Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A unified description of small, peripheral, and large system suppression data from pQCD

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A pQCD energy-loss model predicts that central small-system collisions suppress high-momentum particles as much as peripheral heavy-ion collisions.

desk verdict A sharp, largely model-independent prediction that central small and peripheral large systems suppress equally; the p+Pb mismatch is real, but the geometry is less tested than the energy-loss kernel. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09647 v2 pith:KYA7UPXY submitted 2024-11-14 hep-ph nucl-th

Coleridge Faraday , W. A. Horowitz This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords quark-gluonplasmanuclearmodificationfactorpartonicenergylosssmallcollisionsystemsperipheralheavy-ioncollisionspQCDcentralitybiasjetquenching
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 tries to establish that one pQCD-based energy-loss mechanism, tuned only to central heavy-ion collision data, can describe high-momentum particle suppression in both small and peripheral collision systems without any additional tuning. Its central claim is that the nuclear modification factor $R_{AB}$ is nearly identical for central $p/d + A$ collisions and peripheral $A + A$ collisions, because the shorter plasma path length in a small system is compensated by its higher temperature. If this is true, final-state energy loss alone accounts for the measured ~20% suppression in $d+\mathrm{Au}$ collisions, while the measured ~20% enhancement in $p+\mathrm{Pb}$ collisions cannot be an energy-loss effect and is instead attributed to centrality bias in the geometric binary-collision normalization. The result matters because it turns a coincidence between two disparate collision geometries into a testable prediction and a diagnostic for event-selection biases.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the length-temperature phase space of the produced plasma. Each collision system is assigned an average path length $L$ and average temperature $T$ from IP-Glasma initial conditions with longitudinal expansion, via $L(x_i, \hat{n}) = (1/\langle T^3\rangle) \int dz\, T^3(x_i + z\hat{n})$ and $T = \langle T^3\rangle^{1/3}(\tau_0/\langle\tau\rangle)^{1/3}$ with $\langle\tau\rangle = L/2$. The model-agnostic analysis parametrizes energy loss as $\Delta E \propto L^a T^b f(E)$, whose exponents $(a,b)$ distinguish collisional, GLV, BDMPS-Z, and AdS/CFT mechanisms, and shows that central small systems sit on the same constant-energy-loss bands as peripheral large systems. The pQCD model itself combines first-order-in-opacity DGLV radiative loss with a short-path-length correction and HTL collisional loss, and its single free parameter $\alpha_s^{\mathrm{eff}}$ is fixed by $\chi^2$ fits to central heavy-ion $R_{AA}$ data.

What would settle it

Measure the nuclear modification factor for high-$p_T$ hadrons in central $p+\mathrm{Pb}$ collisions using a centrality-bias-free normalization, such as Z-boson or prompt-photon scaling; if the result is near unity or enhancement rather than the predicted ~30% suppression, the claimed equivalence of central small and peripheral large system suppression is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within a convolved radiative and collisional pQCD energy-loss model with short-path-length corrections, the predicted $R_{AB}$ for central $p/d + A$ collisions at 0.2 and 5.02 TeV collision energies is nearly identical to the predicted $R_{AB}$ for peripheral $A + A$ collisions at the same collision energies. These predictions reproduce the measured suppression of neutral pions in $d+\mathrm{Au}$ collisions and the peripheral $\mathrm{Au}+\mathrm{Au}$ and $\mathrm{Pb}+\mathrm{Pb}$ suppression data, but predict significant suppression in central $p+\mathrm{Pb}$ collisions, in marked disagreement with the measured enhancement. The authors further show that this equivalence is robust across qualitatively different energy-loss mechanisms, including collisional, GLV radiative, BDMPS-Z radiative, and strong-coupling AdS/CFT models, because the average path length $L$ and temperature $T$ of central small and peripheral large systems sit on nearly the same constant-energy-loss contours.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted equality of suppression rests on the modeled geometry: if the average path lengths $L$ and temperatures $T$ assigned to central small and peripheral large systems differ enough to separate their constant-energy-loss contours, the compensation between shorter length and higher temperature breaks down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Central small-system collisions and peripheral heavy-ion collisions are predicted to have equal nuclear modification factors over a broad transverse-momentum range at 0.2 and 5.02 TeV collision energies.
  • The observed $d+\mathrm{Au}$ suppression can be fully accounted for by final-state energy loss, with no need for additional small-system-specific suppression mechanisms.
  • The observed $p+\mathrm{Pb}$ enhancement cannot be produced by energy loss in this framework, supporting the interpretation that geometric binary-collision-count centrality mapping biases the measurement.
  • Centrality-bias-free measurements, such as photon- or Z-normalized nuclear modification factors in small systems, are predicted to reveal suppression rather than enhancement.
  • The equal-suppression prediction is insensitive to the choice of energy-loss model, so it stands even if the microscopic mechanism is changed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The same compensation argument predicts that high-$p_T$ heavy-flavor suppression in central $p+\mathrm{Pb}$ collisions should match peripheral $\mathrm{Pb}+\mathrm{Pb}$ suppression at comparable $p_T$, a testable prediction for future collider runs.
  • Inference: The centrality-bias explanation implies other binary-collision-normalized small-system observables, such as high-$p_T$ jet suppression, should show artificial enhancement of similar magnitude.
  • Inference: The constant-energy-loss contours suggest a universal curve for $R_{AB}$ as a function of the $(L,T)$ phase-space location, which could be mapped using future $\mathrm{O}+\mathrm{O}$ or $\mathrm{Ar}+\mathrm{Ar}$ collision data.
  • Inference: If the centrality bias is real, it would also affect the extraction of transport coefficients from small-system data, since a biased binary-collision count would systematically dilute inferred energy loss.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript develops a pQCD-based partonic energy-loss model with small-system-size corrections to both radiative and collisional energy loss, fits its effective strong coupling to 245 central heavy-ion data points at RHIC and LHC, and then predicts the nuclear modification factor for central p/d+A and peripheral A+A collisions without further tuning. The central result is that the model predicts nearly identical suppression in central small systems and peripheral large systems, in quantitative agreement with PHENIX d+Au and peripheral Au+Au/Pb+Pb data, but in marked disagreement with the ATLAS p+Pb enhancement at high pT. The authors argue that this disagreement points to centrality bias in the Glauber-based p+Pb measurement. A second, model-agnostic analysis with parametric energy loss Delta E ~ L^a T^b f(E) is used to claim that the equality of central-small and peripheral-large suppression is insensitive to the underlying energy-loss mechanism.

Significance. If the central prediction holds, the paper delivers a sharp, falsifiable statement: final-state partonic energy loss alone yields comparable high-pT suppression in central p/d+A and peripheral A+A collisions, so the ATLAS p+Pb enhancement would require a centrality-bias or initial-state explanation rather than a system-size threshold for QGP formation. The manuscript is honest about its neglect of initial-state effects and gives concrete targets for future photon- or Z-normalized measurements. I do not see a circularity problem: alpha_s is fitted only to central large-system data, and the equal-suppression prediction is a consequence of the computed (L,T) phase-space geometry. The main gap is that the robustness of the equality is demonstrated for variations of the energy-loss kernel but not for variations of the medium geometry or for the neglected initial-state effects.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, Table 1, Fig. 4] The model-agnostic claim is not yet quantitatively supported. Using the paper's own geometry (L_s/L_p ~ 0.5, T_s/T_p ~ 1.3-1.5) and the exponents in Table 1, the ratio of central-small to peripheral-large energy loss ranges from approximately 0.3-0.55 for AdS/CFT, 0.55-0.85 for GLV and high-energy BDMPS-Z, and 0.85-1.1 for collisional energy loss. These values are not 'nearly identical' in general; the Taylor-expansion compensation argument assumes the special form b = a + 1 and a reference point (L*, T*) that is not derived from the IP-Glasma outputs. Please report the per-model R_AB predictions and the spread in the central-small versus peripheral-large ratio, and specify explicitly how the gray band in Fig. 4 is constructed from the different models.
  2. [Sec. 2, Figs. 1 and 4] The equal-suppression prediction is a cancellation between a shorter path length and a hotter temperature, and this cancellation rests on a single geometry prescription: IP-Glasma initial conditions, Bjorken expansion, T = (<T^3>)^(1/3)(tau0/(L/2))^(1/3), and a T^3-weighted path length L. The paper varies the energy-loss kernel but never varies tau0, the L/2 averaging convention, the T^3 weighting, or the initial-condition model. The quoted 5-20% theoretical uncertainty bands therefore exclude an important source of uncertainty. Please add a robustness scan over these geometry choices, or state explicitly that the equality claim is conditional on this geometry.
  3. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 4] The paper concludes that the ATLAS p+Pb enhancement likely results from centrality bias, but it does not compute any centrality-bias correction, and it explicitly neglects nPDFs, small-x evolution, kT smearing, and color fluctuations. These effects can be O(10%) or larger in p+Pb at high pT and could shift the predicted R_pPb toward the measured value. The data/model disagreement is large, so the qualitative conclusion may survive, but the quantitative claim needs either an estimate of the neglected initial-state effects or a calculation of the centrality-bias correction required to reconcile the model with ATLAS.
  4. [Sec. 3] The model-agnostic analysis uses R_AB ~ 1 - n(pT) Delta E/E, which is a small-energy-loss approximation. In the central p+Pb system the predicted suppression is >= 30%, so n Delta E/E is not small and the linearized relation can misestimate both R_pPb and the model spread. Since Fig. 4 extends over a wide pT range and the contours in Fig. 3 are evaluated at E = 10 GeV, the pT dependence of the model-agnostic conclusion should be checked against the full model or the approximation should be restricted to the small-suppression regime.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2] The definition of L contains a typo: 'L(xi,nhat) = (1/<T^3(xi>) ...' is missing a closing angle bracket in the denominator. Please define <T^3(xi)> consistently.
  2. [Sec. 3] The text says 'constant energy loss contours via Delta E/E = T^a L^b f(E=10 GeV) = constant' after defining Delta E ~ L^a T^b f(E); the exponents a and b appear to be interchanged. Please clarify which variable carries which exponent.
  3. [Table 1] The BDMPS-Z rows are formatted ambiguously ('1 3 /2 E1/2' and '2 3 1'). Please write explicit fractions and functions, and specify whether f(E) multiplies Delta E or Delta E/E.
  4. [Sec. 2] The fit is described as a chi2 minimization over 245 points, but no chi2/dof values or extracted alpha_s uncertainties are quoted. Please provide at least the range of chi2/dof and the extracted alpha_s values for the 14 model variations, since the claim that the model is constrained by central heavy-ion data is central to the paper.
  5. [Sec. 2] The notation 'alpha_eff.s' and 'alpha_eff.*s' contains stray periods from line breaks; please unify the notation (for example, alpha_s^eff) throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the small-system and peripheral suppression predictions are out-of-sample outputs, and the self-citations are normal model ingredients rather than imported uniqueness claims.

full rationale

The central prediction is not fitted. The full model extracts a single effective strong coupling from central 0–50% heavy-ion data (245 points), then applies the model without retuning to central 0–5% p/d+A and peripheral 60–80% A+A systems. The abstract and Sec. 1 state this division explicitly: 'constraining our model using only large system data, and then making predictions for small systems with no additional tuning.' The claimed equality between central small and peripheral large suppression is therefore an output of the computed (L,T) geometry, not a restatement of the fitted parameter. The simple model analysis in Sec. 3 fits the proportionality constant β only to 60–80% Pb+Pb data; the peripheral Au+Au and central d+Au comparisons are out-of-sample, so the equality between central small and peripheral large systems is not enforced by the fit. The 'insensitivity to the underlying energy loss model' claim is tested by varying the parametric energy-loss kernels (Table 1) and the collisional/radiative variants, while the IP-Glasma/Bjorken geometry is kept fixed. That is a robustness limitation rather than circularity: the paper checks the energy-loss-model dependence but not the geometry dependence. The self-citations [26–29] supply the radiative and collisional energy-loss expressions with stated assumptions; they are not invoked as external uniqueness theorems, and the verdict does not depend on accepting them on faith. The explicit neglect of initial-state effects (nPDFs, small-x, kT smearing) in Sec. 1 is a genuine external-validity caveat and could affect the interpretation of the ATLAS p+Pb enhancement, but it does not make the derivation circular. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction rests on the fitted effective coupling and on the computed (L,T) geometry from a specific initial-condition model plus Bjorken expansion. No new particles, forces, or other entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha_eff_s (effective strong coupling) = [0.3, 0.5] across 14 model variations, RHIC and LHC fit separately
    Single model free parameter extracted from 245 central heavy-ion data points (Sec. 2).
  • beta (simple-model proportionality constant) = Not quoted; fit to 60-80% Pb+Pb R_AB data
    In Sec. 3, parametric energy loss models set ΔE/E = β L^a T^b f(E)/E with β determined by fitting the 60-80% Pb+Pb data [20].
  • kappa (transverse gluon momentum cutoff factor) = varied in [0.5, 2]
    The phase-space cutoff kmax = κ Min[...] is chosen by hand to respect large formation time and collinear approximations; used to estimate theoretical uncertainty, not fitted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption High-pT hadron suppression in A+A collisions is dominated by final-state partonic energy loss; initial-state effects (nPDFs, small-x, kT smearing, color fluctuations) and hadronization effects (coalescence, in-medium fragmentation) are neglected.
    Stated in Sec. 1; required to interpret R_AB changes as energy loss. If initial-state effects are large, the equality of suppression in data would not directly reflect final-state energy loss.
  • domain assumption IP-Glasma initial conditions followed by longitudinal Bjorken expansion produce the temperature field and path-length distribution for all systems.
    Sec. 2; used to compute L(xi,nhat) and T(x). No independent constraint from small/peripheral systems is provided.
  • domain assumption Average temperature and length satisfy T = (⟨T^3⟩)^{1/3}(τ0/(L/2))^{1/3}.
    Sec. 2; encodes the Bjorken cooling relation that drives the compensation between L and T in Sec. 3.
  • domain assumption Energy loss can be represented as ΔE ∝ L^a T^b f(E) with exponents from popular models, and R_AB ≃ 1 - n(pT) ΔE/E.
    Sec. 3, Eq. and Table 1; used for the model-agnostic demonstration. The linearized R_AB formula is valid for moderate suppression.
  • domain assumption The unknown correlation matrix of type B systematic uncertainties is bracketed by three limiting hypotheses (I, II, III).
    Sec. 2; the extracted α_eff_s and its uncertainty depend on these modeling choices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A unified description of small, peripheral, and large system suppression data from pQCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KYA7UPXY

@misc{pith2026241109647,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A unified description of small, peripheral, and large system suppression data from pQCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KYA7UPXY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09647}
}
abstract

We present quantitative predictions for the nuclear modification factor in both small and peripheral systems from a pQCD-based energy loss model that is constrained by light- and heavy-flavor suppression data from central heavy-ion collisions. We find nearly identical suppression for central $p / d + A$ collisions as for peripheral $A + A$ collisions, quantitatively consistent with the measured 20% suppression of neutral pions produced in $d + \mathrm{Au}$ collisions by PHENIX, but dramatically inconsistent with the measured 20% enhancement of charged hadrons produced in $p + \mathrm{Pb}$ collisions by ATLAS. We demonstrate that this equivalence of central small system suppression and peripheral large system suppression is insensitive to the underlying energy loss model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09647 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (top) Measured nuclear modification factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Measured RAA for various hadronic final states divided by the theoret￾ical model expectation as a function of the transverse momentum pT . Consult the text for details on data inclusion criteria. Statistical and systematic uncer￾tainties are represented by error bars, and are added in quadrature for purely visual purposes. An estimate of the theoretical uncertainty is represented by the gray band around unity; see t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (top) Measured nuclear modification factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Average temperature T (vertical axis) and length L (horizontal axis) for various collision systems. Bands formed from contours of constant energy loss using a variety of energy loss models are shown in gray. 0–5% p + Pb 60–80% Pb + Pb 0–5% d + Au 60–70% Au + Au 0 0.5 1…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Momentum Broadening in the Opacity Expansion: All-Path-Length Corrections and Improved Regge Kinematics

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Combined short-path-length (APL) and sub-eikonal corrections to GLV momentum broadening nearly cancel, restoring the standard GLV result; the paper argues this may resolve the earlier large negative APL energy-loss co...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Romatschke, U

    P. Romatschke, U. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 172301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.172301. arXiv:0706.1522

    arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

    H. Song, U. W. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 064901. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevC.77.064901. arXiv:0712.3715

    arXiv 2008

  3. [3]

    Schenke, S

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon, C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 014903. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevC.82.014903. arXiv:1004.1408

    arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Dainese, C

    A. Dainese, C. Loizides, G. Paic, Eur. Phys. J. C 38 (2005) 461–474. doi:10.1140/epjc/s2004-02077-x . arXiv:hep-ph/0406201

    arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    Schenke, C

    B. Schenke, C. Gale, S. Jeon, Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 054913. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevC.80.054913. arXiv:0909.2037

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    Wicks, W

    S. Wicks, W. Horowitz, M. Djordjevic, M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. A 784 (2007) 426–442. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.12.048. arXiv:nucl-th/0512076

    arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    W. A. Horowitz, Nucl. Phys. A 904-905 (2013) 186c–193c. doi: 10. 1016/j.nuclphysa.2013.01.061. arXiv:1210.8330

    arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Adcox, et al

    K. Adcox, et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 022301. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevLett.88.022301. arXiv:nucl-ex/0109003

    arXiv 2002

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    J. F. Grosse-Oetringhaus, U. A. Wiedemann (2024). arXiv:2407.07484

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Aad, et al

    G. Aad, et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 182302. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevLett.110.182302. arXiv:1212.5198

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Aad, et al

    G. Aad, et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 725 (2013) 60–78. doi: 10.1016/ j.physletb.2013.06.057. arXiv:1303.2084

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    B. B. Abelev, et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) 054901. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevC.90.054901. arXiv:1406.2474

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Khachatryan, et al

    V . Khachatryan, et al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 012301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.012301. arXiv:1502.05382

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Adam, et al

    J. Adam, et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 758 (2016) 389–401. doi: 10. 1016/j.physletb.2016.05.027. arXiv:1512.07227

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    B. B. Abelev, et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 728 (2014) 25–38. doi: 10. 1016/j.physletb.2013.11.020. arXiv:1307.6796

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Adam, et al

    J. Adam, et al. (ALICE), JHEP 06 (2016) 050. doi: 10.1007/ JHEP06(2016)050. arXiv:1603.02816

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Aidala, et al

    C. Aidala, et al. (PHENIX), Nature Phys. 15 (2019) 214–220. doi: 10. 1038/s41567-018-0360-0 . arXiv:1805.02973

    2019

  10. [18]

    R. D. Weller, P. Romatschke, Phys. Lett. B 774 (2017) 351–356. doi: 10. 1016/j.physletb.2017.09.077. arXiv:1701.07145

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Schenke, C

    B. Schenke, C. Shen, P. Tribedy, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2020) 044905. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.102.044905. arXiv:2005.14682

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Aad, et al

    G. Aad, et al. (ATLAS), JHEP 07 (2023) 074. doi: 10.1007/ JHEP07(2023)074. arXiv:2211.15257

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    N. J. Abdulameer, et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) 022302. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.022302. arXiv:2303.12899

    2025

  14. [22]

    Adam, et al

    J. Adam, et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 064905. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevC.91.064905. arXiv:1412.6828

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Acharya, et al

    S. Acharya, et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 793 (2019) 420–432. doi: 10. 1016/j.physletb.2019.04.047. arXiv:1805.05212

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Aad, et al

    G. Aad, et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Lett. B 763 (2016) 313–336. doi:10.1016/ j.physletb.2016.10.053. arXiv:1605.06436

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, P. Steinberg, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 205–243. doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506. 123020. arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025

    2007 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Faraday, A

    C. Faraday, A. Grindrod, W. A. Horowitz, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 1060. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12234-y . arXiv:2305.13182

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Kolbe, W

    I. Kolbe, W. A. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 024913. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevC.100.024913. arXiv:1511.09313

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Faraday, W

    C. Faraday, W. A. Horowitz (2024). arXiv:2408.14426

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Wicks, PhD thesis, 2008

    S. Wicks, PhD thesis, 2008

    2008

  22. [30]

    Ehlers, et al

    R. Ehlers, et al. (JETSCAPE) (2024). arXiv:2408.08247

    2024

  23. [31]

    K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen, C. A. Salgado, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 413. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10359-0 . arXiv:2112.12462

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Armesto, T

    N. Armesto, T. Lappi, H. M ¨antysaari, H. Paukkunen, M. Tevio, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 114017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.114017. arXiv:2203.05846

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    W. Ke, I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. C 107 (2023) 064903. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevC.107.064903. arXiv:2204.00634

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    D. V . Perepelitsa, Phys. Rev. C 110 (2024) L011901. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevC.110.L011901. arXiv:2404.17660

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    R. J. Fries, V . Greco, P. Sorensen, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58 (2008) 177–205. doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.58.110707.171134. arXiv:0807.4939

    2008

  28. [36]

    X. Zhao, R. Rapp, Nucl. Phys. A 859 (2011) 114–125. doi: 10.1016/j. nuclphysa.2011.05.001. arXiv:1102.2194

    2011 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Adare, et al

    A. Adare, et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 034911. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevC.87.034911. arXiv:1208.2254

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Soudi, et al

    I. Soudi, et al. (JETSCAPE) (2024). arXiv:2407.17443. 6

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Cao, et al

    S. Cao, et al. (JETSCAPE), Phys. Rev. C 104 (2021) 024905. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevC.104.024905. arXiv:2102.11337

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A. Huss, A. Kurkela, A. Mazeliauskas, R. Paatelainen, W. van der Schee, U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 192301. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.126.192301. arXiv:2007.13754

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A. Huss, A. Kurkela, A. Mazeliauskas, R. Paatelainen, W. van der Schee, U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) 054903. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevC.103.054903. arXiv:2007.13758

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    B. G. Zakharov, JHEP 09 (2021) 087. doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2021)087. arXiv:2105.09350

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Djordjevic, M

    M. Djordjevic, M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. A 733 (2004) 265–298. doi: 10. 1016/j.nuclphysa.2003.12.020. arXiv:nucl-th/0310076

    2004 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Braaten, M

    E. Braaten, M. H. Thoma, Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) R2625. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.44.R2625

    1991

  37. [45]

    Faraday, W

    C. Faraday, W. A. Horowitz, in: 67th Annual Conference of the South African Institute of Physics. arXiv:2309.06246

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    W. A. Horowitz, B. A. Cole, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 024909. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevC.81.024909. arXiv:0910.1823

    2010 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Armesto, et al., Phys

    N. Armesto, et al., Phys. Rev. C 86 (2012) 064904. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevC.86.064904. arXiv:1106.1106

    2012 arXiv

  40. [48]

    J. Xu, A. Buzzatti, M. Gyulassy, JHEP 08 (2014) 063. doi: 10.1007/ JHEP08(2014)063. arXiv:1402.2956

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Djordjevic, M

    M. Djordjevic, M. Djordjevic, Phys. Lett. B 734 (2014) 286–289. doi:10. 1016/j.physletb.2014.05.053. arXiv:1307.4098

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Peshier (2006)

    A. Peshier (2006). arXiv:hep-ph/0601119

    2006 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Adare, et al

    A. Adare, et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 064907. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevC.77.064907. arXiv:0801.1665

    2008 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Khachatryan, et al

    V . Khachatryan, et al. (CMS), JHEP 04 (2017) 039. doi: 10.1007/ JHEP04(2017)039. arXiv:1611.01664

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Acharya, et al

    S. Acharya, et al. (ALICE), JHEP 11 (2018) 013. doi: 10.1007/ JHEP11(2018)013. arXiv:1802.09145

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    A. M. Sirunyan, et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B 782 (2018) 474–496. doi: 10. 1016/j.physletb.2018.05.074. arXiv:1708.04962

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Acharya, et al

    S. Acharya, et al. (ALICE), JHEP 10 (2018) 174. doi: 10.1007/ JHEP10(2018)174. arXiv:1804.09083

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Adare, et al

    A. Adare, et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 232301. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevLett.101.232301. arXiv:0801.4020

    2008 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Adam, et al

    J. Adam, et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 034908. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevC.99.034908. arXiv:1812.10224

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Faraday, W

    C. Faraday, W. A. Horowitz, 2025. Work in preparation

    2025

  51. [59]

    W. A. Horowitz, M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. A 872 (2011) 265–285. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2011.09.018. arXiv:1104.4958

    2011 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J. D. Bjorken (1982)

    1982

  53. [61]

    M. H. Thoma, M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. B 351 (1991) 491–506. doi: 10. 1016/S0550-3213(05)80031-8

    1991

  54. [62]

    Gyulassy, P

    M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, I. Vitev, Nucl. Phys. B 594 (2001) 371–419. doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00652-0 . arXiv:nucl-th/0006010

    2001 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Baier, Y

    R. Baier, Y . L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller, D. Schiff, JHEP 09 (2001) 033. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2001/09/033. arXiv:hep-ph/0106347

    2001 arXiv

  56. [64]

    P. M. Chesler, L. G. Ya ffe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 021601. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevLett.106.021601. arXiv:1011.3562

    2011 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Marquet, T

    C. Marquet, T. Renk, Phys. Lett. B 685 (2010) 270–276. doi: 10.1016/ j.physletb.2010.01.076. arXiv:0908.0880

    2010 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Citron, et al., CERN Yellow Rep

    Z. Citron, et al., CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 7 (2019) 1159–1410. doi:10.23731/CYRM-2019-007.1159 . arXiv:1812.06772

    2019 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Kolb ´e (2023)

    I. Kolb ´e (2023). arXiv:2303.14166

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    B. G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 88 (2008) 475–480. doi: 10.1134/ S0021364008200022. arXiv:0809.0599

    2008 arXiv

  61. [69]

    J. a. Barata, S. Hauksson, X. Mayo L ´opez, A. V . Sadofyev, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 094055. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.094055. arXiv:2406.07615

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    B. Ilic, D. Zigic, M. Djordjevic, M. Djordjevic, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 30 (2021) 2141007. doi: 10.1142/S021830132141007X. arXiv:2203.11883

    2021 arXiv

  63. [71]

    W. A. Horowitz, Y . V . Kovchegov, Nucl. Phys. A 849 (2011) 72–97. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2010.10.014. arXiv:1009.0545. 7

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.