomposing the simulated EEC into contributions shows the large-angle enhancement is dominated by the jet-induced medium response, chiefly the positive wake-front component, with the negative diffusion wake contributing negligibly inside the jet cone. The same framework, when the CMS mixed-event subtractio

Load-bearing premise

The fixed handoff scale Q_M = 2.0 GeV, which separates the vacuum shower from the in-medium stage without double counting, is assumed rather than varied, and the paper provides no sensitivity study; if a different separation scale materially changes the simulated EEC, the claimed description of the CMS data and the predicted path-length and rapidity-gap patterns would weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the framework is correct, the in-jet EEC ratio becomes a direct probe of jet-induced medium response; LHC measurements with the proposed pT cuts can constrain the relative strength of the wake front and the diffusion wake.
The demonstrated equivalence of the CMS mixed-event subtraction to the idealized theoretical subtraction within the simulation supports the continued use of the experimental method for future energy-correlator measurements in heavy ions.
The predicted ordering of sub-leading vs leading jet EEC ratios offers an experimentally accessible path-length scan that tests the model's description of jet energy loss.
The same-side vs opposite-side dijet rapidity-gap selection turns the elusive diffusion wake into a hard-particle observable, which may be more robust than soft-hadron wake searches.
Because the small-angle enhancement is attributed largely to jet-pT selection bias, extractions of medium parameters from EEC data should treat this bias explicitly.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper fixes Q_M = 2.0 GeV without a sensitivity scan, so the good agreement with CMS data could be anchored to this single handoff value; varying Q_M and checking stability of the ratio would clarify how predictive the framework is.
The same rapidity-gap classification could be applied to the EEC of sub-leading jets or to other jet-substructure observables, potentially sharpening the diffusion-wake signal proposed here.
Since the negative diffusion-wake contribution is masked inside the jet cone, the proposed observable likely detects the wake indirectly, through its effect on the partner jet's pT; correlating the EEC modification with soft-hadron wake measurements would test this interpretation.
The single-scale vacuum/in-medium separation could be tested in event classes with different bias structures, such as Z+jet or semi-inclusive jet measurements, where the selection bias differs from single-inclusive jets.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a solid phenomenological paper that does something new — first CoLBT-hydro calculation of the in-jet EEC — and proposes an interesting new observable for the diffusion wake. The data description in Secs. II–IV looks plausible and worth taking seriously. The soft spot is the diffusion-wake claim in Sec. V, which is not actually tested by the comparison shown.

What's good. The updated treatment with Q_M=2 GeV separating vacuum and in-medium evolution fixes a real inconsistency in the previous setup where the vacuum shower completed before any medium interaction. The reproduction of the CMS EEC ratio for both pT thresholds is a genuine model-data milestone for this framework. Implementing the CMS mixed-event subtraction inside the simulation and finding agreement with the idealized subtraction is a useful check; it's self-consistency rather than independence, but it does show the experimental procedure is not distorted by the background model. The leading vs sub-leading jet comparison is a clean path-length study with a sensible result. And the rapidity-gap idea is genuinely attractive: an EEC-based observable that is hard-particle dominated could be much easier to measure than soft-hadron wake searches.

Where it's soft. First, the bands in Figs. 1–5 are never defined. That's a basic reporting gap. Second, Q_M is fixed with no sensitivity scan; the authors adopt it from an earlier paper, but since the whole description hinges on this scale, a scan is needed to know how robust the agreement is. Third, the diffusion-wake claim. In Sec. II they decompose the EEC into positive-positive, negative-negative, and positive-negative hydro-response contributions and show that the negative (diffusion-wake) component is negligible at R=0.4. In Sec. V they switch to R=1.0 but never repeat the decomposition. So the same-side vs opposite-side difference in Fig. 5 could be driven by the positive wake front, by path-length differences, or by the pT-selection bias alone. The paper calls it "a clear manifestation" of the diffusion wake, but it is currently a consistency argument, not a causal isolation. They have the tools to fix this — just do the decomposition at R=1.0 and show the negative component is what tracks the rapidity-gap ordering.

Bottom line: the central data description probably holds; the diffusion-wake proposal is intriguing but unproven. This deserves a serious referee, but the referee should require the decomposition and the parameter scan before claims are accepted.

Who it's for: the heavy-ion jet-substructure community, particularly people working on EEC and medium response.

My recommendation: send to peer review, with the caveats above.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an updated CoLBT-hydro calculation of the energy-energy correlator (EEC) inside single inclusive jets in 0–10% Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, and compares it with the recent CMS measurement. The main modeling change is the introduction of a medium scale Q_M = 2.0 GeV that separates vacuum PYTHIA8 showering from in-medium LBT evolution. The authors report that the calculation reproduces the CMS EEC ratio for both pT thresholds, decompose the hydro-response contribution into positive and negative components, implement the CMS mixed-event background subtraction within the simulation, compare leading and sub-leading jets as a path-length probe, and use the dijet rapidity-gap dependence of the leading-jet EEC to argue for an experimentally accessible diffusion-wake signal.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would provide a useful multi-scale model benchmark for in-jet EECs in heavy-ion collisions, an independent simulation-level check of the CMS background-subtraction procedure, and a new observable proposal for the jet-induced diffusion wake. The explicit implementation of the mixed-event subtraction and the decomposition of hydro-response contributions are concrete strengths. The diffusion-wake proposal is novel and potentially impactful. However, the validation is incomplete: model uncertainties are not given, the new scale Q_M is not scanned, and the Sec. V claim is not causally isolated from other path-length and selection-bias effects. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main assertions.

major comments (4)

[Figs. 1–5, Sec. II] The plotted bands are never defined and no uncertainty estimate is attached to any model curve. The text repeatedly says the calculation 'reproduces' or 'provides a good description' of CMS data, but without statistical uncertainties (or a stated systematic envelope) the goodness of fit cannot be assessed. Please define what the bands represent and provide a quantitative agreement metric, e.g. chi2/dof over the plotted RL range.
[Sec. II, Q_M paragraph] Q_M = 2.0 GeV is fixed by reference to Ref. [85] and no sensitivity study is presented. Since this scale is the main new ingredient distinguishing the updated CoLBT-hydro description from earlier implementations, and since the separation of vacuum and in-medium evolution raises double-counting questions, the robustness of the claimed data description and of the subsequent predictions is not established. Show results for at least a few Q_M values and a comparison with the original Q_0-only evolution.
[Sec. V, Fig. 5 and Eq. (2)]
[Sec. II, Eq. (2) and signed-particle sampling] The construction of negative-momentum hydro-response particles needs validation and a precise definition. Since the EEC weights are products of signed transverse momenta, the cross term EECpn is negative and the total is EECpp + EECnn + 2 EECpn (or EECpp + EECnn + EECpn if unordered pairs are counted once), so the sign and normalization convention in Eq. (2) must be stated explicitly. As written, the formula is ambiguous. The stability of the EEC under the negative-particle sampling procedure should also be demonstrated, for example by comparing results with different sampling prescriptions.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (1)] The normalization W_pairs is only described verbally. Give the explicit formula, including how the sum over jets and the normalization by the number of pairs are implemented.
[Fig. 2 caption] The blue, red, and green bands are referred to by color, but no explanation of the band width or source of variation is provided. A legend and a statement of what the band span represents would help.
[Sec. III] The statement that residual differences between the mixed-event and idealized subtraction are 'well within current experimental uncertainties' is not quantified. Add a numerical uncertainty estimate or a quantitative comparison with the published CMS uncertainties.
[Sec. V] The claim that same-side rapidity classes correspond to smaller dijet rapidity gaps is asserted but not demonstrated. Show the distribution of rapidity gaps for the two classes under the chosen kinematic cuts.
[General] There are several places where 'the CMS mixed-event background-subtraction method' is described but the precise matching criteria (multiplicity matching within 1.5%) are only given in the text for the model; please ensure consistency with the CMS implementation and cite the relevant CMS section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central results are model-data comparisons against external CMS measurements; the Q_M scale is adopted from prior non-overlapping work and no target observable is used as a fitting input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a model/data comparison: the updated CoLBT-hydro calculation with Q_M = 2.0 GeV is compared with the external CMS measurement. Q_M is introduced 'following Ref. [85]', a prior paper whose authors do not overlap with the present authors, and it is not fitted in this work to the CMS EEC. The CMS data therefore serve as an external benchmark rather than as an input used to set constants. The theoretical background subtraction and the positive/negative hydro-response decomposition (Eq. 2) are internal model diagnostics; they do not reintroduce the measured EEC as an input. The validation of the CMS mixed-event method is an independent consistency check of an experimental procedure implemented inside the simulation, not a circular prediction. The leading/sub-leading jet and rapidity-gap EEC comparisons are model outputs generated with fixed inputs; the diffusion-wake interpretation is motivated by Refs. [94] and [109], where [109] is an external independent calculation, and the claimed signal is directly exhibited in the model's Fig. 5 rather than enforced through a fitted parameter. No step in the derivation chain reduces, by the paper's own equations, to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper rests on an inherited, previously tuned multi-stage model plus one new scale Q_M, and the diffusion-wake signal relies on representing the hydro response as signed particles. No sensitivity analysis, code, or parameter files are provided, so the reader cannot independently assess how the central conclusions depend on these choices.

free parameters (2)

Medium scale Q_M = 2.0 GeV
Scale separating vacuum and in-medium shower phases, taken from Ref. [85]; no sensitivity scan is shown in this paper, yet all conclusions depend on the handoff between PYTHIA8 and LBT.
LBT transport parameters (e.g., strong coupling, Debye mass, elastic/inelastic rates) = not specified in this paper
Inherited from earlier LBT fits to jet-quenching data; these set the magnitude of energy loss and therefore shape the EEC modification, but they are not re-derived or re-scanned here.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Factorization of the parton shower at Q_M: vacuum evolution down to Q_M, then LBT medium evolution, then vacuum evolution again after exit.
This is the core modeling ansatz of Sec. II; it assumes no double counting or ordering ambiguity between vacuum and medium-induced radiation.
domain assumption Linear superposition of hard shower and hydro response: final hadrons are the sum of LBT-produced hadrons plus the difference of two hydro runs with and without the jet.
Used in Sec. II to define the 'theoretical background subtraction' and to isolate jet-induced medium response; assumes the jet acts as a small perturbation on the hydro background.
ad hoc to paper The hydro response can be represented by positive and negative sampled particles, with the EEC given by EEC = EEC_pp + EEC_nn - EEC_pn.
Eq. (2) and the classification into positive/negative groups are a model-specific construct to capture the depletion (diffusion wake) and enhancement (wake front) in the medium response.
domain assumption Multiplicity matching within 1.5% makes mixed events statistically representative of the background in the triggered event.
Used in Sec. III to implement the CMS mixed-event subtraction; the paper notes residual deviation at large angles, acknowledging the approximate nature of the assumption.

invented entities (1)

Negative momentum-weight hydro-response particles
purpose: Represent the diffusion wake (energy depletion) in the sampled final state; these particles enter Eq. (2) with a minus sign for positive-negative pairs.
This is a model construct introduced to translate negative energy density from linearized hydro into a particle-level EEC. It has no direct experimental evidence and is a potential source of bias in the large-angle EEC.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energy-energy correlators inside single inclusive jets in heavy-ion collisions with CoLBT-hydro model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U5AMWDER

@misc{pith2026260528788,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energy-energy correlators inside single inclusive jets in heavy-ion collisions with CoLBT-hydro model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U5AMWDER}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.28788}
}

abstract

The energy-energy correlator (EEC) inside jets is a sensitive observable for studying jet modification in the quark-gluon plasma (QGP). However, its interpretation in heavy-ion collisions remains challenging, requiring a consistent understanding of jet evolution across multiple dynamical scales together with a proper treatment of the background subtraction. In this work, we employ an updated CoLBT-hydro framework in which a medium scale $Q_M$ = 2.0 GeV is introduced to separate the vacuum and in-medium stages of the parton shower, enabling a more self-consistent treatment of jet evolution. Using a theoretical background subtraction within the model, the resulting simulation reproduces the recent CMS measurement of the in-jet EEC, and through a decomposition of different contributions, highlights the impact of medium modification on the observable. To further validate the experimental procedure, we also implement the CMS mixed-event background-subtraction method directly in the simulation and find the results are consistent with those obtained with the theoretical background subtraction. Using $p_T$-ranked jets in each event, we further investigate the dependence of medium modification on the in-medium path length, reflected in the different EECs of leading and sub-leading jets. Finally, we explore the dependence of the leading-jet EEC on the dijet rapidity gap as a signal of the jet-induced diffusion wake.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.28788 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. EEC distributions for three cases: including the full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Ratio of the EEC in Pb+Pb to that in p+p colli [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ratio of the EEC inside leading (red) and sub-leading [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a, c) Ratio of the EEC inside leading jet in 0–10% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Benchmarking the Nearside Energy-Energy Correlators with Mellin Transform
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A Mellin-transform framework with one fitted transition scale Λ describes nearside EECs in e+e− annihilation at NNLO+NNLL accuracy across ALEPH and earlier data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 82 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[85]

Dang, W.-J

Y. Dang, W.-J. Xing, S. Cao, and G.-Y. Qin, (2026), arXiv:2602.10395 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2026
[1]

J. D. Bjorken, (1982), reportNumber = FERMILAB- PUB-82-059-THY, FERMILAB-PUB-82-059-T

1982
[2]

M. H. Thoma and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. B351, 491 (1991)

1991
[3]

Braaten and M

E. Braaten and M. H. Thoma, Phys. Rev. D44, R2625 (1991)

1991
[4]

Gyulassy and X.-N

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

arXiv 1994
[5]

Baier, Y

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

arXiv 1997
[6]

B. G. Zakharov, JETP Lett.63, 952 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9607440. 6

arXiv 1996
[7]

Gyulassy, P

M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev, Nucl. Phys. B571, 197 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907461

arXiv 2000

Show all 109 references

[8]

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

2000 arXiv
[9]

Wang and X.-F

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

2001 arXiv
[10]

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

2002 arXiv
[11]

Djordjevic, Phys

M. Djordjevic, Phys. Rev. C74, 064907 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0603066

2006 arXiv
[12]

G.-Y. Qin, J. Ruppert, C. Gale, S. Jeon, G. D. Moore, and M. G. Mustafa, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 072301 (2008), arXiv:0710.0605 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[13]

Wang and U

X.-N. Wang and U. A. Wiedemann (2025) arXiv:2508.18794 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[14]

Adcoxet al.(PHENIX), Phys

K. Adcoxet al.(PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 022301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0109003

2002 arXiv
[15]

Adleret al.(STAR), Phys

C. Adleret al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 202301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0206011

2002 arXiv
[16]

Gyulassy and L

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

2005 arXiv
[17]

Wang, Nucl

X.-N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A750, 98 (2005), arXiv:nucl- th/0405017

2005
[18]

Aamodtet al.(ALICE), Phys

K. Aamodtet al.(ALICE), Phys. Lett. B696, 30 (2011), arXiv:1012.1004 [nucl-ex]

2011 arXiv
[19]

Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 252303 (2010), arXiv:1011.6182 [hep-ex]

2010 arXiv
[20]

Majumder and M

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

2011 arXiv
[21]

Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys

S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. C84, 024906 (2011), arXiv:1102.1957 [nucl-ex]

2011 arXiv
[22]

Quark–Gluon Plasma 5

G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang, “Quark–Gluon Plasma 5”, p. 309, edited by X. N. Wang (World Scien- tific, 2016), Int. J. Mod. Phys. E24, 1530014 (2015), arXiv:1511.00790 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[23]

Apolin´ ario, Y.-T

L. Apolin´ ario, Y.-T. Chien, and L. Cunqueiro Mendez, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33, 2430003 (2024)

2024
[24]

C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. D17, 2298 (1978)

1978
[25]

C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. Lett.41, 1585 (1978)

1978
[26]

C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. D19, 2018 (1979)

2018
[27]

P. T. Komiske, I. Moult, J. Thaler, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 051901 (2023), arXiv:2201.07800 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[28]

Moult and H

I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, (2025), arXiv:2506.09119 [hep- ph]

2025 arXiv
[29]

Andres, F

C. Andres, F. Dominguez, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 262301 (2023), arXiv:2209.11236 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[30]

Z. Yang, Y. He, I. Moult, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 011901 (2024), arXiv:2310.01500 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[31]

Barata, P

J. Barata, P. Caucal, A. Soto-Ontoso, and R. Szafron, JHEP11, 060 (2024), arXiv:2312.12527 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[32]

Andres, F

C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, JHEP09, 088 (2023), arXiv:2303.03413 [hep- ph]

2023 arXiv
[33]

Andres, F

C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. D110, L031503 (2024), arXiv:2307.15110 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[34]

Barata, Z.-B

J. Barata, Z.-B. Kang, X. Mayo L´ opez, and J. Penttala, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 251903 (2025), arXiv:2411.11782 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[35]

Y. Fu, B. M¨ uller, and C. Sirimanna, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 112302 (2025), arXiv:2411.04866 [nucl-th]

2025 arXiv
[36]

Andres, F

C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 122301 (2026), arXiv:2411.15298 [hep-ph]

2026 arXiv
[37]

W.-J. Xing, S. Cao, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 052301 (2025), arXiv:2409.12843 [hep- ph]

2025 arXiv
[38]

Singh and V

B. Singh and V. Vaidya, JHEP06, 071 (2025), arXiv:2408.02753 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[39]

Bossi, A

H. Bossi, A. S. Kudinoor, I. Moult, D. Pablos, A. Rai, and K. Rajagopal, JHEP12, 073 (2024), arXiv:2407.13818 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[40]

Andres, J

C. Andres, J. Holguin, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, and J. Viinikainen, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 082303 (2025), arXiv:2409.07514 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[41]

Barata, M

J. Barata, M. V. Kuzmin, J. G. Milhano, and A. V. Sadofyev, Phys. Rev. D112, 016005 (2025), arXiv:2412.03616 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[42]

W. Ke, B. Mecaj, and I. Vitev, (2025), arXiv:2512.11952 [hep-ph]

2025
[43]

M.-Q. Yang, P. Ru, and B.-W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 112, 074008 (2025), arXiv:2505.04906 [hep-ph]

2025
[44]

Barata, J

J. Barata, J. Brewer, K. Lee, and J. M. Silva, (2025), arXiv:2508.19404 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[45]

Barata, D

J. Barata, D. Frenklakh, and S. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D112, 114505 (2025), arXiv:2507.16890 [hep-ph]

2025
[46]

Budhraja and B

A. Budhraja and B. Singh, Phys. Lett. B872, 140079 (2026), arXiv:2503.20019 [hep-ph]

2026
[47]

Barata, I

J. Barata, I. Moult, A. V. Sadofyev, and J. M. Silva, (2025), arXiv:2503.13603 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[48]

Liu, S.-Y

H.-Y. Liu, S.-Y. Chen, W. Dai, and B.-W. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2511.13495 [nucl-th]

2025
[49]

Apolin´ ario, R

L. Apolin´ ario, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, N. O. Madureira, J.-X. Sheng, X.-N. Wang, and Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D112, 054018 (2025), arXiv:2502.11406 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[50]

Andres, J

C. Andres, J. Holguin, B. Kimelman, R. Kun- nawalkam Elayavalli, J. Viinikainen, and Z. Yang, (2025), arXiv:2512.10026 [hep-ph]

2025
[51]

Acharyaet al.(ALICE), (2024), arXiv:2409.12687 [hep-ex]

S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), (2024), arXiv:2409.12687 [hep-ex]

2024 arXiv
[52]

Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys

A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 071903 (2024), arXiv:2402.13864 [hep-ex]

2024 arXiv
[53]

B. E. Aboonaet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 111901 (2025), arXiv:2502.15925 [hep-ex]

2025 arXiv
[54]

Acharyaet al.(ALICE), (2025), arXiv:2504.03431 [hep-ex]

S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), (2025), arXiv:2504.03431 [hep-ex]

2025 arXiv
[55]

Chekhovskyet al.(CMS), Phys

V. Chekhovskyet al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B866, 139556 (2025), arXiv:2503.19993 [nucl-ex]

2025 arXiv
[56]

Energy-energy correlation in Z boson tagged PbPb and pp collisions at √sN N= 5.02 TeV,

CMS, “Energy-energy correlation in Z boson tagged PbPb and pp collisions at √sN N= 5.02 TeV,” (2025), cMS-PAS-HIN-24-019

2025
[57]

Nambrath, EPJ Web Conf.339, 02001 (2025), arXiv:2510.16195 [nucl-ex]

A. Nambrath, EPJ Web Conf.339, 02001 (2025), arXiv:2510.16195 [nucl-ex]

2025
[58]

X. Liu, W. Vogelsang, F. Yuan, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151901 (2025), arXiv:2410.16371 [hep- ph]

2025 arXiv
[59]

Barata and S

J. Barata and S. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D111, L031901 (2025), arXiv:2409.13816 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[60]

K. Lee, F. Turro, and X. Yao, Phys. Rev. D111, 054514 (2025), arXiv:2409.13830 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[61]

Jaarsma, Y

M. Jaarsma, Y. Li, I. Moult, W. J. Waalewijn, and H. X. Zhu, (2025), arXiv:2512.11950 [hep-ph]. 7

2025
[62]

Y. Guo, W. Vogelsang, F. Yuan, and W. Zhao, (2025), arXiv:2512.15896 [hep-ph]

2025
[63]

Y. Guo, F. Yuan, and W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 081904 (2026), arXiv:2507.15820 [hep-ph]

2026 arXiv
[64]

H. Chen, H. Ruan, and H. X. Zhu, JHEP12, 168 (2025), arXiv:2505.16753 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[65]

Bossi, Y.-C

H. Bossi, Y.-C. Chen, Y. Chen, J. Zhang, G. M. In- nocenti, A. Badea, A. Baty, M. Maggi, C. McGinn, and Y.-J. Lee (Electron-Positron Alliance), (2025), arXiv:2505.11828 [hep-ex]

2025 arXiv
[66]

Alipour-fard and W

S. Alipour-fard and W. J. Waalewijn, JHEP07, 043 (2025), arXiv:2501.17218 [hep-ph]

2025
[67]

Budhraja, I

A. Budhraja, I. Pels, and W. J. Waalewijn, (2026), arXiv:2603.16996 [hep-ph]

2026
[68]

P. Duan, W. Ke, G.-Y. Qin, and L. Wang, (2026), arXiv:2604.01102 [hep-ph]

2026
[69]

Wang and Y

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

2013 arXiv
[70]

Y. He, T. Luo, X.-N. Wang, and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. C91, 054908 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 97, 019902 (2018)], arXiv:1503.03313 [nucl-th]

2015 arXiv
[71]

S. Cao, T. Luo, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C94, 014909 (2016), arXiv:1605.06447 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[72]

S. Cao, T. Luo, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B777, 255 (2018), arXiv:1703.00822 [nucl-th]

2018 arXiv
[73]

T. Luo, Y. He, S. Cao, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034919 (2024), arXiv:2306.13742 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[74]

W.-J. Xing, S. Cao, G.-Y. Qin, and H. Xing, Phys. Lett. B805, 135424 (2020), arXiv:1906.00413 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[75]

L. Pang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C86, 024911 (2012), arXiv:1205.5019 [nucl-th]

2012 arXiv
[76]

L.-G. Pang, Y. Hatta, X.-N. Wang, and B.-W. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D91, 074027 (2015), arXiv:1411.7767 [hep- ph]

2015 arXiv
[77]

L.-G. Pang, H. Petersen, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C97, 064918 (2018), arXiv:1802.04449 [nucl-th]

2018 arXiv
[78]

Wu, G.-Y

X.-Y. Wu, G.-Y. Qin, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C105, 034909 (2022), arXiv:2107.04949 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[79]

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

2018 arXiv
[80]

W. Chen, S. Cao, T. Luo, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B810, 135783 (2020), arXiv:2005.09678 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[81]

W. Zhao, W. Ke, W. Chen, T. Luo, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 022302 (2022), arXiv:2103.14657 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[82]

Sjostrand, S

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun.178, 852 (2008), arXiv:0710.3820 [hep- ph]

2008 arXiv
[83]

Sj¨ ostrand, S

T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Ras- mussen, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015), arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[84]

Bierlichet al., SciPost Phys

C. Bierlichet al., SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022, 8 (2022), arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[86]

Cacciari, G

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

2012 arXiv
[87]

Bertolini, T

D. Bertolini, T. Chan, and J. Thaler, JHEP04, 013 (2014), arXiv:1310.7584 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[88]

S. S. Gubser and A. Yarom, Phys. Rev. D77, 066007 (2008), arXiv:0709.1089 [hep-th]

2008 arXiv
[89]

B. Betz, J. Noronha, G. Torrieri, M. Gyulassy, I. Mishustin, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. C79, 034902 (2009), arXiv:0812.4401 [nucl-th]

2009 arXiv
[90]

W. Chen, Z. Yang, Y. He, W. Ke, L. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 082301 (2021), arXiv:2101.05422 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[91]

Z. Yang, T. Luo, W. Chen, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 052301 (2023), arXiv:2203.03683 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[92]

Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. C111, 044909 (2025), arXiv:2408.08599 [nucl-ex]

2025 arXiv
[93]

Chekhovskyet al.(CMS), Phys

V. Chekhovskyet al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B874, 140120 (2026), arXiv:2507.09307 [nucl-ex]

2026
[94]

Yang and X.-N

Z. Yang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 072302 (2025), arXiv:2501.03419 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[95]

Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), (2026), arXiv:2602.19431 [nucl-ex]

A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), (2026), arXiv:2602.19431 [nucl-ex]

2026
[96]

Yang and X.-N

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

2025
[97]

Yang and X.-N

Z. Yang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C113, L031901 (2026), arXiv:2508.04194 [hep-ph]

2026 arXiv
[98]

Casalderrey-Solana, E

J. Casalderrey-Solana, E. V. Shuryak, and D. Teaney, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.27, 22 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0411315

2005 arXiv
[99]

Stoecker, Nucl

H. Stoecker, Nucl. Phys. A750, 121 (2005), arXiv:nucl- th/0406018

2005
[100]

Ruppert and B

J. Ruppert and B. Muller, Phys. Lett. B618, 123 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0503158

2005 arXiv
[101]

S. S. Gubser, S. S. Pufu, and A. Yarom, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 012301 (2008), arXiv:0706.4307 [hep-th]

2008 arXiv
[102]

R. B. Neufeld, B. Muller, and J. Ruppert, Phys. Rev. C78, 041901 (2008), arXiv:0802.2254 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[103]

G. Y. Qin, A. Majumder, H. Song, and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 152303 (2009), arXiv:0903.2255 [nucl- th]

2009 arXiv
[104]

H. Li, F. Liu, G.-l. Ma, X.-N. Wang, and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 012301 (2011), arXiv:1006.2893 [nucl- th]

2011 arXiv
[105]

Bouras, A

I. Bouras, A. El, O. Fochler, H. Niemi, Z. Xu, and C. Greiner, Phys. Lett. B710, 641 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 728, 156–156 (2014)], arXiv:1201.5005 [nucl-th]

2012 arXiv
[106]

Ayala, I

A. Ayala, I. Dominguez, J. Jalilian-Marian, and M. E. Tejeda-Yeomans, Phys. Rev. C94, 024913 (2016), arXiv:1603.09296 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[107]

L. Yan, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C97, 034914 (2018), arXiv:1707.09519 [nucl-th]

2018 arXiv
[108]

Casalderrey-Solana, J

J. Casalderrey-Solana, J. G. Milhano, D. Pablos, K. Rajagopal, and X. Yao, JHEP05, 230 (2021), arXiv:2010.01140 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[109]

Pablos, Phys

D. Pablos, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 052301 (2020), arXiv:1907.12301 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [85]

Dang, W.-J

Y. Dang, W.-J. Xing, S. Cao, and G.-Y. Qin, (2026), arXiv:2602.10395 [nucl-th]

arXiv 2026

[2] [1]

J. D. Bjorken, (1982), reportNumber = FERMILAB- PUB-82-059-THY, FERMILAB-PUB-82-059-T

1982

[3] [2]

M. H. Thoma and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. B351, 491 (1991)

1991

[4] [3]

Braaten and M

E. Braaten and M. H. Thoma, Phys. Rev. D44, R2625 (1991)

1991

[5] [4]

Gyulassy and X.-N

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

arXiv 1994

[6] [5]

Baier, Y

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

arXiv 1997

[7] [6]

B. G. Zakharov, JETP Lett.63, 952 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9607440. 6

arXiv 1996

[8] [7]

Gyulassy, P

M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev, Nucl. Phys. B571, 197 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907461

arXiv 2000