Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 70 references

Evidence for similar collectivity of high transverse momentum particles in pPb and PbPb collisions

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

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

Pith's one-line read High-momentum flow matches in proton-lead and lead-lead

desk verdict The high-pT v2{4} measurement is solid and new; the central 'similarity' claim needs a quantitative compatibility test before the paper is fully convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07525 v2 pith:EKEHBDUH submitted 2025-02-11 nucl-ex hep-ex

CMS Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-exhep-ex
keywords ellipticflowv2four-particlecumulantsubeventmethodnonflowsuppressionsmallsystemcollectivityproton-leadcollisionslead-lead
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

This paper reports a measurement of elliptic anisotropy ($v_2$) for charged hadrons up to transverse momentum about 17 GeV in proton-lead and lead-lead collisions, and claims that at high $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ the values are positive and nearly equal in the two systems at similar multiplicities. The result is obtained with a four-particle cumulant method in which the four particles are drawn from four separate pseudorapidity windows, a technique meant to remove jet-related 'nonflow' correlations. If the signal is genuine, it implies that the high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ azimuthal asymmetry does not require the large, lenticular overlap geometry of heavy-ion collisions and may share a common origin in both small and large systems. That would change how high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ anisotropy is interpreted, pointing away from geometry-driven energy loss as the sole explanation.

What carries the argument

The central tool is the four-particle cumulant $v_2\{4\}$ computed with a subevent method: particles are divided into four distinct pseudorapidity intervals, and the cumulant is built from correlators such as $d_n\{4\}_{4\mathrm{sub}} = \langle\langle 4 \rangle\rangle_{a'|b|c^*|d^*} - \langle\langle 2 \rangle\rangle_{a'|c^*} \langle\langle 2 \rangle\rangle_{b|d^*} - \langle\langle 2 \rangle\rangle_{a'|d^*} \langle\langle 2 \rangle\rangle_{b|c^*}$, which suppresses short-range jet correlations because no two correlated particles share a subevent. The same analysis with two and three subevents shows a progressive reduction of the negative nonflow contribution, and a generator-level control simulation (Ref. [56]) yields $d_2\{4\}$ consistent with zero after four-subevent separation. This establishes that the remaining positive $v_2\{4\}$ at high $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ in data is not produced by the same nonflow mechanisms present in the simulation.

What would settle it

Run the same four-subevent cumulant analysis on an event generator with realistic jet fragmentation but no collective flow; if the resulting $d_2\{4\}$ at $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 8$ GeV is as negative as the data, the reported signal could be entirely nonflow. Conversely, if a high-multiplicity proton-proton sample measured with the same technique shows a vanishing high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $v_2\{4\}$, the proposed common origin across systems would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using four-particle cumulants with subevents separated in pseudorapidity, the paper finds significant positive $v_2\{4\}$ values in high-multiplicity pPb collisions that persist up to $p_{\mathrm{T}} \sim 17$ GeV, in contrast to the standard (no-subevent) $v_2\{4\}$ which turns negative above about 10 GeV. At $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 8$ GeV the pPb and PbPb $v_2\{4\}$ values agree within uncertainties at comparable multiplicities, and the multiplicity dependence for $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 6$ GeV is also similar. The authors argue this similarity is unexpected: high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ partons are not thermalized, so the expected mechanism is path-length-dependent energy loss, which should be stronger in the larger PbPb system, and previous template-fit $v_2\{2\}$ measurements gave smaller values. They therefore suggest a common origin for high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ multi-particle collectivity in the two systems, possibly rooted in initial-state transverse-momentum asymmetries rather than final-state geometry.

Load-bearing premise

The whole interpretation rests on the four-subevent procedure removing all jet-related 'nonflow' correlations, so that the remaining positive $v_2$ at high $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ is genuine collective behavior rather than a residual effect of jet fragmentation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At high $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ (above 8 GeV), $v_2\{4\}$ is positive and similar in pPb and PbPb, so a large lenticular overlap geometry is not required to produce elliptic anisotropy of fast particles.
  • Prior template-fit $v_2\{2\}$ results are lower than the four-subevent $v_2\{4\}$; the implied over-subtraction of nonflow in the template method would need to be revisited.
  • The similarity points to a common mechanism for high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ collectivity across small and large systems, with initial-state transverse-momentum asymmetries named as one candidate.
  • Multi-particle cumulants with subevent separation are validated as a data-driven way to remove jet-related correlations in small collision systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the common-origin interpretation is right, the same four-subevent analysis should reveal a nonzero high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $v_2\{4\}$ in high-multiplicity proton-proton collisions, a prediction the paper does not make explicitly.
  • The near equality of $v_2\{4\}$ at fixed multiplicity across systems could reflect a universal scaling of collective response with final-state charged-particle density; comparing the same observable in pp, pPb, and PbPb at identical center-of-mass energy would test that scaling.
  • A natural extension is to apply the four-subevent cumulant to triangular flow $v_3$ and to identified hadrons at high $p_{\mathrm{T}}$; if the common mechanism is initial-state momentum anisotropy, $v_3$ should behave differently from $v_2$, since it is more sensitive to geometry fluctuations.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper reports CMS measurements of charged-hadron elliptic anisotropy v2{4} in pPb collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=8.16 TeV and PbPb collisions at 5.02 TeV, using the Q-cumulant method with two-, three-, and four-subevent partitions to suppress nonflow. Differential results are given as a function of POI pT for the multiplicity range 185 <= Noffline_trk < 250, together with a comparison of pPb and PbPb and a multiplicity dependence for pT > 6 GeV. The central observation is that four-subevent v2{4} remains significantly positive up to pT approximately 17 GeV in both systems and has similar magnitude in pPb and PbPb at the same Noffline multiplicity bin, which the authors interpret as evidence for a common origin of high-pT multiparticle collectivity. The supporting material includes a HIJING-based nonflow control, systematic studies, and a HEPData record.

Significance. If the result holds, it extends the case for collective behavior in small systems to the hard-scattering regime and provides a strong constraint on energy-loss and initial-state models. The analysis has concrete strengths: established cumulant formulas, bootstrap uncertainties, a data-driven subevent approach, an independent HIJING control, and public data tables. The remaining concerns are about how the similarity and nonflow-removal claims are demonstrated rather than about the underlying method.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 3 (left and right), Fig. 5, and Summary] The central claim that v2{4} values in pPb and PbPb are 'similar' or 'very similar' is supported only by visual inspection. No chi-square, p-value, or confidence interval on the pPb-PbPb difference is reported for the pT > 8 GeV bins or for the multiplicity dependence. Because the novelty of the paper is this similarity, a quantitative compatibility test that includes both statistical and systematic uncertainties should be provided, using the tabulated values in HEPData.
  2. [Table 1; Fig. 5] The multiplicity matching underlying the comparison is not as clean as stated. For the 185 <= Noffline_trk < 250 bin, Table 1 gives <Noffline_trk> = 202 and <Ncorrected_trk> = 245 +/- 10 for pPb, versus 216 and 368 +/- 16 for PbPb. The two systems are matched in raw offline multiplicity, but their corrected charged-particle multiplicities differ by about 50%. Since the abstract and summary describe the comparison as 'at comparable charged particle multiplicities,' the paper should either use corrected multiplicity matching or explicitly state that the matching is in Noffline_trk only, and discuss how the remaining multiplicity difference affects the similarity claim.
  3. [Appendix A.3, Fig. 4] The HIJING nonflow control is internally inconsistent as written. The text first says the comparison uses 'HIJING simulations in 100 <= Ngen_trk < 200' with data '185 <= Noffline_trk < 250'; the figure caption says the HIJING points are for '60 <= Ngen_trk < 120' compared with data in '60 <= Noffline_trk < 120' and '185 <= Noffline_trk < 250'; and the figure legend appears to show 100 <= Ngen_trk < 200. Only one of these can be correct. If the control is at 60-120, it does not test the 185-250 range used for the main result; if it is at 100-200, the caption and text need correction. Moreover, the text states that the reduction of d2{4} is smaller in data than in HIJING, so the conclusion that nonflow is 'completely removed' in data at high multiplicity needs to be justified more carefully.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 5, Abstract, Summary] Figure 5 and its caption use pT > 6 GeV for the multiplicity dependence, while the abstract and summary state the high-pT similarity for pT > 8 GeV; please clarify whether the multiplicity comparison is meant to represent the pT > 8 GeV claim or an additional result.
  2. [Appendix A.3, Fig. 4 caption] The figure caption describes 'closed green diamonds' while the text says 'filled points'; the marker description should be made consistent.
  3. [Systematic uncertainties paragraph] The statement that systematic uncertainty sources are 'added in quadrature' would be clearer if the individual sources were enumerated with their estimated magnitudes, as is customary for a measurement of this type.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: v2{4} is a direct four-particle cumulant measurement, the nonflow control uses independent HIJING simulations without collectivity, and the pPb–PbPb similarity claim is not produced by any fitted parameter or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central observable, v2{4}, is obtained directly from four-particle cumulants via standard definitions (Eqs. 1–8); no parameter is fitted to the reported pPb or PbPb v2{4} values, and no quantity entering the measurement is defined in terms of the final similarity claim. The nonflow-suppression argument in Appendix A.3 uses generator-level HIJING events, which contain no collective flow, and shows that the four-subevent d2{4} is consistent with zero at high pT; this is an independent control simulation, not a re-use of the data being reported. The subevent cumulant equations are standard algebraic relations from the cited methodological literature, and the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or an unverified self-citation to force its interpretation. The self-citations to previous CMS analyses (e.g., Refs. [19,20,22,60,61]) are for trigger/track selections and for previously established correlation techniques, not for the physical conclusion of pPb–PbPb similarity. The absence of an explicit chi-square or p-value for the cross-system comparison is a legitimate concern about statistical strength, but that is a correctness/evidence issue rather than circularity: the comparison is a direct measurement-to-measurement comparison, not a fit or a derived quantity built from the claim itself.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters and no new entities. The central claim rests on standard cumulant definitions and the assumption that subevent separation eliminates nonflow. The latter is checked with HIJING but is not proven for the data.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The Q-cumulant expressions in Eqs. (1) to (8) correctly define the four-particle cumulant v2{4}.
    Definitions follow refs [42-44]; no derivation from first principles is attempted.
  • domain assumption Separating particles into different pseudorapidity subevents removes nonflow correlations while preserving genuine flow.
    Supported by the HIJING generator-level test in Appendix A.3, where four-subevent d2{4} is consistent with zero, but completeness of nonflow removal in data is assumed.
  • domain assumption Reference flow particles restricted to pT < 3 GeV reduce contributions from minijets.
    Cited to Ref. [62]; a modeling assumption about jet contributions.
  • domain assumption Tracking efficiency and acceptance corrections from HIJING and HYDJET Monte Carlo are accurate.
    Used to correct the measured correlations; cannot be validated from the text alone.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence for similar collectivity of high transverse momentum particles in pPb and PbPb collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EKEHBDUH

@misc{pith2026250207525,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence for similar collectivity of high transverse momentum particles in pPb and PbPb collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EKEHBDUH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07525}
}
abstract

Charged hadron elliptic anisotropies ($v_2$) are presented over a wide transverse momentum ($p_\text{T}$) range for proton-lead (pPb) and lead-lead (PbPb) collisions at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energies of 8.16 and 5.02 TeV, respectively. The data were recorded by the CMS experiment and correspond to integrated luminosities of 186 nb$^{-1}$ and 0.607 nb$^{-1}$ for the pPb and PbPb systems, respectively. A four-particle cumulant analysis is performed using subevents separated in pseudorapidity to effectively suppress non-collective effects. At high $p_\text{T}$ ($p_\text{T}$ $\gt$ 8 GeV), significant positive $v_2$ values are observed that are similar between pPb and PbPb collisions at comparable charged particle multiplicities. This observation suggests a common origin for the multi-particle collectivity for high-$p_\text{T}$ particles in the two systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07525 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Different subevents in the CMS tracker acceptance used to correlate four particles. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The v2{4} value vs. pT with 185 ≤ Noffline trk < 250 for pPb (left) and PbPb (right) collisions. The red, blue, black and green markers are for the cases where tracks are not divided into subevents, and divided into two, three and four subevents, respectively. The solid lines and boxes represent the statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The v2{4} results for the different subevent methods are shown… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. left: Comparison of pPb and PbPb four-subevent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The four-subevent d2{4} values in generator level HIJING for 60 ≤ N gen trk < 120 shown by the closed green diamonds are compared to the experimental pPb results with 60 ≤ Noffline trk < 120 (open blue squares) and 185 ≤ Noffline trk < 250 (closed red circles). with pT…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the four-subevent v2{4} results in terms of efficiency-corrected mean multiplic￾ity (⟨Ncorrected trk ⟩) in pPb and PbPb collisions. The POI is taken with pT > 6 GeV. The high-pT v2{4} values and their ⟨Noffline trk ⟩ dependence for the two systems are very simila…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Distributions of charged hadrons associated with high transverse momentum particles in pp and Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV

    STAR Collaboration, “Distributions of charged hadrons associated with high transverse momentum particles in pp and Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 152301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.152301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0501016

    arXiv 2005

  2. [2]

    Long-range rapidity correlations and jet production in high energy nuclear collisions

    STAR Collaboration, “Long-range rapidity correlations and jet production in high energy nuclear collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 064912, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.80.064912, arXiv:0909.0191

    arXiv 2009

  3. [3]

    High transverse momentum triggered correlations over a large pseudorapidity acceptance in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=200 GeV

    PHOBOS Collaboration, “High transverse momentum triggered correlations over a large pseudorapidity acceptance in Au+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 062301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.062301, arXiv:0903.2811. 8

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Long-range and short-range dihadron angular correlations in central PbPb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Long-range and short-range dihadron angular correlations in central PbPb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV”, JHEP 07 (2011) 076, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2011)076, arXiv:1105.2438

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Centrality dependence of dihadron correlations and azimuthal anisotropy harmonics in PbPb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Centrality dependence of dihadron correlations and azimuthal anisotropy harmonics in PbPb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV”, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2012, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-2012-3 , arXiv:1201.3158

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Elliptic flow of charged particles in PbPb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “Elliptic flow of charged particles in PbPb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252302, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.252302, arXiv:1011.3914

    arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    Measurement of the azimuthal anisotropy for charged particle production in √sNN = 2.76 TeV lead-lead collisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the azimuthal anisotropy for charged particle production in √sNN = 2.76 TeV lead-lead collisions with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Rev. C 86 (2012) 014907, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.86.014907, arXiv:1203.3087

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Measurement of the elliptic anisotropy of charged particles produced in PbPb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of the elliptic anisotropy of charged particles produced in PbPb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 014902, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.87.014902, arXiv:1204.1409

    arXiv 2013

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Studies of azimuthal dihadron correlations in ultra-central PbPb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Studies of azimuthal dihadron correlations in ultra-central PbPb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV”, JHEP 02 (2014) 088, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2014)088, arXiv:1312.1845

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Overview of high-density QCD studies with the CMS experiment at the LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Overview of high-density QCD studies with the CMS experiment at the LHC”, Phys. Rept. 1115 (2025) 219–367, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.11.007, arXiv:2405.10785

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Anisotropy as a signature of transverse collective flow

    J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Anisotropy as a signature of transverse collective flow”, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 229, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.229

    1992 doi

  4. [12]

    Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, “Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63 (2013) 123, doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102212-170540 , arXiv:1301.2826

    2013 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hydrodynamic modeling of heavy-ion collisions

    C. Gale, S. Jeon, and B. Schenke, “Hydrodynamic modeling of heavy-ion collisions”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28 (2013) 1340011, doi:10.1142/S0217751X13400113, arXiv:1301.5893

    2013 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Elliptic and triangular flow in event-by-event D = 3 + 1 viscous hydrodynamics

    B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, “Elliptic and triangular flow in event-by-event D = 3 + 1 viscous hydrodynamics”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 042301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.042301, arXiv:1009.3244

    2011 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Hydrodynamic elliptic and triangular flow in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV

    Z. Qiu, C. Shen, and U. Heinz, “Hydrodynamic elliptic and triangular flow in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 707 (2012) 151, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.12.041, arXiv:1110.3033

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Observation of long-range, near-side angular correlations in proton-proton collisions at the LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of long-range, near-side angular correlations in proton-proton collisions at the LHC”, JHEP 09 (2010) 091, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2010)091, arXiv:1009.4122

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Observation of long-range elliptic azimuthal anisotropies in√s = 13 and 2.76 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of long-range elliptic azimuthal anisotropies in√s = 13 and 2.76 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 172301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.172301, arXiv:1509.04776. References 9

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Measurement of long-range near-side two-particle angular correlations in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of long-range near-side two-particle angular correlations in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 172302, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.172302, arXiv:1510.03068

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Evidence for collectivity in pp collisions at the LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Evidence for collectivity in pp collisions at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 765 (2017) 193, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.009, arXiv:1606.06198

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Multiplicity and transverse momentum dependence of two- and four-particle correlations in pPb and PbPb collisions

    CMS Collaboration, “Multiplicity and transverse momentum dependence of two- and four-particle correlations in pPb and PbPb collisions”, Phys. Lett. B 724 (2013) 213, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.06.028, arXiv:1305.0609

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Observation of long-range, near-side angular correlations in proton-lead collisions at the LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of long-range, near-side angular correlations in proton-lead collisions at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 718 (2013) 795, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.11.025, arXiv:1210.5482

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Evidence for collective multiparticle correlations in p-Pb collisions

    CMS Collaboration, “Evidence for collective multiparticle correlations in p-Pb collisions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 012301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.012301, arXiv:1502.05382

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

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

    ALICE Collaboration, “Long-range angular correlations on the near and away side in p-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 719 (2013) 29, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.01.012, arXiv:1212.2001

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Observation of associated near-side and away-side long-range correlations in √sNN = 5.02 TeV proton-lead collisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of associated near-side and away-side long-range correlations in √sNN = 5.02 TeV proton-lead collisions with the ATLAS detector”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 182302, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.182302, arXiv:1212.5198

    2013 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Measurements of long-range near-side angular correlations in√sNN = 5 TeV proton-lead collisions in the forward region

    LHCb Collaboration, “Measurements of long-range near-side angular correlations in√sNN = 5 TeV proton-lead collisions in the forward region”, Phys. Lett. B 762 (2016) 473, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.09.064, arXiv:1512.00439

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Measurement of long-range angular correlation and quadrupole anisotropy of pions and (anti)protons in central d+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV

    PHENIX Collaboration, “Measurement of long-range angular correlation and quadrupole anisotropy of pions and (anti)protons in central d+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 192301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.192301, arXiv:1404.7461

    2015

  19. [27]

    Long-range pseudorapidity dihadron correlations in d+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV

    STAR Collaboration, “Long-range pseudorapidity dihadron correlations in d+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV”, Phys. Lett. B 747 (2015) 265, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.05.075, arXiv:1502.07652

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Measurements of elliptic and triangular flow in high-multiplicity 3He+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV

    PHENIX Collaboration, “Measurements of elliptic and triangular flow in high-multiplicity 3He+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) 142301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.142301, arXiv:1507.06273

    2015

  21. [29]

    Small system collectivity in relativistic hadronic and nuclear collisions

    J. L. Nagle and W. A. Zajc, “Small system collectivity in relativistic hadronic and nuclear collisions”, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68 (2018) 211, doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-101916-123209 , arXiv:1801.03477

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

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

    K. Dusling, W. Li, and B. Schenke, “Novel collective phenomena in high-energy proton-proton and proton-nucleus collisions”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 25 (2016) 1630002, doi:10.1142/S0218301316300022, arXiv:1509.07939. 10

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Recombination of shower partons at high pT in heavy ion collisions

    R. C. Hwa and C. B. Yang, “Recombination of shower partons at high pT in heavy ion collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 024905, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.70.024905, arXiv:nucl-th/0401001

    2004 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Large parton densities and high- pT physics in heavy-ion collisions

    C. Marquet, “Large parton densities and high- pT physics in heavy-ion collisions”, PoS High-pT physics09 (2009) 039, doi:10.22323/1.080.0039, arXiv:0906.3184

    2009 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Azimuthal anisotropy of charged particles at high transverse momenta in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Azimuthal anisotropy of charged particles at high transverse momenta in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 022301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.022301, arXiv:1204.1850

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Azimuthal anisotropy of charged particles with transverse momentum up to 100 GeV /c in PbPb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Azimuthal anisotropy of charged particles with transverse momentum up to 100 GeV /c in PbPb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV”, Phys. Lett. B 776 (2018) 195, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.11.041, arXiv:1702.00630

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Study of azimuthal anisotropy of high- pT charged particles in Au Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV with RHIC-PHENIX

    PHENIX Collaboration, “Study of azimuthal anisotropy of high- pT charged particles in Au Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV with RHIC-PHENIX”, MDPI Proc. 10 (2019) 42, doi:10.3390/proceedings2019010042

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    Azimuthal anisotropy of charged and identified high pT hadrons in Au+Au collisions at RHIC

    STAR Collaboration, “Azimuthal anisotropy of charged and identified high pT hadrons in Au+Au collisions at RHIC”, Nucl. Phys. A 715 (2003) 737, doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(02)01477-X, arXiv:nucl-ex/0210027

    2003 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Evidence for transverse momentum and pseudorapidity dependent event plane fluctuations in PbPb and pPb collisions

    CMS Collaboration, “Evidence for transverse momentum and pseudorapidity dependent event plane fluctuations in PbPb and pPb collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 92 (2015) 034911, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.92.034911, arXiv:1503.01692

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Transverse momentum and process dependent azimuthal anisotropies in √sNN = 8.16 TeV p+Pb collisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Transverse momentum and process dependent azimuthal anisotropies in √sNN = 8.16 TeV p+Pb collisions with the ATLAS detector”, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 73, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7624-4 , arXiv:1910.13978

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Azimuthal anisotropy of jet particles in p-Pb and Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “Azimuthal anisotropy of jet particles in p-Pb and Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV”, JHEP 08 (2024) 234, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)234, arXiv:2212.12609

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    CMS luminosity measurement using 2016 proton-nucleus collisions at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 8.16 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement using 2016 proton-nucleus collisions at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 8.16 TeV”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-002, 2018

    2016

  33. [41]

    CMS luminosity measurement using nucleus-nucleus collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV in 2018

    CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement using nucleus-nucleus collisions at√sNN = 5.02 TeV in 2018”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-001, 2022

    2018

  34. [42]

    Flow analysis with cumulants: Direct calculations

    A. Bilandzic, R. Snellings, and S. Voloshin, “Flow analysis with cumulants: Direct calculations”, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 044913, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.83.044913, arXiv:1010.0233

    2011 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Systematic procedure for analyzing cumulants at any order

    P . Di Francesco, M. Guilbaud, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Systematic procedure for analyzing cumulants at any order”, Phys. Rev. C 95 (2017) 044911, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.95.044911, arXiv:1612.05634

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Revealing long-range multiparticle collectivity in small collision systems via subevent cumulants

    J. Jia, M. Zhou, and A. Trzupek, “Revealing long-range multiparticle collectivity in small collision systems via subevent cumulants”, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 034906, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.96.034906, arXiv:1701.03830

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    HEPData record for this analysis

    “HEPData record for this analysis”, 2025. doi:10.17182/hepdata.156174. References 11

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 3 (2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004

    2008 doi

  39. [47]

    Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3

    CMS Collaboration, “Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3”, JINST 19 (2024) P05064, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05064

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker

    CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”, JINST 9 (2014) P10009, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009, arXiv:1405.6569

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Strategies and performance of the CMS silicon tracker alignment during LHC Run 2

    CMS Collaboration, “Strategies and performance of the CMS silicon tracker alignment during LHC Run 2”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1037 (2022) 166795, doi:10.1016/j.nima.2022.166795, arXiv:2111.08757

    2022

  42. [50]

    ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run2 summary plots

    CMS Collaboration, “ECAL 2016 refined calibration and Run2 summary plots”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-021, 2020

    2016

  43. [51]

    Heavy ion studies with CMS HF calorimeter

    J. Damgov et al., “Heavy ion studies with CMS HF calorimeter”, Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2001-055, CERN, Geneva, 2001

    2001

  44. [52]

    Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”, JINST 16 (2021) P05014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/P05014, arXiv:2012.06888

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV”, JINST 13 (2018) P06015, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015, arXiv:1804.04528

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV”, JINST 15 (2020) P10017, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10017, arXiv:2006.10165

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    The CMS trigger system

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”, JINST 12 (2017) 01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020, arXiv:1609.02366

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    HIJING 1.0: A Monte Carlo program for parton and particle production in high energy hadronic and nuclear collisions

    M. Gyulassy and X.-N. Wang, “HIJING 1.0: A Monte Carlo program for parton and particle production in high energy hadronic and nuclear collisions”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 83 (1994) 307, doi:10.1016/0010-4655(94)90057-4, arXiv:nucl-th/9502021

    1994 arXiv

  49. [57]

    A model of jet quenching in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions and high-pT hadron spectra at RHIC

    I. P . Lokhtin and A. M. Snigirev, “A model of jet quenching in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions and high-pT hadron spectra at RHIC”, Eur. Phys. J. C 45 (2006) 211, doi:10.1140/epjc/s2005-02426-3, arXiv:hep-ph/0506189

    2006 arXiv

  50. [58]

    GEANT4–a simulation toolkit

    GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4–a simulation toolkit”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250, doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    2003 doi

  51. [59]

    Generic framework for anisotropic flow analyses with multiparticle azimuthal correlations

    A. Bilandzic et al., “Generic framework for anisotropic flow analyses with multiparticle azimuthal correlations”, Phys. Rev. C 89 (2014) 064904, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.89.064904, arXiv:1312.3572

    2014 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Multiparticle correlation studies in pPb collisions at √sNN = 8.16 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Multiparticle correlation studies in pPb collisions at √sNN = 8.16 TeV”, Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) 014912, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.101.014912, arXiv:1904.11519. 12

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Pseudorapidity and transverse momentum dependence of flow harmonics in pPb and PbPb collisions

    CMS Collaboration, “Pseudorapidity and transverse momentum dependence of flow harmonics in pPb and PbPb collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 98 (2018) 044902, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.98.044902, arXiv:1710.07864

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Studying minijets via the pT dependence of two-particle correlation in azimuthal angle φ

    X.-N. Wang, “Studying minijets via the pT dependence of two-particle correlation in azimuthal angle φ”, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 2754, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.2754, arXiv:hep-ph/9306215

    1993 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife

    B. Efron, “Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife”, Annals Statist. 7 (1979) 1, doi:10.1214/aos/1176344552

    1979

  56. [64]

    Systematic errors: Facts and fictions

    R. Barlow, “Systematic errors: Facts and fictions”, in Conference on Advanced Statistical T echniques in Particle Physics, p. 134. 2002. arXiv:hep-ex/0207026

    2002 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Energy dependence and fluctuations of anisotropic flow in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 and 2.76 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “Energy dependence and fluctuations of anisotropic flow in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 and 2.76 TeV”, JHEP 07 (2018) 103, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2018)103, arXiv:1804.02944

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    K0 S and Λ production in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “ K0 S and Λ production in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 2.76 TeV”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 222301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.222301, arXiv:1307.5530

    2013 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in PbPb and pPb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in PbPb and pPb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV”, JHEP 04 (2017) 039, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2017)039, arXiv:1611.01664

    2017 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Centrality categorization for Rp(d)+ A in high-energy collisions

    PHENIX Collaboration, “Centrality categorization for Rp(d)+ A in high-energy collisions”, Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) 034902, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.90.034902, arXiv:1310.4793

    2014

  61. [69]

    Effect of event selection on jetlike correlation measurement in d+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV

    STAR Collaboration, “Effect of event selection on jetlike correlation measurement in d+Au collisions at √sNN = 200 GeV”, Phys. Lett. B 743 (2015) 333, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.02.068, arXiv:1412.8437

    2015 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Azimuthal anisotropy at high transverse momentum in p-p and p-A collisions

    I. Soudi and A. Majumder, “Azimuthal anisotropy at high transverse momentum in p-p and p-A collisions”, Phys. Lett. B 859 (2024) 139105, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139105, arXiv:2308.14702. 13 A Back matter A.1 Mapping between Noffline trk and Ncorrected trk in pPb and PbPb c...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.