Evidence from d+Au measurements for final-state suppression of high $p_T$ hadrons in Au+Au collisions at RHIC

et al. (STAR Collaboration); J. Adams

REVIEW

Evidence from d+Au measurements for final-state suppression of high $p_T$ hadrons in Au+Au collisions at RHIC

J. Adams, et al. (STAR Collaboration)

Nuclear Experiment · Submitted 17 Jun 2003 · 27 references

Pith's verdict: The d+Au control that made the Au+Au suppression story credible; the data are solid, but the abstract's 'demonstrate' does more work than a d+Au control can carry, and the body knows it.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 29, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 2 major objections · 9 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDnucl-ex/0306024 (version 3)

Pith IDFOVC3HQW, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

Citationet al. (STAR Collaboration), J. Adams. "Evidence from d+Au measurements for final-state suppression of high $p_T$ hadrons in Au+Au collisions at RHIC." arXiv:nucl-ex/0306024 (2003). https://pith.science/paper/FOVC3HQW

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

This is the paper that turned the Au+Au high-pT suppression from a curiosity into a claim about the medium. The measurement itself is the contribution: first d+Au two-particle azimuthal distributions at 200 GeV, minimum-bias and central, with R_AB > 1 for 2 < pT < 7 GeV/c and correlations that look like p+p apart from a growing pedestal. That is the control the field needed, and it is done carefully. Centrality is tagged two independent ways (FTPC-Au multiplicity and the ZDC-d single-neutron tag), and the Glauber model is validated against both multiplicity distributions and the measured (19.2 ± 1.3)% ZDC-d cross-section fraction. The central-to-minimum-bias ratio of 1.02 ± 0.03 is a nice move: it factors out the shared p+p reference and the correlated normalization systematics. Credit where it is due — this is disciplined experimental work, and the figures carry the argument without decoration. The p+p reference is an external published input, not something defined by the d+Au data, so the circularity worry is small. On the stress-test note: I think it slightly overstates the case that the paper tests 'essentially one model.' The text ranges over pQCD expectations [8–14] and two saturation variants [7, 15], and it explicitly says the data are 'consistent with expectations from pQCD calculations but not the saturation model in [7].' That is the honest version of the claim. The soft spot is the abstract, not the body: 'demonstrate … are due to final-state interactions' is a step beyond what a d+Au control at = 15 can establish, given that the extrapolation to central Au+Au runs over more than an order of magnitude in and path length. The stress-test's other point lands better: R_AB is flat between = 7.5 and 15, whereas the Cronin models [11, 12] predict growth with centrality, and that mild tension goes unflagged. So: publish, but a referee should ask for 'demonstrate' to become 'indicate' or 'show,' and for one sentence acknowledging the flatness. The measurement is worth citing regardless of how the verb reads.

Referee report

Significance

This is the control experiment that the high-pT suppression program at RHIC required, and it is executed with the care the question demands: the same detector, the same p+p reference spectrum, two independent centrality tags eight units of rapidity apart, and a Glauber model validated against both observed multiplicity distributions and an independently measurable cross-section fraction. The ratio of central to minimum bias R_AB, 1.02 +/- 0.03, is a genuinely useful construction because it cancels the correlated normalization and p+p-reference uncertainties that dominate the individual ratios. The result is falsifiable and was falsified in one direction: the saturation prediction R_AB ~ 0.75 for the 20% most central d+Au events of Ref. [7] is clearly excluded by the data, and the paper says so explicitly while also citing Ref. [15], in which a different saturation treatment yields enhancement. The measurement therefore converted a model-dependent debate about the Au+Au suppression into an experimental one, and the paper's stated conclusion has held up. The credit due here is for the control design and the cross-checks, not for a novel theoretical device.

Major objections (2)

[Abstract, sentence [abstract:s2], and final paragraph of the conclusions] The abstract states that the d+Au results 'demonstrate' that the Au+Au suppression is due to final-state interactions. The d+Au sample is not a null control for initial-state effects, and the manuscript's own numbers show this: R_AB > 1 (Fig. 3), sigma_B grows from 0.45 +/- 0.03 to 0.51 +/- 0.03, and A_B falls from 0.119 +/- 0.007 to 0.098 +/- 0.007 (Table I). Initial-state effects are thus demonstrably present in d+Au, merely enhancing rather than suppressing. The exclusion demonstrated by the data is specific to the calculation of Ref. [7], and the manuscript itself notes that the saturation treatment of Ref. [15] produces enhancement in both d+Au and Au+Au, so enhancement in d+Au does not by itself exclude initial-state suppression at higher <N_bin>. The inference to central Au+Au additionally requires extrapolating the initial-state behaviour from <N_bin> = 15 to the central-Au+Au values of order 10^2-10^3, over more than an order of magnitude in <N_bin> and path length, which the d+Au data do not test. I recommend that the abstract be softened from 'demonstrate' to a phrasing such as 'provide strong evidence' or 'indicate', and that one sentence be added to the conclusions stating explicitly that the d+Au control constrains, but does not by construction exclude, initial-state scenarios whose centrality dependence differs from that of Ref. [7]. This is a wording and framing issue rather than a defect in the measurement, and it can be addressed without reanalysis.
[Fig. 3 and the quoted central/minimum-bias ratio 1.02 +/- 0.03] The manuscript states that the enhancement is expected to be larger for central collisions, citing Refs. [11] and [12], and then reports that the measured ratio of R_AB for central relative to minimum bias d+Au collisions is 1.02 +/- 0.03 at 4 GeV/c, i.e. no growth between <N_bin> = 7.5 and 15.0. This mild tension with the cited pQCD/Cronin expectation is not discussed anywhere in the text, yet it bears directly on the sentence 'These results are consistent with expectations from pQCD calculations'. The agreement with pQCD is asserted on the basis of the sign and rough magnitude of the enhancement, while the one centrality-dependent prediction that the data can test is flat. Please add an explicit discussion of this point, and if the calculations of Refs. [11] and [12] permit it, quote the predicted central-to-minimum-bias ratio so the reader can see the size of the discrepancy against the quoted 3% experimental error. This does not affect the principal conclusion that no suppression is seen in d+Au, but it does affect the strength of the model-agreement claim.

Minor objections (9)

[Eq. (1) and the caption of Fig. 2] Eq. (1) defines T_AB using sigma_pp^inel, while the caption of Fig. 2 describes the p+p reference of Ref. [5] as 'non-singly diffractive'. Since R_AB scales directly with this cross section, please state explicitly which p+p cross section is used in the denominator and confirm that the same convention is applied to the p+p, d+Au, and Au+Au ratios. If the reference spectrum is non-singly diffractive, the corresponding non-singly diffractive cross section should appear in Eq. (1).
[Fig. 3 and the sentence 'R_AB(pT) > 1 for 2 < pT < 7 GeV/c'] Given the 10% normalization uncertainty shown as a band in Fig. 3, the enhancement is not equally significant across the quoted interval. Please state the pT range over which R_AB exceeds unity by more than the normalization uncertainty, so that the claim is quantitatively supported rather than stated over the full interval.
[Table I] The text describes the reduction in A_B from p+p to central d+Au as 'modest' and 'similar to that seen previously for peripheral Au+Au collisions'. Since the quoted errors are statistical only and the change is roughly two standard deviations, please state the significance explicitly and indicate whether the correlated systematic uncertainty on A_B (quoted as less than 10%) could account for the difference.
[Discussion of the pedestal P in Table I] The manuscript notes that P increases with <N_bin> but is not proportional to it, 'as might be expected for incoherent production'. One sentence on what this non-proportionality implies, or a reference to where it is treated, would help the reader judge whether it is understood or merely parametrized.
[Fig. 4(b)] The central Au+Au distribution in panel (b) has both elliptic flow and pedestal subtracted, whereas the d+Au distributions have only the pedestal subtracted. Please state the systematic uncertainty that the flow subtraction introduces into the visual comparison of the away-side peak, since the figure is used to support the statement that the back-to-back peak in central Au+Au is dramatically suppressed relative to d+Au.
[Corrections to the spectra, third paragraph] The contamination from weak decay products is corrected 'based on HIJING'. Please state the size of this correction and the systematic uncertainty assigned to it, since it is largest at low pT and the R_AB enhancement is quoted from 2 GeV/c upward.
[Fig. 1] The figure shows the cut defining the 20% highest multiplicity sample, but the numerical value of the cut is not given in the text or caption. Please quote it so the figure can be read independently of the plotted histogram.
[Glauber calculation, centrality section] The uncertainty on <N_bin> = 15.0 +/- 1.1 is said to include 'the spread in values obtained with several alternative models'. Please name the alternative models in a sentence or cite where they are described, so the reader can assess whether the spread is a fair estimate of the model dependence.
[Author block and date line] The submitted file renders the author list and affiliations incorrectly, including a corrupted entry reading 'P.A. Zo/suppress lnierczuk' and a date line reading 'November 26, 2024' on a 2003 manuscript. Please regenerate the author block and date line before publication.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

By colliding deuterons with gold nuclei, the STAR experiment argues that the loss of high-momentum particles in central gold-gold collisions comes from the dense medium produced in the collision, not from the incoming nuclei.

The reading

The paper asks whether the large loss of high-transverse-momentum hadrons and back-to-back jet pairs seen in central gold-gold collisions at RHIC is caused before the collision, by the structure of the incoming nuclei, or after it, by the dense matter the collision produces. The test is deuteron-gold: if an initial-state effect such as shadowing, multiple scattering, or gluon saturation were responsible, the same loss should appear when a deuteron hits a gold nucleus. STAR measures charged hadrons at 200 GeV and finds the opposite pattern: the inclusive yield is enhanced relative to a binary-scaled proton-proton reference, and the away-side correlation peak remains close to its proton-proton shape. The authors read this as a control that removes the initial-state explanation and leaves final-state energy loss of partons in the gold-gold medium as the cause.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on two measured quantities and one control. The first is the nuclear modification ratio $$R_{AB}(p_T) = rac{$d^{2}$N/dp_T d extbackslash eta}{T_{AB} $d^{2}$ extbackslash sigma_{pp}/dp_T d extbackslash eta},$$ where $T_{AB} = extbackslash langle N_{ extbackslash rm bin} extbackslash rangle / extbackslash sigma_{pp}^{ extbackslash rm inel}$ converts the p+p cross section into a binary-collision-scaled expectation; $R_{AB}=1$ means hard processes scale with the number of nucleon-nucleon collisions, $R_{AB}>1$ is enhancement, and $R_{AB}<1$ is suppression. The second is the two-particle azimuthal distribution $D( extbackslash Delta extbackslash phi)$, the per-trigger yield of associated particles relative to a high-$p_T$ trigger, fitted as a near-side Gaussian, a back-to-back Gaussian at $ extbackslash Delta extbackslash phi = extbackslash pi$, and a constant pedestal. The control is d+Au, where initial-state nuclear effects can act but a large Au+Au-like medium is not expected; the Glauber calculation supplies $ extbackslash langle N_{ extbackslash rm bin} extbackslash rangle = 15.0 extbackslash pm 1.1$ for the 20% highest-multiplicity d+Au events and sets the baseline.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In minimum-bias and the 20% most central d+Au collisions, the nuclear modification ratio $R_{AB}(p_T)$ exceeds 1 for $2 < p_T < 7$ GeV/$c$, with a peak in the range $2.5 < p_T < 4$ GeV/$c$, while the two-particle azimuthal distribution keeps both a near-side jet peak and a back-to-back peak. The back-to-back peak broadens only slightly and is not strongly suppressed; the main change from p+p is a growing constant pedestal. The authors argue that this is the signature of initial-state multiple scattering, the Cronin effect, together with shadowing, not of the strong suppression seen in central Au+Au. Because the initial-state control does not show the suppression, they conclude that the Au+Au loss of inclusive yield and away-side pairs is due to final-state interactions with the dense medium generated in those collisions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that d+Au is an adequate control for initial-state effects in Au+Au: any shadowing, multiple scattering, or saturation mechanism capable of producing the Au+Au suppression would also show up, at the measured centralities, as suppression in d+Au.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Initial-state gluon saturation alone cannot be the explanation for the central Au+Au high-$p_T$ suppression; any successful model must include final-state parton energy loss in the produced medium.
The d+Au data establish a Cronin-type enhancement of charged hadrons in the $2$-$7$ GeV/$c$ range at RHIC, which constrains nuclear shadowing and multiple-scattering models of the gold nucleus.
Away-side jet correlations survive in d+Au with only modest broadening, so the strong away-side loss is specific to the larger Au+Au system rather than to nuclear collisions in general.
The centrality dependence in d+Au separates initial-state enhancement from final-state suppression: more central d+Au events show a larger yield enhancement but no corresponding disappearance of back-to-back pairs.
The same deuteron-gold control strategy can be used at other collision energies and with other projectiles to test whether high-$p_T$ suppression tracks the size of the produced medium.

Reading between the lines

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

A sharper test than d+Au versus Au+Au is a system scan at matched $ extbackslash langle N_{ extbackslash rm bin} extbackslash rangle$ or matched path length: if the suppression tracks produced energy density rather than the number of binary collisions, the final-state interpretation gains a quantitative handle.
The pedestal grows with centrality but not in proportion to $ extbackslash langle N_{ extbackslash rm bin} extbackslash rangle$; that nonlinearity may encode trigger bias or correlated soft-particle production and could be checked by varying the trigger $p_T$ threshold.
The height and position of the Cronin peak in d+Au could be used to extract an effective transport coefficient only if the same energy-loss calculation reproduces both the d+Au enhancement and the Au+Au suppression; a joint fit would be a useful next step.
If the medium is short-lived in d+Au, one would expect no away-side suppression but perhaps a small broadening; measuring the broadening versus system size would test whether the away-side loss turns on gradually or abruptly.

Original abstract

We report measurements of single-particle inclusive spectra and two-particle azimuthal distributions of charged hadrons at high transverse momentum (high $p_T$) in minimum bias and central d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV. The inclusive yield is enhanced in d+Au collisions relative to binary-scaled p+p collisions, while the two-particle azimuthal distributions are very similar to those observed in p+p collisions. These results demonstrate that the strong suppression of the inclusive yield and back-to-back correlations at high $p_T$ previously observed in central Au+Au collisions are due to final-state interactions with the dense medium generated in such collisions.

The compiled record

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. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,107 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.07 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.93 · randomized assignment 0.02 · states quantitative result 0.18 · compares with prior results 0.97 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v3. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We report measurements of single-particle inclusive spectra and two-particle azimuthal distributions of charged hadrons at high transverse momentum (high $p_T$) in minimum bias and central d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV. The inclusive yield is enhanced in d+Au collisions relative to binary-scaled p+p collisions, while the two-particle azimuthal distributions are very similar to those observed in p+p collisions. These results demonstrate that the strong suppression of the inclusive yield and back-to-back correlations at high $p_T$ previously observed in central Au+Au collisions are due to final-state interactions with the dense medium generated in such collisions.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We report measurements of single-particle inclusive spectra and two-particle azimuthal distributions of charged hadrons at high transverse momentum (high $p_T$) in minimum bias and central d+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV.	contribution 0.97	0.97	0.02	asserted 0.99
s1	The inclusive yield is enhanced in d+Au collisions relative to binary-scaled p+p collisions, while the two-particle azimuthal distributions are very similar to those observed in p+p collisions.	result 1.00	0.93	0.08	asserted 1.00
s2	These results demonstrate that the strong suppression of the inclusive yield and back-to-back correlations at high $p_T$ previously observed in central Au+Au collisions are due to final-state interactions with the dense medium generated in such collisions.	interpretation 1.00	0.55	0.96	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 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

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: Uncorrected charged particle multiplicity distrib

**Figure 2.** shows the invariant inclusive pT distribution of (h+ + h−)/2 within |η|<0.5 for minimum bias and central d+Au collisions, together with that for p+p collisions from [5]. The error bars are the quadrature sum of statistical errors and point-to-point systematic uncertainties. The normalization uncertainty for d+Au collisions is 10%. Nuclear effects on hadron production in d+Au and Au+Au collisions are measured through comparison to the p+p spectrum using the ratio RAB(pT ) = d 2N/dpT dη TAB d 2σ pp/dpT dη , (1) where d 2N/dpT dη is the differential yield per event in the nuclear…

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4: (a) Efficiency corrected two-particle azimuthal dis

Showing 3 of the paper's 4 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:nucl-ex/0306024 by the authors.

References

Works cited (27)

[7]

D. Kharzeev, E. Levin, and L. McLerran, Phys. Lett. 561, 93 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[5]

J. Adams et al ., nucl-ex/0305015

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[6]

C. Adler et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 082302 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[15]

R. Baier, A. Kovner and U. Wiedemann, hep- ph/0305265

View on Pith
[11]

A. Accardi, hep-ph/0212148, and references therein

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[12]

I. Vitev, Phys. Lett. B562, 36 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[1]

R. Baier, D. Schiﬀ and B. G. Zakharov, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 50, 37 (2000); M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, X.N. Wang, B. Zhang, nucl-th/0302077

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[2]

C. Adler et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 202301 (2002); B. Choi, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas (2003)

View on Pith 2002
[3]

K. Adcox et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 022301 (2002); Phys. Lett. B561, 82 (2003); S.S. Adler et al ., nucl- ex/0304022

View on Pith 2002
[4]

B.B. Back et al ., nucl-ex/0302015

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[8]

X.N. Wang, Phys.Rev. C61, 064910 (2000); nucl- th/0303004

View on Pith 2000
[9]

Y. Zhang et al ., Phys.Rev. C65, 034903 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[10]

B.Z. Kopeliovich et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 232303 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[13]

K.J. Eskola and H. Honkanen, Nucl. Phys. A713, 167 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[14]

S.R. Klein and R. Vogt, nucl-th/0305046

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[16]

D. Antreaysan et al ., Phys. Rev. D19, 764 (1979)

View on Pith 1979
[17]

S.S. Adler et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 072303 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[18]

B.B. Back et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 072302 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[19]

I. Arsene et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 072305 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[20]

K.H. Ackermann et al ., Nucl. Instr. Meth. A499, 624 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[21]

X.N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. D44, 3501 (1991). Version 1.382 is used

View on Pith 1991
[22]

D. Kharzeev, E. Levin and M. Nardi, hep-ph/0212316; L. Hulth´ en and M. Sagawara, Handbuch der Physik 39 (1957)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1957
[23]

R.E. Ansorge et al ., Z. Phys. C43, 357 (1989)

View on Pith 1989
[24]

M.D. Corcoran et al ., Phys. Lett B259, 209 (1991); T. Fields and M.D. Corcoran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 143 (1993)

View on Pith 1991
[25]

J. Qiu and I. Vitev, nucl-th/0306039

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[26]

K. Gallmeister, C. Greiner and Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. C67, 044905 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[27]

D. Kharzeev, Nucl. Phys. A715, 35c (2003)

View on Pith 2003

Forward citations

Cited by 31 Pith papers

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

Jet-like dihadron correlations in OO and Ne--Ne collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.36$ TeV with ALICE
nucl-ex 2026-10 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

First measurement of the per-trigger near- and away-side yields (I_AA) in OO and Ne-Ne collisions at 5.36 TeV shows a modest away-side suppression consistent with, but weaker than, Pb-Pb jet quenching.
Transverse momentum distribution and nuclear modification factor of charged particles in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV
nucl-ex 2012-10 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Charged-particle yields in p-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV match the proton-proton expectation above 2 GeV/c, so the high-momentum suppression seen in Pb-Pb is a final-state, not initial-state, effect.
Necessary and sufficient conditions of nonlinear causality in viscous anisotropic hydrodynamics
nucl-th 2026-08 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The leading-order VAH equations stay causal exactly when the three dimensionless ratios in Eq. (21) satisfy the stated chain inequalities.
Energy loss and theoretical uncertainties in small quark-gluon plasmas
hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A pQCD energy loss model with short-pathlength corrections shows the large formation time approximation fails self-consistently and, after a one-parameter fit, describes RHIC small systems while failing LHC small systems.
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 2017-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Recoil-jet spectra in proton-lead collisions show no event-activity dependence, giving a 90% confidence upper limit of 0.4 GeV/c on medium-induced out-of-cone energy transport, roughly twenty times below the central l...

Show 26 more citing papers

Measurement of charged jet production cross sections and nuclear modification in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\rm{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV
nucl-ex 2015-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Charged jet production in proton-lead collisions at 5.02 TeV agrees with a scaled proton-proton reference within uncertainties, so no strong cold nuclear matter effect on jets is seen up to 120 GeV/c.
Long-range pseudorapidity dihadron correlations in $d$+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=200$ GeV
nucl-ex 2015-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In d+Au collisions at 200 GeV, a near-side correlation survives at large pseudorapidity separation in high-activity events, its size tracks the away-side jet yield, and V2 stays finite and roughly equal forward and ba...
Centrality dependence of particle production in p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN} }$= 5.02 TeV
nucl-ex 2014-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Multiplicity-based centrality in p-Pb collisions introduces a dynamical bias on hard-process yields, and a zero-degree-calorimeter-based event selection avoids it, yielding approximate Npart scaling of mid-rapidity pa...
Evidence of b-jet quenching in PbPb collisions at sqrt(s[NN]) = 2.76 TeV
nucl-ex 2013-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Bottom-quark-tagged jets in lead-lead collisions at 2.76 TeV are suppressed to a nuclear modification factor of about 0.4, comparable to inclusive jets, indicating no strong flavor or mass dependence of jet quenching ...
Modification of jet shapes in PbPb collisions at sqrt(s[NN]) = 2.76 TeV
nucl-ex 2013-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Jets in central lead-lead collisions at 2.76 TeV carry less momentum at intermediate radii (0.1 < r < 0.2) and more at the jet edge (r > 0.2) than jets in proton-proton collisions, showing that the quark-gluon plasma ...
Long range rapidity correlations and jet production in high energy nuclear collisions
nucl-ex 2009-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

In central Au+Au collisions at 200 GeV, a narrow-in-azimuth, long-in-rapidity correlated yield (the ridge) persists for trigger pT above 6 GeV/c and has a transverse-momentum spectrum similar to bulk hadrons, unlike t...
Heavy Quark Radiative Energy Loss in QCD Matter
nucl-th 2003-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The GLV opacity series for radiative energy loss generalizes to massive quarks by a single universal frequency shift, (m_g^2 + x^2 M^2)/(2xE), and heavy quark energy loss stays near the incoherent Bethe-Heitler-like limit.
Predicting parton energy loss in small collision systems
hep-ph 2020-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A BDMPS-Z parton energy loss model, fixed by one lead-lead data point, predicts up to 15 percent suppression of high-momentum charged hadrons in oxygen-oxygen collisions at the LHC.
Transverse momentum, rapidity, and centrality dependence of inclusive charged-particle production in $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$ TeV p+Pb collisions measured by the ATLAS experiment
hep-ex 2016-05 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in p+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV peak near 3 GeV, and the peak grows with centrality and toward the lead-going rapidity direction.
Measurement of jet suppression in central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV
nucl-ex 2015-02 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Jets of radius 0.2 with 40 to 120 GeV transverse momentum are suppressed by about a factor of 3.6 in the 10% most central lead-lead collisions at 2.76 TeV, with R_AA = 0.28 +/- 0.04 and no significant momentum dependence.
Medium-induced gluon radiation and colour decoherence beyond the soft approximation
hep-ph 2014-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The gluon radiation spectrum off a quark in a dense QCD medium is computed to all next-to-eikonal orders, and factorises into dipole cross sections times a colour-decoherence parameter.
Transverse Momentum Broadening and the Jet Quenching Parameter, Redux
hep-ph 2010-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Transverse momentum broadening of a fast parton in a quark-gluon plasma equals the Fourier transform of two light-like Wilson lines, giving a field-theoretic definition of the jet quenching parameter as a diffusion constant.
Cronin Effect and High-p_T Suppression in pA Collisions
hep-ph 2003-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Within the Color Glass Condensate, quantum evolution turns the Cronin enhancement of gluon production in pA collisions into a suppression that grows with energy and with centrality.
Dynamics of Hot QCD Matter 2024 -- Hard Probes
nucl-ex 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Proceedings volume summarizing hard probe studies of quark-gluon plasma, with preliminary new results on non-Markovian quarkonium evolution, jet transport simulations, and machine learning taggers.
Comparison of Jet Quenching Formalisms for a Quark-Gluon Plasma "Brick"
hep-ph 2011-06 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

A controlled comparison of four perturbative-QCD jet-quenching formalisms on the same uniform-medium benchmark finds sizable differences in gluon radiation and energy loss, traceable mainly to large-angle and finite-l...
Bulk matter evolution and extraction of jet transport parameter in heavy-ion collisions at RHIC
nucl-th 2010-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Extracting the jet quenching parameter from RHIC data gives values from 0.54 to 0.96 GeV squared depending on the bulk evolution model, with 22 to 44 percent of the quenching coming from the hadronic phase.
Studying the QGP with Jets at the LHC and RHIC
nucl-ex 2021-10 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A decade of jet measurements in heavy-ion collisions shows jets are suppressed, narrowed and surrounded by soft debris in Pb+Pb and Au+Au, with no quenching observed in proton-lead.
The smallest fluid on earth
nucl-th 2021-02 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

Small collision systems show fluid-like azimuthal anisotropies; the review argues hydrodynamization plus a fluctuating three-hot-spot proton explains most of the data, with QCD initial-state correlations taking over a...
Proton-Nucleus Collisions at the LHC: Scientific Opportunities and Requirements
hep-ph 2011-05 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

Proton-lead collisions at the LHC are argued to be feasible at about 10^29 cm^-2 s^-1 and necessary to separate nuclear initial-state effects from the hot-matter signals seen in lead-lead collisions.
QGP@50: More than Four Decades of Jet Quenching
hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

A historical and technical review of jet quenching in heavy-ion collisions, covering four decades of theory, the RHIC discovery, and modern Bayesian extractions of the jet transport parameter qhat.
Small System Collectivity in Relativistic Hadron and Nuclear Collisions
nucl-ex 2018-01 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

Collective flow-like correlations in small collision systems match viscous hydrodynamic predictions, extending quark-gluon plasma fluid behavior down to femtometer-scale droplets.
Experimental overview on small collision systems at the LHC
nucl-ex 2016-02 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

High-multiplicity proton-proton and proton-lead collisions at the LHC reproduce nearly every bulk observable associated with collective flow in lead-lead collisions, and no single framework yet explains all of them.
Heavy-ion collisions at the Large Hadron Collider: a review of the results from Run 1
nucl-ex 2015-11 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

Run 1 at the LHC confirmed that PbPb collisions create a dense, strongly collective, nearly ideal fluid that is opaque to energetic partons, and unexpectedly found collective-like behaviour in high-multiplicity pPb co...
Gauge/String Duality, Hot QCD and Heavy Ion Collisions
hep-th 2011-01 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

The review synthesizes a decade of work showing that strongly coupled plasma calculations from gauge/string duality give a coherent, quantitatively useful picture of hot QCD matter and heavy ion observables.
Jet Quenching in Heavy-Ion Collisions at RHIC and the LHC experiments
nucl-ex 2025-05 unverdicted

A proceedings review of recent RHIC and LHC jet quenching results; no new data, derivations, or analysis are presented.
Causal Viscous Hydrodynamics for Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions
nucl-th 2009-08

How the literature uses it

76 arXiv papers cite this in 92 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 whose main result relates to this one's

Found among the papers closest to this one by title and main claim. Pith's classifier compared each pair's main results and a second model family confirmed the relation; checked against two further families, shown conflicts agreed 118 times in 120 and shown same results 218 times in 239. The quoted sentence is the other paper's main claim.

States the same result 3 papers

These measurements suggest a large energy loss of the high-$p_{T}$ particles in the highly interacting medium created in the central Au + Au collisions.

Evidence of Final-State Suppression of High-p_T Hadrons in Au + Au Collisions Using d + Au Measurements at RHIC · 0.92
Comparison of the nuclear modification factors, $R_{dAu}(pT)$ and $R_{AA}(pT)$, demonstrates that the large suppression in central Au+Au collisions is due to strong final-state effects.

High pT hadron spectra at RHIC: an overview · 0.83
The large suppression of inclusive hadron production and absence of the away-side jet-like correlations in central Au+Au collisions are shown to be due to interactions of the jets with the very dense medium produced in these collisions.

Jets and high $p_T$ hadrons in dense matter: recent results from STAR · 0.80

Papers citing it · 71 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 2 papers

This is analogous to the experimental procedure of removing the pedestal [ref] .

Rapidity and centrality dependence of azimuthal correlations in high energy d+Au collisions · Correlations at $|y_T-y_A|≲1$ · 0.84
This is analogous to the experimental procedure of removing the pedestal [ref] .

Unveiling the nuclear structure at small x using azimuthal correlations in dA collisions · Correlations at $|y_T-y_A|≲1$ · 0.81

Uses its data or values 1 paper

One of the most important findings of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) was a roughly factor of five suppression of leading light hadrons with $p_T≳5$ GeV/c in central $Au+Au$ collisions [ref] .

Inconsistencies in, and short pathlength correction to, $R_{AA}(p_T)$ in $\mathrm{A}+\mathrm{A}$ and $\mathrm{p} + \mathrm{A}$ collisions · Introduction · 0.82

Compares with it 1 paper

Previous analyses of the charged hadron spectra by [ref] and the other RHIC experiments [ref] have demonstrated that this enhancement stands in stark contrast to the observed suppression of high $$ hadrons in the (central) collision system at $= 200$ [ref] .

Nucleon-Gold Collisions at 200 AGeV Using Tagged d+Au Interactions in PHOBOS · Introduction · 0.86

Cites it as background 16 papers

The ratio of the fragmentation functions in AA over collisions, , is used to study the jet modifications induced by the QGP, for example, in jet or di-hadron azimuthal correlation measurements [ref] .

Measurement of isolated-prompt photon$-$hadron correlations in Pb$-$Pb collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{\textit{s}_{\rm NN}} = 5.02}$ TeV · Introduction · 0.80
Jet modifications [ref] , compared to a baseline obtained in proton-proton collisions, have been studied extensively for over a decade at RHIC and LHC [ref] .

Sensitivity of jet quenching to the initial state in heavy-ion collisions · Introduction · 0.99
In the initial stage of the collision, hard scatterings between partons in the incoming nuclei produce high transverse momentum () partons that fragment into jets of hadrons with a clear back-to-back di-jet signature [ref] .

Azimuthal di-hadron correlations in d+Au and Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV from STAR · Introduction · 0.96

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [7]

D. Kharzeev, E. Levin, and L. McLerran, Phys. Lett. 561, 93 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[2] [5]

J. Adams et al ., nucl-ex/0305015

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[3] [6]

C. Adler et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 082302 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[4] [15]

R. Baier, A. Kovner and U. Wiedemann, hep- ph/0305265

View on Pith

[5] [11]

A. Accardi, hep-ph/0212148, and references therein

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[6] [12]

I. Vitev, Phys. Lett. B562, 36 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[7] [1]

R. Baier, D. Schiﬀ and B. G. Zakharov, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 50, 37 (2000); M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, X.N. Wang, B. Zhang, nucl-th/0302077

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[8] [2]

C. Adler et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 202301 (2002); B. Choi, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas (2003)

View on Pith 2002

[9] [3]

K. Adcox et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 022301 (2002); Phys. Lett. B561, 82 (2003); S.S. Adler et al ., nucl- ex/0304022

View on Pith 2002

[10] [4]

B.B. Back et al ., nucl-ex/0302015

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[11] [8]

X.N. Wang, Phys.Rev. C61, 064910 (2000); nucl- th/0303004

View on Pith 2000

[12] [9]

Y. Zhang et al ., Phys.Rev. C65, 034903 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[13] [10]

B.Z. Kopeliovich et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 232303 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[14] [13]

K.J. Eskola and H. Honkanen, Nucl. Phys. A713, 167 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[15] [14]

S.R. Klein and R. Vogt, nucl-th/0305046

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[16] [16]

D. Antreaysan et al ., Phys. Rev. D19, 764 (1979)

View on Pith 1979

[17] [17]

S.S. Adler et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 072303 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[18] [18]

B.B. Back et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 072302 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[19] [19]

I. Arsene et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 072305 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[20] [20]

K.H. Ackermann et al ., Nucl. Instr. Meth. A499, 624 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[21] [21]

X.N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. D44, 3501 (1991). Version 1.382 is used

View on Pith 1991

[22] [22]

D. Kharzeev, E. Levin and M. Nardi, hep-ph/0212316; L. Hulth´ en and M. Sagawara, Handbuch der Physik 39 (1957)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1957

[23] [23]

R.E. Ansorge et al ., Z. Phys. C43, 357 (1989)

View on Pith 1989

[24] [24]

M.D. Corcoran et al ., Phys. Lett B259, 209 (1991); T. Fields and M.D. Corcoran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 143 (1993)

View on Pith 1991

[25] [25]

J. Qiu and I. Vitev, nucl-th/0306039

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[26] [26]

K. Gallmeister, C. Greiner and Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. C67, 044905 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[27] [27]

D. Kharzeev, Nucl. Phys. A715, 35c (2003)

View on Pith 2003