Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Jet charge modification in dense QCD matter

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives a factorization of the medium-modified average jet charge whose Pb+Pb-to-p+p ratio is flavor-independent and controlled by the (κ+1)th Mellin moment of the medium-induced splitting function.

desk verdict A genuine first SCET calculation of medium-modified jet charge with a clever ratio observable, but the resummation in Eq. (17) needs a rescoped error claim before I'd trust the low-pT predictions. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06979 v2 pith:XPV47NAV submitted 2019-08-19 hep-ph hep-exnucl-th

Hai Tao Li , Ivan Vitev This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-th
keywords jetchargeheavy-ioncollisionsquenchingsoft-collineareffectivetheorymedium-inducedsplittingfunctionsfragmentationflavortaggingquark-gluonplasma
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

The paper extends the soft-collinear effective theory (SCET) factorization of the average jet charge—the transverse-momentum-weighted sum of the electric charges of a jet's constituents—from proton collisions to jets propagating through quark-gluon plasma. Its central result, Eq. (17), expresses the medium-modified average charge of a quark jet as the vacuum value times a first-order correction from the medium-modified jet function times an exponential whose exponent is the integral of the (κ+1)th Mellin moment of the medium-induced splitting function. Because the same exponential and jet-function correction appear for every quark flavor, the Pb+Pb-to-p+p ratio of jet charges is flavor independent (Eq. (22)), which removes the trivial initial-state isospin effect coming from the neutron excess in heavy nuclei. If the calculation is right, measuring the transverse-momentum dependence of the flavor-tagged jet charge ratio directly exposes the in-medium branching dynamics of energetic quarks, a quantity currently buried inside inclusive jet-quenching observables. The vacuum side of the factorization is validated against existing proton-proton data, and predictions are presented for Pb+Pb collisions at collider energies.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the SCET factorization of jet production, in which the average jet charge of a quark jet is a product of the jet matching coefficient $\tilde J_{qq}(E,R,\kappa,\mu)$, the inverse of the total jet function $J_q(E,R,\mu)$, and the charge-weighted fragmentation function moment $\tilde D^Q_q(\kappa,\mu)$. The engine of the paper is the replacement of vacuum splitting kernels by medium-induced splitting functions $P^{\rm med}_{q\to qg}(x,k_\perp)$ computed to first order in opacity: this replacement generates the medium corrections to the jet functions and, through the medium-modified DGLAP equation, the exponential factor in Eq. (17). The (κ+1)th Mellin moment $\tilde P^{\rm med}_{qq}(\kappa,\mu)$ is the specific combination that carries the medium information into the observable, and the jet radius $R$ enters through the upper limit of the $k_\perp$ integration, $2E x(1-x)\tan(R/2)$, which sets how much of the medium-induced shower is reconstructed in the jet.

What would settle it

Measure the Pb+Pb-to-p+p ratio of the average up- and down-quark jet charges over $p_T \simeq 60$–$500$ GeV for $\kappa = 0.3, 0.5, 1, 2$; if the two ratios differ beyond combined uncertainties, Eq. (22) is false, and if the (κ+1)th Mellin moment extracted from the $p_T$ slope via Eq. (20) depends on κ, the medium-modified DGLAP ansatz fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a factorization formula: for a quark-initiated jet of flavor $q$, $\langle Q^{AA}_{q,\kappa}\rangle = \langle Q^{pp}_{q,\kappa}\rangle \left(1 + \tilde J^{\rm med}_{qq} - J^{\rm med}_q\right) \exp\left[\int \frac{d\mu}{\mu} \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} \tilde P^{\rm med}_{qq}\right]$ up to corrections of order $\alpha_s^2$ and $\chi^2$, where $\chi$ is the opacity expansion parameter. The factor $\left(1+\cdots\right)$ comes from medium corrections to the jet matching coefficient and the total jet function, and the exponential is the solution of a medium-modified DGLAP equation for the charge-weighted fragmentation function. The structure is the direct generalization of the vacuum SCET factorization to dense matter, with vacuum splitting kernels replaced by medium-induced splitting kernels $P^{\rm med}_{q\to qg}(x,k_\perp)$ at first order in opacity. Since the exponential and the jet-function correction do not depend on the quark's electric charge, the ratio $\langle Q^{Pb+Pb}_{\kappa,u}\rangle/\langle Q^{p+p}_{\kappa,u}\rangle$ equals $\langle Q^{Pb+Pb}_{\kappa,d}\rangle/\langle Q^{p+p}_{\kappa,d}\rangle$, so the observable isolates final-state in-medium branching from initial-state isospin effects. The paper also shows that the $p_T$ slope of the logarithm of the jet charge is controlled by the (κ+1)th Mellin moment of the medium-induced splitting function.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the way quark jets break into charged hadrons inside the hot medium is described by the vacuum evolution equation with an extra in-medium splitting term, and that the starting conditions for that evolution are the same as in proton collisions; if that is wrong, the predicted modification of the jet charge collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The average charges of up- and down-quark jets remain well separated in 0–10% central Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$ TeV, so flavor tagging of quark jets should survive in the quark-gluon plasma.
  • The medium-to-vacuum jet charge ratio is identical for up- and down-quark jets, meaning a measurement of either ratio directly exposes final-state in-medium branching with the initial-state isospin effect divided out.
  • The transverse-momentum slope of the jet charge, Eq. (20), is set by the (κ+1)th Mellin moment of the medium-induced splitting function, so a measured slope gives a direct extraction of that moment.
  • Because larger κ weights softer fragments more strongly, the modification ratio grows with κ, giving experiments a dial to trade the magnitude of the jet charge against its sensitivity to soft medium-induced gluon radiation.
  • At jet transverse momenta below roughly 200 GeV the medium-induced shower contribution dominates the modification, while at high $p_T$ the modification is mostly the initial-state isospin effect, so a wide $p_T$ scan separates the two.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that the same factorization should hold for any hard process that produces quark jets, since the jet charge is independent of the hard scattering; vector-boson-plus-jet and heavy-flavor jet samples would give independent handles on the same medium-induced splitting moment.
  • A testable extension would be to compare the κ-dependence of the extracted moment with the κ-dependence predicted by higher-order opacity calculations; if the extracted $\tilde P^{\rm med}_{qq}(\kappa,\mu)$ drifts with κ, the first-order-in-opacity truncation is being probed.
  • Because the flavor-independent ratio removes both isospin and, at leading order, the nonperturbative fragmentation boundary conditions, it could serve as a cleaner test of the medium-modified evolution than inclusive hadron suppression ratios, which mix many channels.
  • If future flavor-tagged data show up/down ratios that differ at fixed $p_T$ and κ, the most natural explanations would be flavor-dependent hadronization in the medium or a medium response beyond the first-order opacity expansion, both of which are outside the current framework.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents an analytic SCET-based calculation of the average jet charge in heavy-ion collisions. In vacuum, the average charge factorizes into a perturbative jet matching coefficient and a nonperturbative charge-weighted fragmentation function; the authors extend this by replacing vacuum splitting functions with medium-induced splitting kernels computed to first order in opacity. The central result, Eq. (17), expresses the medium jet charge as the pp value times a prefactor involving the medium jet-function correction and an exponential of the (κ+1)th Mellin moment of the medium splitting function. The paper derives a flavor-independent ratio, Eq. (22), and presents numerical predictions for 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb collisions, including flavor-separated jet charges and forward/central dijet averages, with the nonperturbative boundary conditions fit to PYTHIA and the pp results compared with ATLAS data.

Significance. If the framework is correct, this is the first direct analytic calculation of jet charge modification in dense QCD matter and provides an observable sensitive to Mellin moments of medium-induced splitting functions. The derivation of the medium jet-function corrections (Eqs. 12-14 and 18) is explicit and coherent, and the pp comparison with ATLAS data is a useful validation. The two main load-bearing issues are the uncontrolled exponentiation of the first-order opacity kernel in Eq. (17) and the posited, rather than derived, medium-modified DGLAP evolution in Eq. (15); both need to be addressed before the numerical predictions can be considered reliable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.B, Eq. (17)] The label '+O(α_s², χ²)' is not justified as written. The prefactor (1+J~med_qq−Jmed_q) and the exponent argument ∫ dμ/μ α_s/π P~med_qq are each first order in the opacity parameter χ, so expanding the exponential generates terms of order χ², χ³, ... from iterating the first-order kernel. These iterated terms are not the genuine two-scattering, single-emission kernels computed in Refs. [56,57], so they do not constitute the full second-order opacity correction. If Eq. (17) is intended as a first-order-in-opacity result, it must be expanded to 1+(J~med_qq−Jmed_q)+∫ dμ/μ α_s/π P~med_qq; if it is intended as a leading-log resummation of an independent-emission picture, that assumption must be stated and the error estimate must be reformulated. This is numerically relevant: in the pT<200 GeV region of Fig. 4 the exponent is O(0.5), so the difference between exponentiated and expanded forms is not negligible.
  2. [Section III.B, Eq. (15)] The medium-modified DGLAP evolution of the charge-weighted fragmentation function is posited, not derived, and the scale choice μ=k⊥ in Eq. (16) is stated as following Refs. [50,51,55,76]. Since the exponential factor in Eq. (17) is the direct solution of Eq. (15), the accuracy of the central prediction depends on this assumption at the same level as the explicit jet-function corrections. Please either derive Eq. (15) from the opacity expansion to the quoted accuracy, or state explicitly that this is a model assumption and quantify its uncertainty. The previous validation of the formalism against inclusive hadron suppression is not a direct test of the charge-weighted Mellin-moment evolution.
  3. [Section III.B, Eq. (20)] The relation between Eq. (19) and Eq. (20) is not explained. Differentiating Eq. (17) with respect to pT should produce the d ln μ/d ln pT term plus an explicit derivative of the prefactor, and the second integral in Eq. (20) appears to account for the latter. Please show the derivation so the reader can verify that the extraction of the Mellin moment is not contaminated by boundary terms. In addition, the notation P_med_qq(κ,k⊥) appearing in Eq. (20) has not been defined, since Eq. (16) defines the integrated moment P~med_qq(κ,μ).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A] The sentence 'the coefficient function function A(k⊥)' contains a duplicated word; it should read 'the coefficient function A(k⊥)'.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] The parenthetical labels '(right)' and '(left)' appear to be swapped relative to the two-panel layout of the figure; please check that the caption matches the panels.
  3. [Section I and throughout] The notation for the heavy-ion average jet charge is inconsistent: the text uses ⟨Q_AA⟩, ⟨Q_PbPb⟩, and ⟨Q^Pb+Pb⟩. Please define one symbol and use it consistently.
  4. [Section III.A] The phrase 'The Relation of this technique to other approaches' has an unnecessary capital 'R' and should be lower-case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the medium-modified jet charge is a genuine calculation built on previously validated medium-induced splitting functions, and the fitted nonperturbative boundary condition cancels in the central heavy-ion/pp ratio.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the jet charge observable. The vacuum factorization (Eq. (4)) and the heavy-ion generalization (Eq. (17)) are constructed by inserting medium-modified splitting kernels into the jet-function and fragmentation-evolution expressions; the paper does not define any input in terms of the target observable. The single nonperturbative parameter per flavor and κ is fitted to PYTHIA for pp and then reused unchanged for Pb+Pb ('we will use the same nonperturbative parameters as in pp collisions'), but this parameter cancels in the key prediction, the flavor-independent modification ratio of Eq. (22), which the paper explicitly derives from the fact that 'the only difference between the up- and down-quark jet charges is the nonperturbative parameters or boundary conditions.' Thus the central claim is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The medium-induced splitting functions and medium-modified DGLAP evolution are imported from prior work by the same group (Refs. [50,51,53–59]), which is a self-citation chain, but the paper cites external experimental validation: 'the accuracy of theoretical predictions to this order has been confirmed by experimental measurements' (Ref. [77] CMS inclusive hadron suppression), so the imported kernels are not unverified assertions and do not make the argument circular. The skeptical concern that Eq. (17) exponentiates a first-order-in-opacity kernel while quoting O(α_s^2, χ^2) is a legitimate accuracy/resummation-consistency issue, but it is not a circularity: the exponentiated form is not equivalent to its input by construction, nor does it reintroduce the fitted parameter. Overall, the heavy-ion jet charge modification is a derived prediction with independent external anchors, and no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation introduces no new particles or forces. It relies on two fitted or hand-chosen parameters (the PYTHIA-fitted fragmentation boundary condition and the medium coupling g) and on several modeling assumptions, most notably the medium-modified DGLAP ansatz and the restriction to first order in opacity.

free parameters (2)
  • D~Q_q(kappa, mu0=1 GeV), nonperturbative charge-weighted fragmentation function boundary condition = not tabulated; fitted to PYTHIA8 for each kappa and flavor
    This parameter sets the magnitude of the pp jet charge and is inherited by the heavy-ion calculation. It is obtained by fitting to PYTHIA8 simulations, as stated in Sec. IV and the caption of Fig. 1.
  • g, jet-medium coupling = 1.9 +/- 0.1
    Chosen to set the Debye mass (mu_D = 0.75 GeV) in the medium-induced splitting functions. The uncertainty band in the A+A predictions is generated by varying g between 1.8 and 2.0, but g itself is not fitted to jet charge data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The SCET factorization of the jet charge in vacuum, Eq. (4), extends to heavy-ion collisions with medium-modified jet functions, matching coefficients, and fragmentation functions.
    Taken from Refs. [38, 39] and assumed to hold in medium throughout Sec. III. The entire derivation of Eq. (17) relies on this factorized form.
  • domain assumption Gluon jets have zero average jet charge because soft correlations are negligible and quark/antiquark contributions cancel.
    Stated in Sec. II. This is needed for the flavor decomposition in Eqs. (3) and (21), and it means only q -> qg branching matters for the jet charge.
  • domain assumption The first order in opacity is a sufficient approximation for the medium-induced splitting functions at LHC energies; higher orders in opacity are neglected.
    Stated in Sec. III A. The authors explicitly note that higher-order opacity evaluation is computationally intensive and use only the first-order kernels, validated by prior comparisons to hadron and jet data.
  • ad hoc to paper The in-medium evolution of the fragmentation function follows the medium-modified DGLAP equation, Eq. (15), with the factorization scale set to k_perp in the medium part.
    This evolution equation is taken from Refs. [50, 51] and is not derived in this paper. It is the key dynamical input that produces the exponential factor in Eq. (17).
  • ad hoc to paper The nonperturbative fragmentation boundary condition is the same in vacuum and in the medium.
    Assumed in Sec. IV: the heavy-ion calculation uses the same nonperturbative parameters as p+p, evolved from Lambda_QCD with medium kernels. There is no independent evidence that hadronization at the starting scale is unmodified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Jet charge modification in dense QCD matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XPV47NAV

@misc{pith2026190806979,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Jet charge modification in dense QCD matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XPV47NAV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06979}
}
read the original abstract

Jet production and jet substructure modification in heavy-ion collisions have played an essential role in revealing the in-medium evolution of parton showers and the determination of the properties of strongly-interacting matter under extreme conditions. It is imperative to extend these studies to include flavor tagging and to devise observables that are sensitive to the partonic origin of jets. The average jet charge, defined as the momentum-weighted sum of the electric charges of particles inside the jet, is a proxy of the electric charge of the quark or gluon that initiates the jet. We demonstrate how the factorization framework of soft-collinear effective theory can be generalized to evaluate the jet charge in a dense strongly-interacting matter environment, such as the one produced in nuclear reactions at collider energies. Observables that can separate the contribution of in-medium branching from the trivial isospin effects are identified and their connection to established jet quenching effects is elucidated. We present predictions for the transverse momentum dependence of the jet charge distribution in nucleus-nucleus collisions and its modification relative to the proton case.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06979 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Average charge of up- and down-quark jets as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Transverse momentum dependence of the average jet charge distribution for the more forward jet (left) and more [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Modifications of the average charge for an up-quark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Average jet charge distribution for a more forward (right) and a more central (left) jet with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.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. Secondary Lund jet plane as a gluon enriched sample

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Selecting close, asymmetric dijets at the LHC gives a ~90% gluon-enriched subleading jet sample, supported by fixed-order QCD and Monte Carlo.

  2. Anisotropic jet broadening and jet shape

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper introduces azimuthal-dependent jet broadening and jet shape observables, calculates their jet functions in SCET for standard and Winner-Take-All axes, and shows the broadening can directly probe the collinea...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    G. F. Sterman and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1436 (1977)

    1977

  2. [2]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, and M. E. Luke, Phys. Rev. D63, 014006 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0005275 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2000

  3. [3]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D63, 114020 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0011336 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Lett. B516, 134 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0107001 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2001

  5. [5]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D65, 054022 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0109045 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    Beneke, A

    M. Beneke, A. P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl, and T. Feld- mann, Nucl. Phys. B643, 431 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0206152 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2002

  7. [7]

    Vitev, S

    I. Vitev, S. Wicks, and B.-W. Zhang, JHEP 11, 093 (2008), arXiv:0810.2807 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    R. B. Neufeld and I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 242001 (2012), arXiv:1202.5556 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    W. Dai, I. Vitev, and B.-W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 142001 (2013), arXiv:1207.5177 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Qin, Eur

    G.-Y. Qin, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2959 (2014), arXiv:1210.6610 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Wang and Y

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

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B718, 773 (2013), arXiv:1205.0206 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B785, 14 (2018), arXiv:1711.09738 [nucl-ex]. 10 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 400 500 [GeV] T Jet p0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Fraction Gluon Up Down Gluon Up Down = 5.02 TeV NNs R=0.4 T Anti-k More Forward Jet Pb+Pb p+p 0.1 ± g=1.9 60 70 80 90 100 2...

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 082301 (2017), arXiv:1702.01060 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B789, 167 (2019), arXiv:1809.07280 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Chien and I

    Y.-T. Chien and I. Vitev, JHEP 05, 023 (2016), arXiv:1509.07257 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 152001 (2019), arXiv:1809.08602 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 042001 (2019), arXiv:1902.10007 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    R. D. Field and R. P. Feynman, Nucl. Phys. B136, 1 (1978), [763(1977)]

    1978

  12. [20]

    J. P. Berge et al. , Nucl. Phys. B184, 13 (1981)

    1981

  13. [21]

    J. P. Albanese et al. (European Muon), Phys. Lett. 144B, 302 (1984)

    1984

  14. [22]

    Erickson et al

    R. Erickson et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 822 (1979), [Er- ratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.42,1246(1979)]

    1979

  15. [23]

    Braunschweig et al

    W. Braunschweig et al. (TASSO), Z. Phys. C48, 433 (1990)

    1990

  16. [24]

    Abreu et al

    P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI), Phys. Lett. B277, 371 (1992)

    1992

  17. [25]

    Decamp et al

    D. Decamp et al. (ALEPH), Phys. Lett. B259, 377 (1991)

    1991

  18. [26]

    P. D. Acton et al. (OPAL), Phys. Lett.B294, 436 (1992)

    1992

  19. [27]

    Abreu et al

    P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI), Z. Phys. C72, 17 (1996)

    1996

  20. [28]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (SLD), Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2890 (1995)

    1995

  21. [29]

    Abe et al

    F. Abe et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. D60, 072003 (1999), arXiv:hep-ex/9903011 [hep-ex]

    1999 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Barate et al

    R. Barate et al. (ALEPH), Phys. Lett. B422, 369 (1998)

    1998

  23. [31]

    Abreu et al

    P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI), Phys. Lett. B502, 9 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0102041 [hep-ex]

    2001 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Acciarri et al

    M. Acciarri et al. (L3), Phys. Lett. B467, 171 (1999), arXiv:hep-ex/9910008 [hep-ex]

    1999 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Abbiendi et al

    G. Abbiendi et al. (OPAL), Eur. Phys. J. C19, 1 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0009022 [hep-ex]

    2001 arXiv

  26. [34]

    ATLAS (ATLAS), ATLAS-CONF-2015-025 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. D93, 052003 (2016), arXiv:1509.05190 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    CMS (CMS), CMS-PAS-SMP-15-003 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), JHEP 10, 131 (2017), arXiv:1706.05868 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Krohn, M

    D. Krohn, M. D. Schwartz, T. Lin, and W. J. Waalewijn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 212001 (2013), arXiv:1209.2421 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    W. J. Waalewijn, Phys. Rev. D86, 094030 (2012), arXiv:1209.3019 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    S. D. Ellis, C. K. Vermilion, J. R. Walsh, A. Hornig, and C. Lee, JHEP 11, 101 (2010), arXiv:1001.0014 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Fraser and M

    K. Fraser and M. D. Schwartz, JHEP 10, 093 (2018), arXiv:1803.08066 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Kovarik et al

    K. Kovarik et al. , Phys. Rev. D93, 085037 (2016), arXiv:1509.00792 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Vitev and B.-W

    I. Vitev and B.-W. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B669, 337 (2008), arXiv:0804.3805 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C87, 054907 (2013), arXiv:1208.1234 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B796, 230 (2019), arXiv:1903.02209 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    David, (2019), arXiv:1907.08893 [nucl-ex]

    G. David, (2019), arXiv:1907.08893 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. L. Albacete et al. , Nucl. Phys. A972, 18 (2018), arXiv:1707.09973 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Gyulassy, P

    M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, I. Vitev, and T. S. Biro, Phys. Rev. D90, 054025 (2014), arXiv:1405.7825 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Majumder and C

    A. Majumder and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 202301 (2012), arXiv:1103.0809 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Z.-B. Kang, R. Lashof-Regas, G. Ovanesyan, P. Saad, and I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 092002 (2015), arXiv:1405.2612 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Chien, A

    Y.-T. Chien, A. Emerman, Z.-B. Kang, G. Ovanesyan, and I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. D93, 074030 (2016), arXiv:1509.02936 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Chen, B.-W

    S.-Y. Chen, B.-W. Zhang, and E.-K. Wang, (2019), arXiv:1908.01518 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Ovanesyan and I

    G. Ovanesyan and I. Vitev, JHEP 06, 080 (2011), arXiv:1103.1074 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Ovanesyan and I

    G. Ovanesyan and I. Vitev, Phys. Lett.B706, 371 (2012), arXiv:1109.5619 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Z.-B. Kang, F. Ringer, and I. Vitev, JHEP 03, 146 (2017), arXiv:1610.02043 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    M. D. Sievert and I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. D98, 094010 (2018), arXiv:1807.03799 [hep-ph]. 11

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    M. D. Sievert, I. Vitev, and B. Yoon, Phys. Lett. B795, 502 (2019), arXiv:1903.06170 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Z.-B. Kang, F. Ringer, and I. Vitev, Phys. Lett. B769, 242 (2017), arXiv:1701.05839 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    H. T. Li and I. Vitev, JHEP 07, 148 (2019), arXiv:1811.07905 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Procura and I

    M. Procura and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D81, 074009 (2010), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D83,039902(2011)], arXiv:0911.4980 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Liu, Phys

    X. Liu, Phys. Lett. B699, 87 (2011), arXiv:1011.3872 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  54. [62]

    S. D. Ellis, A. Hornig, C. Lee, C. K. Vermilion, and J. R. Walsh, Phys. Lett. B689, 82 (2010), arXiv:0912.0262 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  55. [63]

    A. Jain, M. Procura, and W. J. Waalewijn, JHEP 05, 035 (2011), arXiv:1101.4953 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Chien, Z.-B

    Y.-T. Chien, Z.-B. Kang, F. Ringer, I. Vitev, and H. Xing, JHEP 05, 125 (2016), arXiv:1512.06851 [hep- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  57. [65]

    L. Dai, C. Kim, and A. K. Leibovich, Phys. Rev. D94, 114023 (2016), arXiv:1606.07411 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Gyulassy, P

    M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5535 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0005032 [nucl-th]

    2000 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Gyulassy, P

    M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev, Nucl. Phys. B594, 371 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0006010 [nucl-th]

    2001 arXiv

  60. [68]

    X. Feal, C. A. Salgado, and R. A. Vazquez, (2019), arXiv:1911.01309 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Andres, L

    C. Andres, L. Apolinrio, and F. Dominguez, (2020), arXiv:2002.01517 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Vitev and B.-W

    I. Vitev and B.-W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 132001 (2010), arXiv:0910.1090 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Collaboration (CMS), (2019), CMS-PAS-HIN-18-014

    C. Collaboration (CMS), (2019), CMS-PAS-HIN-18-014

    2019

  64. [72]

    Wang and X.-f

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

    2001 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Deng and X.-N

    W.-t. Deng and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C81, 024902 (2010), arXiv:0910.3403 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Majumder, Phys

    A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. C88, 014909 (2013), arXiv:1301.5323 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Chang, W.-T

    N.-B. Chang, W.-T. Deng, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C89, 034911 (2014), arXiv:1401.5109 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  68. [76]

    H. T. Li and I. Vitev, Phys. Lett. B793, 259 (2019), arXiv:1801.00008 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), JHEP 04, 039 (2017), arXiv:1611.01664 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  70. [78]

    L. D. Landau and I. Pomeranchuk, Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ser. Fiz. 92, 535 (1953)

    1953

  71. [79]

    A. B. Migdal, Phys. Rev. 103, 1811 (1956)

    1956

  72. [80]

    Dulat, T.-J

    S. Dulat, T.-J. Hou, J. Gao, M. Guzzi, J. Hus- ton, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, C. Schmidt, D. Stump, and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D93, 033006 (2016), arXiv:1506.07443 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Sjostrand, S

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

    2008 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Sjstrand, S

    T. Sjstrand, 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), arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  75. [83]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), (2020), arXiv:2004.00602 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.