Collectivity in ultra-peripheral heavy-ion and e+A collisions

Bj\"orn Schenke; Chun Shen; Wenbin Zhao

Collectivity in ultra-peripheral heavy-ion and e+A collisions

T0 review · 0 major / 7 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 Photonuclear collisions at the LHC exhibit flow-like correlations that two rival mechanisms can each reproduce.

desk verdict A honest, clearly written conference review that usefully juxtaposes CGC and hydro explanations of photonuclear v2; its load-bearing vector-meson assumption is real but is the field's caveat, not a misrepresentation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18407 v1 pith:F652WRNM submitted 2024-11-27 hep-ph nucl-th

Björn Schenke , Chun Shen , Wenbin Zhao This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phnucl-th

keywords collectivityultra-peripheralcollisionsphotonuclearcolorglasscondensaterelativistichydrodynamicsellipticflowsmallsystemselectron-ioncollider

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 reviews two competing explanations for the flow-like, long-range azimuthal correlations measured in high-multiplicity collisions between a photon and a heavy nucleus at the LHC. One explanation seeds the correlations in the initial color-glass-condensate wave function of the target; the other generates them through final-state hydrodynamic expansion of a tiny droplet of quark-gluon matter. The review shows that both, with the photon treated as a vector-meson fluctuation, reproduce the measured elliptic flow $v_2$, and it concludes that neither mechanism is ruled out. The stakes are whether even photon-nucleus collisions can form a collectively expanding medium, and whether a future electron-ion collider can tell the two pictures apart.

What carries the argument

Two competing mechanisms carry the argument. In the color glass condensate picture, the central objects are dipole and quadrupole correlators of Wilson lines in the dense target; azimuthal anisotropy appears through the quadrupole term, a subleading correction in $1/N_c$, when two partons from the photon projectile scatter off the same dense gluon field. In the hydrodynamic picture, the anisotropy is the response of a strongly interacting medium to the initial eccentricities of the collision region, computed with 3+1D hydrodynamics because the system is far from boost invariant. Both calculations rest on a common input: the nearly real photon, in a rare long-lived fluctuation, is modeled as a vector meson carrying many collinear partons, and the transverse size of that fluctuation is what ultimately controls the predicted $v_2$, with the two frameworks making opposite predictions for how $v_2$ changes with that size.

What would settle it

Measure $v_2$ in photonuclear collisions as the photon's virtuality $Q^2$ (which sets its transverse size) is varied: hydrodynamics predicts $v_2$ should grow as the photon fluctuation becomes larger, while the color glass condensate predicts it should shrink, so a clear monotonic trend in either direction would eliminate the other framework. A second decisive check is to measure $v_2$ with much finer momentum bins, because the color glass condensate predicts rapid decorrelation between trigger and associated particle momentum while hydrodynamics predicts almost none.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the long-range two-particle azimuthal correlations seen in high-multiplicity photon-nucleus collisions can be produced by two entirely different mechanisms: initial-state correlations in the color glass condensate, where the anisotropy is imprinted by multiparticle scattering in the dense target, and final-state response in 3+1D hydrodynamics, where the anisotropic energy density expands and converts spatial eccentricities into momentum anisotropies. The paper presents both routes as able to describe the measured $v_2(p_T)$, noting that the color-glass prediction decorrelates rapidly in $p_T$ while the hydrodynamic prediction is nearly independent of the reference momentum bin. It concludes that evidence for a hydrodynamic phase in these collisions is suggestive but not conclusive, stating that 'other possible explanations of the measured $v_2$ are not fully ruled out.'

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison rests on treating the incoming photon in rare high-multiplicity events as a short-lived hadron-like object made of many fast-moving quarks and gluons; if that picture does not describe the selected events, neither model's computed $v_2$ corresponds to the measured system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the hydrodynamic description is correct, high-multiplicity photonuclear collisions produce a small, strongly interacting medium whose expansion is nearly as collective as in proton-lead collisions, making the measured $v_2$ a final-state effect.
If the color glass condensate description is correct, the same $v_2$ arises without any hydrodynamic phase, from correlations already present in the initial wave function of the dense target.
The hydrodynamic model explains the lower $v_2$ in photonuclear relative to proton-lead collisions through stronger longitudinal decorrelation of the initial geometry in the asymmetric photon-nucleus system.
The two frameworks make separable predictions: the color glass condensate predicts a $v_2(p_T)$ that turns over at high transverse momentum and decorrelates quickly with the associated particle's momentum, while hydrodynamics predicts essentially no dependence on the reference momentum bin.
Discriminating between the mechanisms will require new kinematic handles, in particular varying the photon virtuality or transverse size as a future electron-ion collider could do, where the two frameworks predict opposite trends for $v_2$.

Reading between the lines

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

The review does not quantify how much data would be needed to separate the two mechanisms; one concrete strategy it points toward is mapping $v_2$ as a function of photon virtuality $Q^2$, since $Q^2$ changes the transverse size of the photon fluctuation and the two frameworks predict opposite slopes.
A precise measurement of the third harmonic $v_3$ in ultra-peripheral collisions would add information neither framework fully provides today: the hydrodynamic calculation underestimates the existing $v_3$ data with large error bars, while the color-glass calculations make no $v_3$ prediction at all.
If the photon-as-vector-meson assumption is right, the same reasoning predicts that at a future electron-ion collider the 'high-multiplicity' photonuclear events will be rare fluctuation tails, so conclusions about collectivity will depend strongly on how those events are selected and on the achieved luminosity.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a conference proceedings review, not a research paper. No new numbers, no new code. What it does well is lay side by side the two competing mechanisms for the ATLAS photonuclear v2 — CGC initial-state correlations and 3+1D hydro final-state response — and it is appropriately honest about what each can and cannot do: the simple CGC fit works only at low pT and is known to be fragile in other small systems; the improved CGC calculation gets the right ballpark without tuning; the hydro model describes v2 but undershoots v3. The paper also spells out the cleanest discriminator between the two: opposite dependence on projectile transverse size, which the EIC can in principle test with Q2 as a proxy. That is genuinely useful synthesis.

The soft spots are real but they are the field's soft spots, not misrepresentations. The vector-meson picture of the low-Q2 photon is doing all the work in both frameworks — the CGC calculation uses a Gaussian with Bp = 25 GeV^-2, the hydro calculation gives the photon one fewer hot spot than a proton and assumes the vector-meson-nucleon cross section equals the nucleon-nucleon one. The paper says the cross section is 'a major uncertainty' and asks how robust the CGC calculation is, but it never steps back to ask whether the high-multiplicity UPC selection actually enriches for long-lived vector-meson-like configurations. If that selection does not enforce the picture, both comparisons are measuring something the models do not describe. The stress-test note is right to flag this; I just don't think it is a fatal flaw in a review, since the same caveat applies to essentially all current photonuclear collectivity work.

The self-citations are fine — refs [20] and [22] are the actual sources of the results being reviewed, and the comparison to gamma+Pb is not fit to the gamma+Pb data in the hydro case.

Who is this for? Someone entering the small-system or UPC field who wants a 7-page map of who is claiming what. A specialist gets little new. It deserves a serious referee for a proceedings volume — the claims are consistent with the literature and the hedging is honest. I would not block publication over the missing quantitative test of vector-meson dominance, but I would ask the authors to add one sentence noting that the high-multiplicity selection's relation to the vector-meson assumption is itself unchecked.

Referee Report

0 major / 7 minor

Summary. This proceedings-style review paper summarizes recent theoretical progress on collective effects in photonuclear (gamma*+Pb) collisions at the LHC, comparing two complementary frameworks: the color glass condensate (CGC) initial-state picture, as implemented in Refs. [17] and [20], and a 3+1D hydrodynamic final-state model from Ref. [22]. The paper presents both frameworks' predictions for the elliptic anisotropy v2(pT) in high-multiplicity ultra-peripheral Pb+Pb collisions, compares them to ATLAS data, and notes that the hydrodynamic model reproduces v2 but underestimates v3, while the CGC calculations reproduce the low-pT region without tuning. The authors conclude that indications for collectivity exist but that alternative explanations are not fully ruled out, and they suggest that the EIC may discriminate between the initial-state and final-state mechanisms.

Significance. If the review is accurate, it provides a useful and balanced status report on a rapidly evolving topic. Its main strength is its honest hedging: the paper explicitly flags the fragility of the CGC calculation (Section 3), the major uncertainty in the vector-meson-nucleon cross section (Section 4), and the fact that other explanations of the measured v2 are not excluded (Section 5). It also credits the hydrodynamic model's prediction as proceeding from a p+Pb-constrained parameter set rather than a fit to the gamma+Pb data. The paper is concise and accessible, and its comparative discussion of CGC versus hydrodynamic predictions, including the opposite dependence on projectile transverse size, offers a concrete and useful EIC discriminator.

minor comments (7)

[Section 1] The statement "When the LHC began taking data in 2001" is factually incorrect; the LHC first circulated beams in 2008 and first proton-proton collisions occurred in late 2009/2010, so this date should be corrected.
[Section 3] The text contains a typo: "decorrealtion" should be "decorrelation" in the sentence beginning "A feature common to all CGC calculation is the quick decorrealtion in pT...".
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption reads "| | < 2.5 | |>2.0", which appears to be a rendering error; it should read "|η| < 2.5 and |Δη| > 2.0" to specify the pseudorapidity gap used in the two-particle correlation measurement.
[Section 4] The notation "γ∗+Pb" appears with inconsistent spacing and italicization throughout the paper; please unify the formatting for the photon-nucleus system.
[Eq. (5)] The denominator in Eq. (5), "dN/d⃗ q2_1d⃗ q2_2", is confusing; consider writing it as d^2 q_{1\perp} d^2 q_{2\perp} or a similar explicit transverse-momentum notation to match the discussion of the two-particle distribution.
[Section 3] The statement "Q ∼ 30 MeV ≪ ΛQCD" is a bit strong because 30 MeV is only a factor of several below ΛQCD; if Q denotes the photon virtuality, it would be clearer to state Q2 as well and soften the ordering.
[Section 2 and Conclusions] Given that both the CGC and hydrodynamic calculations rely on viewing the low-Q2 photon as a vector meson with many collinear partons, as stated in Section 2, a sentence in the Conclusions explicitly stating that the successful v2 comparisons are conditional on this vector-meson representation would further strengthen the already hedged conclusion; the current text comes close but does not state this contingency directly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: both CGC and hydrodynamic comparisons to ATLAS photonuclear data are out-of-sample tests, and the only self-citation is independent support.

full rationale

This review does not derive a new prediction from its own inputs; it surveys two existing frameworks against ATLAS data. The CGC results come from independent groups (Refs. [17], [20]). The hydrodynamic result is from the authors' Ref. [22], but the paper explicitly states that the strategy was to 'fit the model parameters to p+Pb collision data from the LHC and predict γ∗+Pb data from that constrained model', making the γ∗+Pb comparison an out-of-sample prediction rather than a fit of the explained observable. The shared assumption of a vector-meson-like photon (Section 2) is a stated model hypothesis, not defined in terms of v2; the paper also flags its uncertainties, including 'The vector-meson-nucleon cross section is a major uncertainty' (Section 4) and asks 'how robust this calculation is' for the CGC (Section 3). These are limitations rather than circular reductions. No equation in the manuscript equals its input by construction, and no load-bearing claim reduces to a self-citation chain; Ref. [22] is externally falsifiable against ATLAS data, so the self-citation does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All parameters and modeling assumptions are imported from cited works; the review itself adds no new free parameters. The central comparison depends on the hadronic fluctuation picture of the photon and on the validity of the CGC and hydrodynamic frameworks for these collisions.

free parameters (4)

B_p (transverse coordinate spread of partons in the photon) = 25 GeV^-2
Set in CGC calculation [17]; with this value and Qs^2=5 GeV^2 the v2(pT) matches ATLAS data below 2 GeV.
Qs^2 (saturation scale of the target) = 5 GeV^2
Assumed in CGC calculation [17]; a fitted input rather than a derived quantity.
Vector meson-nucleon cross section in hydro model = equal to nucleon-nucleon cross section
Section 4 notes this is a major uncertainty and is assumed equal to sigma_NN; a hand-chosen input affecting the initial geometry.
Hydrodynamic parameters (shear viscosity, initial state parameters, etc.) = not listed in review
Fit to p+Pb data in [22] and then applied to gamma+Pb; the review does not specify them.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The incoming low-Q2 photon can be viewed as a vector meson with a large number of collinear partons in high-multiplicity events.
Section 2 states this picture is used for both the CGC and hydrodynamic calculations; it is the bridge that lets the authors treat gamma+Pb like p+Pb.
standard math The eikonal (Wilson line) approximation is valid for parton propagation through the dense target.
Section 3, the CGC calculation of two-quark production uses Wilson lines in the eikonal approximation; a standard QCD framework.
domain assumption The hydrodynamic description applies to systems of the size and multiplicity of the selected UPC events.
Section 4, the hydro model assumes an extended medium forms; the review notes multiplicities comparable to p+Pb justify this.
domain assumption The ATLAS event selection with 20<Nch<60 and |eta|<2.5 isolates high-multiplicity photonuclear collisions.
The comparison to data relies on this event class; the review does not quantify possible contamination from other processes.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collectivity in ultra-peripheral heavy-ion and e+A collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F652WRNM

@misc{pith2026241118407,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collectivity in ultra-peripheral heavy-ion and e+A collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F652WRNM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18407}
}

read the original abstract

We review recent theoretical progress in describing collective effects in photon+nucleus collisions. The approaches considered range from the color glass condensate where correlations are encoded in the initial state, to hydrodynamic frameworks, where a strong final state response to the initial geometry of the collision is the key ingredient to generate momentum-space correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18407 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Elliptic anisotropy v2(p⊥) from 2-particle correlations in Pb+Pb UPCs using different reference p⊥ bins. Hydrodynamic calculations [22] compared to ATLAS data [16]. Another major difference is the dependence of v2 on the transverse size of the projectile. In the hydrodynamic calculation, v2 increases with the transverse size, which can be explained by the increased geometric fluctuations made possible by the larger… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Fermi-liquid view of viscosity in cold and dense nucleon matter
nucl-th 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In a quasiparticle Fermi liquid with medium-dependent mass, imposing Landau matching makes the bulk viscosity manifestly non-negative and parametrically smaller than shear viscosity at low temperature, ζ/η ∝ (T/μ*)⁴.
A Resummed Hydrodynamic Description of Relativistic Heavy-ion Collisions
nucl-th 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A resummed hydrodynamic scheme with tunable caps on shear and bulk viscous stress is introduced; it reduces to standard second-order hydrodynamics for small stresses and is used to quantify flow-observable uncertainti...
Transport coefficients of dense nucleon matter at low temperature
nucl-th 2024-12 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

The paper expresses the bulk and shear viscosities of cold dense nucleon matter through derivatives of the thermodynamic potential, and claims that the positivity of bulk viscosity imposes an independent stability con...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[20]

Haowu Duan, Alexander Kovner, and Vladimir V. Skokov. CGC for ultra- peripheral Pb+Pb collisions at the Large Hadron Collider: a more realistic calculation. JHEP, 12:077, 2022

work page 2022
[22]

Collectivity in Ultrape- ripheral Pb+Pb Collisions at the Large Hadron Collider

Wenbin Zhao, Chun Shen, and Bj¨ orn Schenke. Collectivity in Ultrape- ripheral Pb+Pb Collisions at the Large Hadron Collider. Phys. Rev. Lett., 129(25):252302, 2022

work page 2022
[17]

Exploring collective phenomena at the electron-ion collider

Yu Shi, Lei Wang, Shu-Yi Wei, Bo-Wen Xiao, and Liang Zheng. Exploring collective phenomena at the electron-ion collider. Phys. Rev. D, 103(5):054017, 2021

work page 2021
[1]

Hydrodynamic Modeling of Heavy-Ion Collisions

Charles Gale, Sangyong Jeon, and Bjoern Schenke. Hydrodynamic Modeling of Heavy-Ion Collisions. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 28:1340011, 2013

work page 2013
[2]

Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular Correlations in Proton-Proton Collisions at the LHC

Vardan Khachatryan et al. Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular Correlations in Proton-Proton Collisions at the LHC. JHEP, 09:091, 2010

work page 2010
[3]

Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular Cor- relations in Proton-Lead Collisions at the LHC

Serguei Chatrchyan et al. Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular Cor- relations in Proton-Lead Collisions at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B, 718:795–814, 2013

work page 2013
[4]

Long-range angular correlations on the near and away side in p-Pb collisions at √sN N= 5.02 TeV

Betty Abelev et al. Long-range angular correlations on the near and away side in p-Pb collisions at √sN N= 5.02 TeV. Phys. Lett. B, 719:29–41, 2013

work page 2013
[5]

Observation of Associated Near-Side and Away-Side Long- Range Correlations in √sN N=5.02 TeV Proton-Lead Collisions with the AT- LAS Detector

Georges Aad et al. Observation of Associated Near-Side and Away-Side Long- Range Correlations in √sN N=5.02 TeV Proton-Lead Collisions with the AT- LAS Detector. Phys. Rev. Lett., 110(18):182302, 2013

work page 2013

Show all 23 references

[6]

Novel collective phenomena in high-energy proton–proton and proton–nucleus collisions

Kevin Dusling, Wei Li, and Bj¨ orn Schenke. Novel collective phenomena in high-energy proton–proton and proton–nucleus collisions. Int. J. Mod. Phys. E, 25(01):1630002, 2016

2016
[7]

Progress and Challenges in Small Systems

Jorge Noronha, Bj¨ orn Schenke, Chun Shen, and Wenbin Zhao. Progress and Challenges in Small Systems. 1 2024

2024
[8]

Elliptic flow of colored glass in high-energy heavy ion collisions

Alex Krasnitz, Yasushi Nara, and Raju Venugopalan. Elliptic flow of colored glass in high-energy heavy ion collisions. Phys. Lett. B, 554:21–27, 2003. 8 main printed on November 28, 2024

2003
[9]

High energy factoriza- tion in nucleus-nucleus collisions

Francois Gelis, Tuomas Lappi, and Raju Venugopalan. High energy factoriza- tion in nucleus-nucleus collisions. II. Multigluon correlations. Phys. Rev. D, 78:054020, 2008

2008
[10]

Glasma flux tubes and the near side ridge phenomenon at RHIC

Adrian Dumitru, Francois Gelis, Larry McLerran, and Raju Venugopalan. Glasma flux tubes and the near side ridge phenomenon at RHIC. Nucl. Phys. A, 810:91–108, 2008

2008
[11]

High energy factoriza- tion in nucleus-nucleus collisions

Francois Gelis, Tuomas Lappi, and Raju Venugopalan. High energy factoriza- tion in nucleus-nucleus collisions. 3. Long range rapidity correlations. Phys. Rev. D, 79:094017, 2009

2009
[12]

Two-particle correlations in high energy collisions and the gluon four-point function

Adrian Dumitru and Jamal Jalilian-Marian. Two-particle correlations in high energy collisions and the gluon four-point function. Phys. Rev. D, 81:094015, 2010

2010
[13]

Explanation of systematics of CMS p+Pb high multiplicity di-hadron data at √sNN = 5.02 TeV

Kevin Dusling and Raju Venugopalan. Explanation of systematics of CMS p+Pb high multiplicity di-hadron data at √sNN = 5.02 TeV. Phys. Rev. D, 87(5):054014, 2013

2013
[14]

Comparison of the color glass conden- sate to dihadron correlations in proton-proton and proton-nucleus collisions

Kevin Dusling and Raju Venugopalan. Comparison of the color glass conden- sate to dihadron correlations in proton-proton and proton-nucleus collisions. Phys. Rev. D, 87(9):094034, 2013

2013
[15]

The smallest fluid on Earth

Bj¨ orn Schenke. The smallest fluid on Earth. Rept. Prog. Phys., 84(8):082301, 2021

2021
[16]

Two-particle azimuthal correlations in photonuclear ul- traperipheral Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV with ATLAS

Georges Aad et al. Two-particle azimuthal correlations in photonuclear ul- traperipheral Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV with ATLAS. Phys. Rev. C, 104(1):014903, 2021

2021
[18]

Golec-Biernat and M

Krzysztof J. Golec-Biernat and M. Wusthoff. Saturation effects in deep in- elastic scattering at low Q**2 and its implications on diffraction. Phys. Rev. D, 59:014017, 1998

1998
[19]

Skokov, Prithwish Tribedy, and Raju Venugopalan

Mark Mace, Vladimir V. Skokov, Prithwish Tribedy, and Raju Venugopalan. Hierarchy of Azimuthal Anisotropy Harmonics in Collisions of Small Systems from the Color Glass Condensate. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121(5):052301, 2018. [Er- ratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 123, 039901 (2019)]

2019
[21]

Rezaeian

Alex Kovner and Amir H. Rezaeian. Double parton scattering in the CGC: Double quark production and effects of quantum statistics. Phys. Rev. D, 96(7):074018, 2017

2017
[23]

Collectivity in ultra-peripheral heavy-ion collisions

Chun Shen, Wenbin Zhao, and Bj¨ orn Schenke. Collectivity in ultra-peripheral heavy-ion collisions. EPJ Web Conf., 276:01002, 2023

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [20]

Haowu Duan, Alexander Kovner, and Vladimir V. Skokov. CGC for ultra- peripheral Pb+Pb collisions at the Large Hadron Collider: a more realistic calculation. JHEP, 12:077, 2022

work page 2022

[2] [22]

Collectivity in Ultrape- ripheral Pb+Pb Collisions at the Large Hadron Collider

Wenbin Zhao, Chun Shen, and Bj¨ orn Schenke. Collectivity in Ultrape- ripheral Pb+Pb Collisions at the Large Hadron Collider. Phys. Rev. Lett., 129(25):252302, 2022

work page 2022

[3] [17]

Exploring collective phenomena at the electron-ion collider

Yu Shi, Lei Wang, Shu-Yi Wei, Bo-Wen Xiao, and Liang Zheng. Exploring collective phenomena at the electron-ion collider. Phys. Rev. D, 103(5):054017, 2021

work page 2021

[4] [1]

Hydrodynamic Modeling of Heavy-Ion Collisions

Charles Gale, Sangyong Jeon, and Bjoern Schenke. Hydrodynamic Modeling of Heavy-Ion Collisions. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 28:1340011, 2013

work page 2013

[5] [2]

Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular Correlations in Proton-Proton Collisions at the LHC

Vardan Khachatryan et al. Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular Correlations in Proton-Proton Collisions at the LHC. JHEP, 09:091, 2010

work page 2010

[6] [3]

Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular Cor- relations in Proton-Lead Collisions at the LHC

Serguei Chatrchyan et al. Observation of Long-Range Near-Side Angular Cor- relations in Proton-Lead Collisions at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B, 718:795–814, 2013

work page 2013

[7] [4]

Long-range angular correlations on the near and away side in p-Pb collisions at √sN N= 5.02 TeV

Betty Abelev et al. Long-range angular correlations on the near and away side in p-Pb collisions at √sN N= 5.02 TeV. Phys. Lett. B, 719:29–41, 2013

work page 2013

[8] [5]

Observation of Associated Near-Side and Away-Side Long- Range Correlations in √sN N=5.02 TeV Proton-Lead Collisions with the AT- LAS Detector

Georges Aad et al. Observation of Associated Near-Side and Away-Side Long- Range Correlations in √sN N=5.02 TeV Proton-Lead Collisions with the AT- LAS Detector. Phys. Rev. Lett., 110(18):182302, 2013

work page 2013