Pith.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:hep-ph/0406201 v3 · submitted 18 Jun 2004 · 38 references

Leading-particle suppression in high energy nucleus-nucleus collisions

A. Dainese (Padova U., INFN), C. Loizides (Frankfurt U., Inst. Kernphys.), G. Paic (Mexico City U., ICN)

PDF · arXiv · The abstract, sentence by sentence · Cite

The paper says

“Parton energy loss effects in heavy-ion collisions are studied with the Monte Carlo program PQM (Parton Quenching Model) constructed using the BDMPS quenching weights and a realistic collision geometry.”

more of the abstract

The merit of the approach is that it contains only one free parameter that is tuned to the high-pt nuclear modification factor measured in central Au-Au collisions at sqrts_NN = 200 GeV. Once tuned, the model is coherently applied to all the high-pt observables at 200 GeV: the centrality evolution of the nuclear modification factor, the suppression of the away-side jet-like correlations, and the azimuthal anisotropies for these observables. Predictions for the leading-particle suppression at nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass energies of 62.4 and 5500 GeV are calculated. The limits of the eikonal approximation in the BDMPS approach, when applied to finite-energy partons, are discussed.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4.1-flash · 13 Nov 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

Reviewed in 2026 with later literature in view.

It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.

Holds up, with conditions. The parton-by-parton ωc and R construction is the real contribution here; the finite-energy band is acknowledged and honest, but the LHC 'prediction' leans harder on a borrowed scaling exponent than the paper admits. This line is wrong

4 major objections · 8 minor

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 38 references say.

The paper says, at §3, 'Energy-loss sampling', and Fig. 3

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 4 · major

The headline number ⟨q̂⟩ ≈ 14 GeV²/fm is quoted as a single value, but it is the value obtained in the non-reweighted scheme; the reweighted scheme requires a different k, and the two differ by roughly a factor of two in R_AA (as the authors themselves state in §4).

more of objection 1

The abstract's 'only one free parameter' (abstract:s1) should therefore be stated precisely as one continuous parameter plus one unresolved discrete modelling choice, since the extracted density scale is degenerate with that choice. Please quote the k (and ⟨q̂⟩) obtained separately for both schemes, and state explicitly in the abstract and conclusions that the density scale carries this factor-of-two scheme ambiguity. Relatedly, §2 derives a third, arguably more physical truncation — cutting ω dI/dω at E, giving ⟨ΔE⟩ ∝ α_s C_R √q̂ √E L for E < ω_c — which is never implemented in the sampling. Either implement it as a third member of the band or justify why it is discarded, since it is the only truncation in the paper that follows from the formalism rather than being imposed on the output distribution.

The paper says, at §4, Fig. 5 and Fig. 14

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 2 of 4 · major

The paper states that the theoretical band is narrowest for semi-central and peripheral collisions because the probability of ΔE > E becomes marginal there, but Fig. 14 shows that precisely in that region (N_part < 150) the result is sensitive to the shape of the continuous part of P(ΔE): the 'only P(ΔE = 0)' variant, which keeps only the discrete weight p_0, fails for N_part < 150 while agreeing for N_part ≳ 150.

more of objection 2

The band is thus narrowest exactly where the model is most sensitive to the part of the quenching weight that the eikonal approximation constrains least. This is an internal tension in the error budget and should be stated as such: please quantify, for the 40–50% and 60–80% bins, how much R_AA moves under a plausible variation of the shape of p(ΔE) at fixed p_0, so that the reader can judge whether the peripheral agreement in Fig. 5 is meaningful or accidental.

The paper says, at §4, 'Extrapolation to the LHC', Fig. 10

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 3 of 4 · major

The LHC prediction of R_AA ≈ 0.15, flat in p_t, and the stated disagreement with Ref. [17] rest on the density scaling of Eq. (20), n_gluons ∝ A^0.383 (√s_NN)^0.574, which gives ⟨q̂⟩ ≈ 100 GeV²/fm, a factor of seven above the RHIC value.

more of objection 3

Because the flatness of R_AA is a saturation effect, the shape may be robust, but the magnitude is not obviously so. Please show the sensitivity of the LHC R_AA to the exponent in Eq. (20) — for instance, varying the √s exponent by ±0.2 — and state whether the black-disk plateau survives. In addition, the comparison with Ref. [17] attributes the difference to the assumed gluon rapidity density; Ref. [17] also uses a different energy-loss formalism (GLV rather than BDMPS) and a different medium profile, and the manuscript should say so rather than leaving the reader with a single-cause explanation.

The paper says, at §5, 'High-energy partons from the surface', Fig. 12

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 4 of 4 · major

The single-parameter absorption toy model (all partons with L < L_max_escape escape, the rest are absorbed) is shown to reproduce both the magnitude of R_AA and the near-vanishing of I_AA in central collisions, with L_max_escape ≈ 2.5 fm. Since this is essentially the model of Ref.

more of objection 4

[14], the manuscript should state explicitly what the BDMPS weights and the parton-by-parton ω_c, R calculation add beyond that geometric picture. As written, the paper's own conclusion — that the medium acts as a black disk and that the energy-loss probability is dominated by the discrete weight p_0 — invites the reading that the full machinery is not needed for the central-collision observables. A short paragraph distinguishing what only the quenching-weight calculation can predict (e.g. the p_t dependence of R_AA, the quark/gluon differentiation, the peripheral bins where the shape of p(ΔE) matters) would substantially clarify the scope of the claim in abstract:s2.

8 minor objections

The paper says, at Title page

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 8

The third author's name is typeset as 'G. Pai´ cc'; it should read 'G. Paic'.

The paper says, at Eq. (17)

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 8

The denominator dσ^h1_AA/dp_t,1 in the definition of D_AA appears to sit outside the p_t,2 and Δφ integrals, but the typesetting makes the grouping ambiguous. Please rewrite with explicit parentheses or brackets so that it is unambiguous which factors are inside the integrals.

show 6 more

The paper says, at Fig. 7 and §6

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 8

The conclusions state that the calculated v2 lies 'about 2 standard deviations below the experimental data' at p_t ≈ 4–6 GeV, but Fig. 7 plots only statistical errors. Please specify which errors (statistical, systematic, or both) enter that 2σ statement, and note that the STAR points shown are preliminary.

The paper says, at Fig. 7 caption

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 8

The caption correctly warns that, contrary to all other figures, the solid (non-reweighted) curve is the upper limit of the band here. This is easy to miss; consider adding an explicit arrow or a small inset label in the panel itself.

The paper says, at §4, 'Nuclear modification factor at √s_NN = 62.4 GeV', Fig. 9

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 8

The PHENIX preliminary π⁰ comparison uses a parameterised pp reference rather than a measured one; please state this in the figure caption as well as in the text, since it affects how the agreement at p_t > 5 GeV should be read.

The paper says, at §2, Eq. (4)

Pith says: minor objection 6 of 8

The two branches of the R → ∞ gluon distribution are written with the numerical coefficients run together ('√(ω_c/2ω)' and '1/12 (ω_c/ω)²'); please check the typesetting against Ref. [13] so that the reader can verify the normalisation.

The paper says, at §3, 'Determination of ω_c and R'

Pith says: minor objection 7 of 8

The statement that the sampled impact parameter follows d⟨N_coll^AB⟩/db is clear, but the mapping from centrality class to b range is not given numerically. A short table of the b ranges and ⟨N_part⟩ used for each of the nine bins of Fig. 5 would make the centrality comparison reproducible.

The paper says, at §4, Fig. 2

Pith says: minor objection 8 of 8

The left-hand panel uses q̂ = 1 GeV²/fm for all hadrons and q̂ = 0.75 GeV²/fm for the quark-only and gluon-only curves; the text explains why, but the caption does not. Please add one sentence to the caption so the figure is self-contained.

What would settle it

Implement the Section 2 kinematic truncation (cut omega dI/domega at the parton energy E, i.e. the <Delta E> proportional to alpha_s C_R sqrt(omega_c) sqrt(min(omega_c, E)) prescription) as a third finite-energy scheme in PQM, holding k fixed at the value tuned on central R_AA. Compare the resulting R_AA(pt) in the 0-10% and 60-80% bins to the existing band, and compute the central-to-peripheral ratio R_AA(0-10%)/R_AA(60-80%) under all three schemes. If the third scheme falls outside the quoted band, or if that ratio shifts by more than the experimental uncertainty on it, the factor-2 band understates the theoretical uncertainty and the extracted <q-hat> is not a determined quantity.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4.1-flash · 13 Nov 2026

  1. Reader holds up, with conditions confidence high
  2. Skeptic agrees 2 min 5 s · 22,015 tokens read, 5,914 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 18 s · 23,137 tokens read, 949 written
  4. Referee minor revision: 4 major objections, 8 minor 1 min 29 s · 22,283 tokens read, 4,623 written

Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.

Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

Worth your time, with one caveat about how far the conclusions travel. The genuine advance is not the quenching weights — those are Salgado–Wiedemann — but Eqs. (8)–(16): ωc and R computed per parton from a space-point-dependent q-hat integrated along the actual path through a Wood–Saxon Glauber overlap. That replaces the constant-q-hat, constant-L treatments it cites, and it is why the centrality scan in Fig. 5 and the I_AA comparison in Fig. 6 mean something. Those are post-dictions against data not used to fix k, and they hold up. The v2 result undershoots the 4–6 GeV data and the authors say so plainly rather than hiding it. The writing is unusually candid about its own weak points throughout, which is rare and worth noting. On the stress-test concern: it lands, but it is not a hidden error. The authors state in Section 2 that a full finite-energy treatment does not exist, and they bracket the answer with two truncations that differ by a factor of two in R_AA and flip the sign of the pt slope. So the 'one free parameter' of abstract:s1 is really one parameter plus one unresolved binary choice, and ⟨q-hat⟩ ≈ 14 GeV²/fm is degenerate with that choice. That is a fair thing to say out loud, and the paper does not quite say it that loudly. The sharper criticism is the one the stress-test half-makes: Section 2 sketches a third, more physical truncation (cut ω dI/dω at E) and never implements it, so the middle ground is untested. Fig. 14 also shows the shape of P(ΔE) matters below N_part ≈ 150, exactly where the band is narrowest — that tension is real. The bigger soft spot, though, is the energy extrapolation. The 62.4 GeV and 5.5 TeV numbers are k times the saturation-model scaling of Eq. (20), and the flat R_AA ≈ 0.15 at LHC is a strong claim resting on an exponent borrowed from a model whose validity at 5.5 TeV is never examined. The disagreement with Vitev–Gyulassy in Fig. 10 is presented as a model difference when it is partly a scaling-assumption difference. Who should read it: anyone doing jet quenching phenomenology, and anyone who will quote an LHC R_AA prediction. It deserves referees — the method is sound and the comparisons are honest — but I would want the LHC section tightened before I quoted the number.

The strongest objection

The central claim (abstract:s2) is that a single k, tuned on central R_AA at 200 GeV, then predicts the centrality evolution of R_AA, the away-side I_AA, and v2 without retuning. That claim rests on the BDMPS quenching weights of Ref. [13], which are computed in the eikonal limit E = infinity. The paper states plainly (Section 2) that 'a full theoretical treatment of the finite parton energy case in the BDMPS framework is at present not available,' and Section 3 ('Energy-loss sampling') supplies two truncations: reweighted and non-reweighted. These differ by about a factor of two in R_AA and, by the authors' own account, in the sign of dR_AA/dp_t (slightly positive for non-reweighted, slightly negative for reweighted). Every quantitative result, including the tuned <q-hat> ~ 14 GeV^2/fm, is quoted only as a band spanning that factor of two. So the 'one free parameter' of abstract:s1 is really one parameter plus one unresolved binary modeling choice, and the headline density scale is degenerate with that choice. The concern sharpens because Fig. 14 shows the shape of P(Delta E) matters for N_part < 150: the 'only P(Delta E = 0)' variant fails there, meaning the centrality prediction is sensitive to precisely the part of the weight the eikonal approximation gets least right, and the band is narrowest in the peripheral bins where that sensitivity is largest. Notably, Section 2 itself sketches a third, arguably more physical truncation (cut omega dI/domega at E, giving <Delta E> proportional to alpha_s C_R sqrt(omega_c) sqrt(min(omega_c, E)) for E < omega_c) but never implements it, leaving the middle ground untested. This is an acknowledged limitation, not a hidden error, but the acknowledgment does not resolve it: it means the coherent-application claim is established only to within a scheme choice the theory cannot currently fix.

The reader's weakest_assumption identifies exactly the right load-bearing concern: the eikonal weights applied to finite-energy partons, with the two truncation schemes bracketing a factor-2 band and flipping the pt slope. I agree this is the single most load-bearing soft spot for the central claim, and I would keep the verdict at CONDITIONAL. The paper is candid about it (Section 2 and the 'Energy-loss sampling' discussion), so this is not a new finding, but the candor does not remove the consequence: the tuned density scale is degenerate with an unphysical scheme choice, and Fig. 14 shows the shape of P(Delta E) matters where the band is narrowest. Credit where due: the parton-by-parton construction of Eqs. (8)-(16) is a genuine methodological advance over the constant-q-hat, constant-L treatments it cites, and the internal algebra is consistent (Eqs. 2, 3, 8, 16 reproduce L = 2 I_1/I_0 and q-hat = I_0^2/(2 I_1) exactly). The comparison to PHENIX and STAR data across eight centrality bins is direct evidence, and the centrality variation (factor ~4.5) exceeds the band width (factor ~2), so the model retains discriminating power even with the wide band. The secondary concerns the reader raises are real but less load-bearing for the central claim: the 62.4 GeV and 5.5 TeV predictions lean on the borrowed saturation-model scaling of Eq. (20), whose exponent is never examined at 27x the tuning energy, and the v2 result sits about 2 sigma below data at 4-6 GeV, which the authors attribute to collective flow. Both are acknowledged and both concern secondary claims rather than the 200 GeV coherent application. The absence of shipped code is a reproducibility inconvenience, not a correctness risk. My concrete test targets the untested middle ground the paper itself sketches in Section 2, which is the cleanest way to see whether the quoted band is conservative or optimistic.

The referee's report

The paper is a careful and, for its time, unusually complete phenomenological study: it is one of the first to fold a realistic, parton-by-parton geometry into the BDMPS weights and to confront the same one-parameter model with single-particle, di-hadron and azimuthal observables simultaneously. The post-dictions of the centrality dependence of R_AA and of I_AA, and the v2 comparison, are genuine tests rather than restatements of the fit, and the authors are explicit that the model is not applied below ~5 GeV because initial-state effects and in-medium hadronization are omitted. The falsifiable LHC prediction — R_AA ≈ 0.15, flat in p_t up to 90 GeV, in contrast to the rising Vitev–Gyulassy result — is a useful and clearly stated benchmark. The paper's main weakness is intrinsic to the input theory rather than to the authors: the eikonal weights are being used outside their domain, and the authors say so.

Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')

The paper asks whether the suppression of high-momentum particles in heavy-ion collisions — the loss of single hadrons, of away-side jet partners, and the azimuthal asymmetry of both — can all be produced by one mechanism with one adjustable number. The authors build a Monte Carlo (PQM) that takes partons from PYTHIA, lets each one traverse a realistic gold–gold overlap region built from Woods–Saxon nuclear profiles, and assigns it an energy loss drawn from the BDMPS quenching weights, computed separately for every parton from the density it actually crosses. The only free parameter is an overall scale $k$ multiplying the local transport coefficient $k$, fixed to the measured nuclear modification factor in central Au–Au at $200$ GeV; that tuning corresponds to an average $k$ of about $14$ GeV$^2$/fm. If this is right, then the centrality dependence of suppression, the vanishing of away-side correlations, and the out-of-plane/in-plane asymmetry are not three separate puzzles but three views of the same geometry-weighted energy loss. The paper then carries the same tuned parameter to $62.4$ GeV and $5.5$ TeV, and argues that at LHC energy the medium behaves as a black disk, holding $R_{AA}$ near $0.15$ flat out to the highest transverse momenta.

What carries the argument. The load-bearing construction is the parton-by-parton conversion of a density profile into the two BDMPS parameters. For a parton born at a point in the transverse plane and moving in a sampled azimuthal direction, the local transport coefficient is taken as $k$ times the product of the two nuclear thickness functions along the path. Two path integrals, $I_0 = k$ integrated over path length and $I_1 = k$ weighted by path length, then set the characteristic radiated-gluon energy and the shape parameter: $k$ and $k$. This replaces the older practice of quoting a single constant path length and a single constant transport coefficient, and it makes the energy loss depend on where the parton was made and which way it went — which is exactly what turns collision geometry into centrality dependence and azimuthal anisotropy. The quenching weights themselves are the Salgado–Wiedemann tabulation at fixed $k$, giving the probability of radiating energy $k$, split into a discrete no-radiation weight and a continuous part.

Core claim. The central claim is that a Glauber-geometry description of the collision, combined with the BDMPS quenching weights applied parton by parton, needs only one number to describe the high-$p_t$ data set at $200$ GeV. Fixing the scale so that $R_{AA}$ in $0$–$10$% central Au–Au comes out right yields $k$ about $14$ GeV$^2$/fm, and the same value then reproduces the measured decrease of $R_{AA}$ from central to $80$–$92$% collisions, the away-side correlation strength $I_{AA}$ versus number of participants, and the azimuthal anisotropy $v_2$ of high-$p_t$ hadrons in non-central events. The authors emphasise that the centrality evolution is generated purely by the impact-parameter dependence of the product of the two nuclear thickness functions, with no retuning. Two consequences are drawn. First, the extracted transport coefficient is large, an order of magnitude above what a constant-path-length treatment would suggest, because many partons traverse only $2$–$3$ fm and can only be quenched if the medium is very dense. Second, the picture that emerges is a black disk: energetic partons either are absorbed or escape from a shell of roughly $2$–$3$ fm near the surface, which also explains why away-side partners of a surviving trigger particle are almost never seen.

The premise it rests on. The energy-loss probabilities were computed for partons of infinite energy, but they are applied here to real partons of finite energy, and the two ways the authors patch this — forbidding losses larger than the parton energy, or letting such partons be fully absorbed — differ by about a factor of two in the resulting suppression.

If the paper is right (Pith's inferences, not the authors')

The centrality dependence of $R_{AA}$ and of the away-side correlation strength $I_{AA}$ should track the geometric overlap profile, so both observables are predicted to fall together as the number of participants grows.

In non-central collisions the model predicts $R_{AA}$ out of plane to be about $0.75$ times the in-plane value, and the away-side correlation strength about $30$% lower out of plane than in plane, both maximal around $100$–$150$ participants.

At $62.4$ GeV the same scaling of the medium density gives $k$ about $7$ GeV$^2$/fm, hence $R_{AA}$ near $0.3$ in central and near $0.7$ in semi-peripheral collisions for $p_t$ above about $5$ GeV.

At $5.5$ TeV in Pb–Pb the model gives $R_{AA}$ near $0.15$ and essentially independent of $p_t$ up to $90$ GeV, in contrast to predictions where $R_{AA}$ climbs back to $0.4$–$0.6$ at the highest momenta.

Because the relative energy loss saturates near unity for gluons and is large for quarks, the observed suppression is dominated by the probability of escaping without radiating at all, rather than by the shape of the radiated-energy distribution.

The flat, very low $R_{AA}$ predicted for the LHC is the sharpest discriminator in the paper: a measurement of Pb–Pb $R_{AA}$ at $60$–$100$ GeV that rises with $p_t$ would rule out the black-disk reading and favour energy-loss formalisms where the eikonal approximation is softened by finite-energy or finite-density corrections.

If the medium really acts as a black disk with an escape shell of a couple of femtometres, the same geometry should imprint itself on other high-$p_t$ observables the paper does not simulate, such as the away-side correlation shape versus reaction-plane angle or the survival probability of dijets as a function of their orientation relative to the impact parameter.

The gap between the model's $v_2$ at $4$–$6$ GeV and the measured values is read here as evidence for collective flow; a natural test is whether the excess persists above $7$–$8$ GeV, where the model's energy-loss-driven asymmetry should be the only surviving contribution.

The two finite-energy truncation schemes differ by roughly a factor of two in $R_{AA}$ and even in the sign of its slope, so the extracted $k$ should be quoted as a range rather than a number until a finite-energy treatment of the quenching weights exists.

Check this review

Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.

How often reviews like this one are right

Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4.1-flash, where what was read was not recorded.

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Every value above, in the review's public record (JSON)

Reviews by people

This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

Parton energy loss effects in heavy-ion collisions are studied with the Monte Carlo program PQM (Parton Quenching Model) constructed using the BDMPS quenching weights and a realistic collision geometry. The merit of the approach is that it contains only one free parameter that is tuned to the high-pt nuclear modification factor measured in central Au-Au collisions at sqrts_NN = 200 GeV. Once tuned, the model is coherently applied to all the high-pt observables at 200 GeV: the centrality evolution of the nuclear modification factor, the suppression of the away-side jet-like correlations, and the azimuthal anisotropies for these observables. Predictions for the leading-particle suppression at nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass energies of 62.4 and 5500 GeV are calculated. The limits of the eikonal approximation in the BDMPS approach, when applied to finite-energy partons, are discussed.

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 0.87

“Once tuned, the model is coherently applied to all the high-pt observables at 200 GeV: the centrality evolution of the nuclear modification factor, the suppression of the away-side jet-like correlations, and the azimuthal anisotropies for these observables.”

How the main claim is stated: asserted 1.00

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.89 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.19 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.58 · compares with prior results 0.19 · mentions code or data availability 0.03

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v3). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
Parton energy loss effects in heavy-ion collisions are studied with the Monte Carlo program PQM (Parton Quenching Model) constructed using the BDMPS quenching weights and a realistic collision geometry. method 0.84 0.80 0.04 asserted 0.99
The merit of the approach is that it contains only one free parameter that is tuned to the high-pt nuclear modification factor measured in central Au-Au collisions at sqrt{s_NN} = 200 GeV. method 0.79 0.79 0.06 asserted 1.00
Once tuned, the model is coherently applied to all the high-pt observables at 200 GeV: the centrality evolution of the nuclear modification factor, the suppression of the away-side jet-like correlations, and the azimuthal anisotropies for these observables. contribution 0.40 0.87 0.22 asserted 1.00
Predictions for the leading-particle suppression at nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass energies of 62.4 and 5500 GeV are calculated. result 0.56 0.92 0.12 asserted 0.98
The limits of the eikonal approximation in the BDMPS approach, when applied to finite-energy partons, are discussed. limitation 0.97 0.61 0.05 unclear 0.67

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: simulation study 0.99 · evidence from simulation or computation 1.00

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v3

Not examined

  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers

Levels run

  • P abstract

Not run

  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,457 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

Figures (14)
Figure 1 of the paper
Figure 1. Distributions of parton production points in the transver
Figure 2 of the paper
Figure 2. RAA(pt) for central Au–Au collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV. PHENIX [1] and STAR [2] data are reported with combined statistical and pt-dependent systematic errors (bars on the data points) and pt-independent systematic errors (bars at RAA = 1). Model results for constant ˆq and L (left￾hand panel) and for constant ˆq and Glauber-based L distribution (right-hand panel) are reported. In the right-hand plot and in all the following figures the shaded band is delimited by non-reweighted case (solid line) and reweighted case (dashed line). distribution for 0–10% central collisions…
Figure 3 of the paper
Figure 3. RAA(pt) for central Au–Au collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV. The model band is obtained with a parton-by-parton calculation of ωc and R. The average transport coefficient is 14 GeV2 /fm. pt > ∼ 5 GeV (at lower pt we do not apply the model, as initial-state effects and in-medium hadronization, that we do not include, might play an important role). Remarkably, our result agrees with that obtained in Ref. [22], where the same quenching weights and a simplified collision geometry with effective nuclei (cylindrical density profile instead of the Wood-Saxon we use) are coupled to a…
Figure 4 of the paper
Figure 4. Distributions of ˆq, calculated from Eq. (16), for different central￾ities; the k parameter is fixed to the value that allows to describe RAA for the most central collisions. [GeV] t p AA R 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0-10% (STAR 0-5%) 10-20% 20-30% 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 30-40% 40-50% (STAR 40-60%) 50-60% (STAR 40-60%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 2 4 6 8 10 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 60-70% (STAR 60-80%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 70-80% (STAR 60-80%) 0 2 4 6 8 10 80-92%
Figure 5 of the paper
Figure 5. RAA(pt) for different centralities. Data are PHENIX charged hadrons (closed squares) and π 0 (open squares) [1] and STAR charged hadrons (stars) [2]. 13
Figure 6 of the paper
Figure 6. Average RAA in the range 4.5 < pt < 10 GeV [1,2] (left-hand panel) and IAA, defined in the text, for the away-side jet [3] (right-hand panel) as a function of collision centrality, expressed by the number of participants, Npart. For RAA, the error bars are combined statistical and pt-dependent systematic errors and the bands centred at RAA = 1 are the pt-independent normalization errors for PHENIX (dashed) and STAR (dot-dashed). For IAA, the statistical (bars) and systematic (ticks) errors are shown. The rightmost (highest) value refers to partons originating in the centre of the…
Figure 7 of the paper
Figure 7. Transverse momentum and centrality dependence of the
Figure 8 of the paper
Figure 8. Azimuthal variation of the nuclear modification factor of t
Figure 9 of the paper
Figure 9. Model results for RAA(pt) in central and semi-peripheral Au–Au collisions at √ sNN = 62.4 GeV. The preliminary π 0 data (0–10% centrality class) from PHENIX [35] are also shown; the pp reference is the PHENIX pp → π 0 + X parameterization, the error bars on the data points are the combined statistical and pt-dependent systematic errors and the bar centred at RAA = 1 is the systematic error on the normalization. Nuclear modification factor at √ sNN = 62.4 GeV The recent RHIC run with Au–Au collisions at √ sNN = 62.4 GeV allows the measurement of the nuclear modification factor for…
Figure 10 of the paper
Figure 10. RAA(pt) for different centrality classes in Pb–Pb collisions at √ sNN = 5.5 TeV and in Au–Au collisions at √ sNN = 200 GeV. For compar￾ison, the prediction for LHC presented in Ref. [17] (Vitev–Gyulassy) is also shown. 0–10% central collisions. For pt > ∼ 5 GeV, we find RAA ≃ 0.3, in accordance with the data, in central (0–10%) and ≃ 0.7 in semi-peripheral (40–50%) collisions. These values are not much larger than those at √ sNN = 200 GeV. At smaller √ sNN, although the transport coefficient is reduced by a factor of 2, the increased softness of the parton transverse momentum dis
Figure 11 of the paper
Figure 11. Distributions of parton production points in the transve
Figure 12 of the paper
Figure 12. Correlation between path lengths for pairs of partons p
Figure 13 of the paper
Figure 13. Average relative energy loss versus parton energy for
Figure 14 of the paper
Figure 14. Average RAA in the range 4.5 < pt < 10 GeV (left-hand panel) and IAA for the away-side jet (right-hand panel) as a function of the number of participants. The data points and errors are the same as in

Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (38)
  1. [17] I. Vitev and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 252301 [arXiv:hep-ph/0209161] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [14] A. Drees, H. Feng and J. Jia, arXiv:nucl-th/0310044 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [1] S.S. Adler et al. , PHENIX Coll., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 072301 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0304022]; Phys. Rev. C69 (2004) 034910 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0308006] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [2] J. Adams et al. , STAR Coll., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 172302 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0305015] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [3] C. Adler et al. , STAR Coll., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 082302 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0210033] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [4] J. Adams et al. , STAR Coll., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 072304 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0306024] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [5] S.S. Adler et al. , PHENIX Coll., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 072303 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0306021] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [6] M. Gyulassy and X.N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B420 (1994) 583 [arXiv:nucl-th/9306003] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [7] R. Baier, Yu.L. Dokshitzer, A.H. Mueller, S. Peign´ e and D. Schiff, Nucl. Phys. B483 (1997) 291 [arXiv:hep-ph/9607355]; B484 (1997) 265 [arXiv:hep-ph/9608322]; R. Baier, Yu.L. Dokshitzer, A.H. Mueller and D. Schiff, Phys. Rev. C58 (1998) 1706 [arXiv:hep-ph/9803473]; Nucl. Phys.... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [8] B.G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 63 (1996) 952 [arXiv:hep-ph/9607440] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [9] M. Gyulassy, P. L´ evai and I. Vitev, Nucl. Phys. B571 (2000) 197 [arXiv:hep-ph/9907461]; Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 5535 [arXiv:nucl-th/0005032]; Nucl. Phys. B594 (2001) 371 [arXiv:nucl-th/0006010] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [10] J. Osborne and X.N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A710 (2002) 281 [arXiv:hep-ph/0204046] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [11] B.W. Zhang and X.N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A720 (2003) 429 [arXiv:hep-ph/0301195] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [12] U.A. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. B588 (2000) 303 [arXiv:hep-ph/0005129] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [13] C.A. Salgado and U.A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 014008 [arXiv:hep-ph/0302184]. 27 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [15] R. Baier, Nucl. Phys. A715 (2003) 209 [arXiv:hep-ph/0209038] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [16] K.J. Eskola and H. Honkanen, Nucl. Phys. A713 (2003) 167 [arXiv:hep-ph/0205048] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [18] R. Baier, Yu.L. Dokshitzer, A.H. Mueller and D. Schiff, JHEP 0109 (2001) 033 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106347] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [19] R.J. Glauber and G. Matthiae, Nucl. Phys. B21 (1970) 135 on Pith
  20. [20] C.W. deJager, H. deVries and C. deVries, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 14 (1974) 485 on Pith
show 18 more
  1. [21] A. Dainese, Eur. Phys. J. C33 (2004) 495 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0312005] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [22] K.J. Eskola, H. Honkanen, C.A. Salgado and U.A. Wiedemann, arXiv:hep-ph/0406319 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [23] T. Sj¨ ostrand et al. , Computer Phys. Commun. 135 (2001) 238 [arXiv:hep-ph/0010017] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [24] H.L. Lai et al. , CTEQ Coll., Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 1280 [arXiv:hep-ph/9606399] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [25] B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer and B. P¨ otter, Nucl. Phys. B582 (2000) 514 [arXiv:hep-ph/0010289] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [26] S.S. Adler et al. , PHENIX Coll., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 241803 [arXiv:hep-ex/0304038] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [27] U.A. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. A690 (2001) 731 [arXiv:hep-ph/0008241] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [28] X.N. Wang, arXiv:nucl-th/0405017 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [29] A.M. Poskanzer and S.A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C58 (1998) 1671 on Pith
  10. [30] S.S. Adler et al. , PHENIX Coll., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 182301 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0305013] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [31] A. Tang for the STAR Coll., presented at Quark Matter 2004, Oa kland, USA, January 11–17, 2004. 28 on Pith
  12. [32] C. Adler et al. , STAR Coll., Phys. Rev. C66 (2002) 034904 [arXiv:nucl-ex/0206001] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  13. [33] K. Filimonov for the STAR Coll., Nucl. Phys. A715 (2003) 737 on Pith
  14. [34] K.J. Eskola, K. Kajantie, P.V. Ruuskanen and K. Tuominen, Nucl. Phys. B570 (2000) 379 [arXiv:hep-ph/9909456] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [35] T. Sakaguchi for the PHENIX Coll., presented at the RHIC & AGS An- nual Users’ Meeting, Brookhaven, USA, May 10–14, 2004; D. d’En terria for the PHENIX Coll., presented at the Hot Quarks Workshop, Taos , USA, July 18–24, 2004, to be published in J. Phys. G on Pith
  16. [36] I. Vitev, arXiv:nucl-th/0404052 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [37] X.N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C70 (2004) 031901 [arXiv:nucl-th/0405029] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [38] A. Adil and M. Gyulassy, to be published in Phys. Lett. B, arXiv:nucl-th/0405036. 29 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
Cited by 28 Pith papers

Reviewed papers on Pith that cite this one. OpenAlex reports about 223 citations worldwide. The full citation record

  1. Deep inelastic scattering off a N=4 SYM plasma at strong coupling hep-th · Oct 2007
  2. Measurements of jet quenching with semi-inclusive hadron-jet correlations in Ru+Ru and Zr+Zr collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=200$ GeV nucl-ex · May 2026
  3. An improved linear Boltzmann transport model for hadron and jet suppression in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions nucl-th · Feb 2026
  4. A unified description of small, peripheral, and large system suppression data from pQCD hep-ph · Nov 2024
  5. Measurement of the groomed jet mass in PbPb and pp collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}} =$ 5.02 TeV hep-ex · May 2018
  6. Constraints on jet quenching in p-Pb collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{s_{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV measured by the event-activity dependence of semi-inclusive hadron-jet distributions nucl-ex · Dec 2017
  7. Improved Monte Carlo Glauber predictions at present and future nuclear colliders nucl-ex · Oct 2017
  8. Absence of jet quenching in peripheral nucleus-nucleus collisions nucl-ex · May 2017
  9. Measurement of jet quenching with semi-inclusive hadron-jet distributions in central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV nucl-ex · Jun 2015
  10. A lattice study of the jet quenching parameter hep-ph · Jul 2013
  11. Study of high-pT charged particle suppression in PbPb compared to pp collisions at sqrt(sNN)=2.76 TeV nucl-ex · Feb 2012
  12. MARTINI: An event generator for relativistic heavy-ion collisions hep-ph · Sep 2009
  13. A Monte Carlo Model for 'Jet Quenching' hep-ph · Apr 2008
  14. Gluon energy loss in the gauge-string duality hep-th · Mar 2008
  15. Transverse Momentum Broadening of a Fast Quark in a $\N=4$ Yang Mills Plasma hep-th · Jan 2007
  16. Momentum fluctuations of heavy quarks in the gauge-string duality hep-th · Dec 2006
  17. Wilson loops in heavy ion collisions and their calculation in AdS/CFT hep-ph · Dec 2006
  18. The Fragility of High-pT Hadron Spectra as a Hard Probe hep-ph · Jun 2004
  19. Analysis of the apparent nuclear modification in peripheral Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV nucl-ex · May 2018
  20. Energy versus centrality dependence of the jet quenching parameter $\hat q$ at RHIC and LHC: a new puzzle? hep-ph · Jun 2016
  21. Elliptic flow and nuclear modification factor in ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions within a partonic transport model hep-ph · Jan 2014
  22. Nuclear modification of leading hadrons and jets within a virtuality ordered parton shower nucl-th · Dec 2017
  23. Introductory lectures on jet quenching in heavy ion collisions hep-ph · Dec 2007
  24. Progress in the Glauber model at collider energies hep-ph · Nov 2020
  25. QGP@50: More than Four Decades of Jet Quenching hep-ph · Aug 2025
  26. Jet quenching and medium response in high-energy heavy-ion collisions: a review hep-ph · Feb 2020
  27. Gauge/String Duality, Hot QCD and Heavy Ion Collisions hep-th · Jan 2011
  28. Jet Quenching in Heavy Ion Collisions hep-ph · Aug 2009
How the literature uses it

42 arXiv papers cite this in 51 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 29 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 5 papers
Uses its data or values 6 papers
Compares with it 5 papers
  • Measured $$ in the most central PbPb events (0–5 %) is compared to a number of model predictions, both for the LHC design energy of $√(s__NN)$ = 5.5 TeV (PQM [ref] and GLV [ref] ) and for the actual 2010 collision energy of $√(s__NN)$ = 2.76 TeV (ASW, YaJEM, and an elastic scattering energy-loss model with parameterized escape probability [ref] ).

    Centrality and pT dependence of charged particle RAA in PbPb collisions at sqrt(sNN) = 2.76 TeV · Results · 1.00

  • The high-measurement of from this analysis, up to $= 100$, is also compared to a number of theoretical predictions, for the LHC design energy of $=5.5$(PQM [ref] with medium transport-coefficient $⟨q̂⟩=$ 30–80 $^2$/fm and GLV [ref] for various values of the medium gluon pseudorapidity density $N_g/y$) and for the actual collision energy of $=2.76$(ASW [ref] and YaJEM [ref] including a model for elastic energy loss parameterized with the $P_esc$ variable).

    Study of high-pT charged particle suppression in PbPb compared to pp collisions at sqrt(sNN)=2.76 TeV · Results · 1.00

  • This value is close to those obtained from holography [ref] and from phenomenological models [ref] (even though the latter exhibit some dependence on the details of the underlying approach [ref] , and more recent studies suggest smaller values [ref] ).

    Investigating jet quenching on the lattice · Lattice study · 1.00

Cites it as background 6 papers

Challenges and discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment