Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Do QGP Droplets Drive Anisotropy in Small Systems? Insights from RHIC and the LHC

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that species-resolved azimuthal anisotropy scaling functions across large and small collision systems separate QGP-driven hydrodynamic flow from hadronic rescattering, with ultra-central p+Pb sitting in between.

desk verdict A broad and useful cross-system v2 scaling survey, undercut as printed by a scaling equation that fails its own reference-limit check. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21183 v2 pith:F2IIYPIT submitted 2025-04-29 hep-ex hep-phhep-thnucl-ex

Roy A. Lacey (Department of Chemistry , Stony Brook University , Stony Brook , NY , USA) This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exhep-phhep-thnucl-ex PACS 25.75.-q25.75.Dw25.75.Ld
keywords azimuthalanisotropyquark-gluonplasmasmallcollisionsystemsscalingfunctionsellipticflowhadronicrescatteringjetquenchingradial
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 argues that a single scaling framework for the azimuthal anisotropy of identified mesons and baryons can decide whether small-system "flow" comes from a quark-gluon plasma or from hadronic rescattering. Applying it to data from RHIC and the LHC, it reports that central Au+Au, Pb+Pb, and Cu+Cu behave as QGP-driven fluids, peripheral Pb+Pb and Cu+Cu as hadron-dominated systems, and RHIC p+Au, d+Au, and 3He+Au as dominated by hadronic rescattering with little radial flow and no jet quenching. Ultra-central p+Pb at the LHC sits between: enhanced radial flow, modest rescattering, and small but nonzero jet quenching. These results matter because they offer a data-driven, system-by-system map of where hydrodynamic QGP behavior begins and ends.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a species-resolved scaling relation (Eqs. 2 and 3) that normalizes measured $v_2$ by initial eccentricity and system size, divides out a common viscous attenuation $\beta$ with correction $\delta_f=\kappa p_T^2$ ($\kappa=0.17$ (GeV/c)$^{-2}$), and compares each species against a charged-kaon baseline. Meson and baryon deviations are parameterized by $\zeta_{\rm rf}$ for radial-flow blue shift and $\zeta_{\rm hs}$ for hadronic rescattering, with attenuation scaled by $k_\beta=\beta/\beta_0$. Initial eccentricities come from a Monte Carlo Glauber model with quark substructure, and system size is proxied by $\langle N_{\rm chg}\rangle^{1/3}$. When the scaled $v_2$ values of different species collapse onto a single curve, the system is responding as a common fluid; the parameters extracted from the collapse quantify viscosity, radial flow, rescattering, and jet quenching.

What would settle it

A high-statistics measurement of $v_2(p_T)$ for identified pions, kaons, and protons in ultra-central O+O or p+O collisions at the LHC would settle the matter: if the species do not collapse onto the scaling curve in the flow-dominated region, or if the fitted radial-flow and rescattering coefficients do not follow the system-size hierarchy claimed here, the framework's interpretation would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the fidelity of the scaling functions is system- and energy-dependent in a way that tracks the expected lifetime of a QGP. For central large systems all species collapse onto a universal curve, with extracted coefficients (no hadronic rescattering $\zeta_{\rm hs}=0$, strong radial flow $\zeta_{\rm rf}\approx 0.5$, attenuation $\beta=\beta_0$) indicating low-viscosity hydrodynamic expansion with strong jet quenching. Peripheral Pb+Pb and Cu+Cu show hadronic-dominated dynamics, while the RHIC small systems show the strongest rescattering (p+Au largest), negligible radial flow, and suppressed jet quenching. Ultra-central p+Pb shows intermediate QGP-like behavior: radial flow stronger than in peripheral Pb+Pb, rescattering modest, and jet quenching suppressed but not absent. The paper claims these findings demonstrate a transition from QGP-driven to hadronic-driven collectivity as system size and beam energy decrease, and establish the scaling framework as a robust diagnostic of collectivity and medium properties.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the scaling relations in Eqs. (2)-(3), including the shared attenuation parameter $\beta$, the viscous correction $\delta_f=\kappa p_T^2$ with $\kappa=0.17$, and the charged-kaon baseline, are valid for every system and species, so the fitted $\zeta_{\rm hs}$, $\zeta_{\rm rf}$, and $k_\beta$ carry the physical meanings assigned to them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the scaling interpretation is right, the observed $v_2$ in central p+Au, d+Au, and 3He+Au at RHIC should be attributed to hadronic rescattering, not to QGP hydrodynamics.
  • Ultra-central p+Pb at the LHC would be a genuine partial-QGP system: it has hydrodynamic radial flow and a small but nonzero medium opacity, despite its small size.
  • High-$p_T$ scaling violations, which weaken when the analysis threshold is lowered, would be a direct signature of partially quenched rather than fully unquenched jets in small systems.
  • Matched-multiplicity comparisons between p+Pb and peripheral Pb+Pb isolate system-size and geometry effects from trivial multiplicity effects, making the anisotropy differences attributable to QGP lifetime and pressure gradients.
  • The fitted coefficients ($\zeta_{\rm hs}$, $\zeta_{\rm rf}$, $k_\beta$) provide a quantitative map of the QGP-to-hadronic transition that could be compared with hydrodynamic-model calculations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the scaling ansatz is not unique to hydrodynamics, then the same-quality collapse could in principle be produced by an initial-state or parton-escape model; the paper's central dichotomy would then be harder to sustain.
  • The framework could be extended to O+O collisions proposed for the LHC or RHIC, where the system size is intermediate; the predicted location on the $\zeta_{\rm hs}$-$\zeta_{\rm rf}$ plane is a testable consequence.
  • One could test the common-$\beta$ assumption by measuring $v_2$ for charm hadrons over a wider $p_T$ range in ultra-central p+Pb; a different attenuation slope for heavy quarks would indicate mass-dependent energy loss that Eqs. (2)-(3) do not encode.
  • The claimed hierarchy p+Au > d+Au > 3He+Au for hadronic rescattering could be checked with direct measurements of femtoscopic source sizes or hadronic afterburner calculations, which would independently constrain the rescattering contribution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reanalyzes published v2(pT, centrality) data for identified mesons and baryons in Pb+Pb, Au+Au, Cu+Cu, p+Pb, p+Au, d+Au, and 3He+Au collisions at RHIC and LHC energies. Using scaling relations defined relative to charged kaons in ultra-central Pb+Pb, the author extracts coefficients ζ_hs, ζ_rf, kβ, and γ32 that are interpreted as measures of hadronic rescattering, radial flow, viscous attenuation, and geometric deviations, respectively. The central claim is that large central systems exhibit QGP-driven hydrodynamics, RHIC small systems exhibit hadronic-dominated collectivity, and ultra-central p+Pb shows intermediate behavior with small but nonzero jet quenching.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a unified, data-driven map of how collectivity mechanisms transition between small and large systems across beam energies, which is a central open question in heavy-ion physics. The dataset compilation is broad, and the scaling framework is a distinctive approach. However, the significance is contingent on the internal consistency of the scaling relations and on the robustness of the extracted parameters, both of which are in question as discussed below.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) fails the reference-limit identity check. When the comparison system is set to the reference system (primed quantities equal to unprimed, α=1, γ32=0, ζ_m=1, kβ=1, and R'=R_uc), the left side reduces to (v2/ε2)·exp(−2β0/R_uc·(2+κ pT^2)), while the right side reduces to (v2/ε2)·exp(+2β0/R_uc·(2+κ pT^2)). Equality would require exp(4β0/R_uc·(2+κ pT^2))=1, which is not satisfied for β0=0.88. The same structural problem appears in Eq. (3). Since all extracted parameters in Tables I and II are obtained by fitting these relations, the printed equations do not support the quoted coefficients; a sign error in the manuscript typesetting must be corrected or the analysis rerun with the correct relation.
  2. [Tables I and II] Tables I and II report ζ_hs, ζ_rf, kβ, and γ32 without any uncertainties. The conclusions are quantitative (e.g., 'p+Au shows the strongest re-scattering and no radial flow'), but without uncertainties the reader cannot assess whether the differences between systems or energies are statistically significant. The paper should quote parameter uncertainties, ideally from a least-squares fit, and report goodness-of-fit measures for the scaling collapse.
  3. [Section IV (Figures 1 and 2)] The analysis threshold pT^thresh ~4.5 GeV/c is described as being reduced until scaling violations 'lessen' (e.g., 'violations lessen as the analysis threshold is reduced'). This post hoc threshold tuning, without a prespecified criterion or a goodness-of-fit measure, weakens the claim that high-pT violations reflect partial suppression of partonic energy loss. A fixed threshold or a systematic scan showing the stability of the extracted parameters across thresholds should be provided.
  4. [Section II, Eqs. (2)–(3)] The paper claims that the scaling framework distinguishes hydrodynamic behavior from alternatives such as initial-state correlations or parton escape, but no quantitative comparison to non-hydrodynamic models is presented. The 'fidelity' of the scaling functions is assessed visually from species collapse; without explicit model comparison or a background-subtraction test, the claim that the framework is a robust diagnostic of collectivity mechanisms is not established.
  5. [Section II, Tables I–II] The parameters ζ_hs, ζ_rf, kβ, and γ32 are fitted to the same data that are then interpreted, making the physical interpretation partly circular. The paper should clarify which aspects of the scaling framework are predictive (e.g., a priori relations between parameters across systems) and which are merely descriptive fits. A validation on a hold-out dataset or a comparison with independent model predictions would strengthen the claim that the extracted coefficients carry physical meaning.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II] The text defines ζ_rf and ζ_hs as species- and system-dependent parameters, but Tables I and II list a single value per system. Please clarify whether these are averages over the measured species or values for a specific species, and how the species dependence is handled in the tables.
  2. [Abstract and Section IV] The abstract states that 'scaling violations at high pT reflect partial suppression of partonic energy loss,' but the text also notes that persisting violations after threshold reduction would signal unquenched-jet contributions. Please reconcile these statements to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section II, Eq. (2)] The normalization exponent ζ_M^{(X)} = (ζ_m^{(X)} + γ32) + (1 − kβ) is introduced, but the physical meaning of γ32 is only described as 'geometric deviations.' A more explicit definition or a reference explaining its origin would improve clarity.
  4. [Figures 1–4] Figure captions cite data sources inconsistently: Figure 1 says 'Data from ALICE and CMS,' while Figures 3 and 4 include PHENIX data within the text. Please ensure the captions accurately list all collaborations whose data are shown.
  5. [Table I] The statement that 'β0=0.88 for Pb+Pb at 5.02 TeV is used to compute kβ=β'/β0' implies that kβ can be less than unity (e.g., 0.95 for Pb+Pb 2.76 TeV), meaning β' < β0. Please clarify whether this is an allowed physical scenario or an artifact of the fitting procedure.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Fitted scaling coefficients are read as physical evidence while the ansatz is imported from self-citations; the printed reference-limit check also fails.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2 (Eqs. 2-3) and Section 3 (extracted-parameters paragraph after Fig. 1; Tables I-II)]
    "Extracted parameters, α=1, β0=0.88, kβ=1.0 (β=β0), ζrf=0.49, ζhs=0.00, and γ32=0, indicate QGP-dominated physics: low-viscosity hydrodynamics (η/s), strong partonic energy loss (q̂), and large radial flow."

    β0, kβ, ζhs, ζrf, and γ32 are free coefficients in the scaling relations (Eqs. 2-3), fitted to the same v2(pT, cent) data that the paper then interprets. The species 'collapse' in the scaling figures is the optimization target, not an independent prediction. The physical classification into QGP-driven versus hadronic-dominated regimes is read off these fitted values, so the central conclusion is an interpretation of the fit rather than a test of the framework.

  2. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 2, paragraph beginning 'Species-resolved scaling functions follow established procedures...']
    "Species-resolved scaling functions follow established procedures for charged hadrons and identified particles [23, 29]. Mesons and baryons share a common attenuation parameter β, which encodes viscous damping and scales with the specific shear viscosity (η/s)."

    The 'established procedures' are the author's own prior scaling framework (refs. [23,29] and related Lacey papers). The functional form of Eqs. (2)-(3), the common attenuation parameter β, the fixed viscous correction κ=0.17, and the kaon baseline are imported from these self-citations rather than derived or independently validated here. The fitted coefficients obtained from this imported ansatz are then used as evidence for the framework's validity, making the load-bearing ansatz dependent on the author's earlier work.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative conclusions are not self-contained: Eqs. (2)-(3) contain multiple species- and system-dependent free parameters, and the values in Tables I-II are extracted from the same data used to assert QGP-like versus hadronic behavior. No holdout prediction or external model comparison is presented, so the claimed 'scaling functions' fidelity' measures the quality of a fit to an ansatz imported from the author's prior papers. This is the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The reliance on self-cited 'established procedures' for the functional form makes the framework's validity load-bearing on the author's earlier work. Separately, a correctness check on the printed equations shows that Eq. (2) does not reduce to the identity when the comparison system is the kaon reference (primed=unprimed, α=1, ζ_m=1, kβ=1, R'=R_uc): the left side carries exp(-2β0/R_uc(2+κpT^2)) while the right side carries exp(+2β0/R_uc(2+κpT^2)), requiring exp(4β0/R_uc(2+κpT^2))=1. Eq. (3) has the same structural defect. This internal inconsistency is not itself a circularity pattern, but it is a load-bearing flaw in the derivation chain that further undermines the reliability of the fitted coefficients. On circularity alone, the central interpretation is partially constructed from its own fitted inputs, so the score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a self-authored scaling ansatz with at least five fitted parameters per system and several domain assumptions taken from earlier work. There are no new particles or fields; the interpretational entities are the extracted transport parameters themselves.

free parameters (6)
  • beta_0 baseline attenuation = 0.88 (Pb+Pb 5.02 TeV ultra-central reference)
    Sets the absolute scale of all scaling functions and defines the reference attenuation for k_beta.
  • k_beta per system = 0.63 to 1.30 depending on system
    Fitted attenuation ratio that encodes viscous attenuation and eta/s; the central quantity used to argue for or against QGP-like behavior.
  • zeta_hs hadronic rescattering = 0.00 to 0.21 depending on system
    Fitted per system to bring species into scaling collapse; interpreted as the amount of hadronic rescattering.
  • zeta_rf radial flow = 0.00 to 0.49 depending on system
    Fitted per system to capture baryon-meson blue shift; interpreted as the strength of radial flow.
  • gamma_32 = -0.44 to 0.05 depending on system
    Fitted geometric/deformation exponent per system, with no independent constraint.
  • alpha normalization coefficient = 1 (ultra-central), 0.56 (near-uc), absorbed otherwise
    Chosen by centrality rather than fitted to data, but it enters the normalization of the scaling relations.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Scaling relations in Eqs. (2)-(3) are valid for all systems and species
    Invoked as 'established procedures' from refs [22,23,29]; the entire parameter extraction and interpretation assume these forms without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption Charged kaons in ultra-central Pb+Pb are a minimally re-scattered baseline
    Text: 'Kaons serve as a minimally re-scattered reference due to their intermediate mass and small hadronic cross section.' If kaons re-scatter or are quenched, all k_beta values shift.
  • domain assumption MC-qGlauber eccentricities epsilon_n are accurate
    Section: 'Initial-state eccentricities epsilon_n were calculated with MC-qGlauber...' with a quoted 2% systematic; the model dependence is not independently validated.
  • domain assumption Viscous correction delta_f = kappa pT^2 with kappa = 0.17 applies uniformly
    Taken from refs [25,26,30]; if the pT^2 form is inadequate, extracted attenuation and flow parameters absorb the error.
  • domain assumption Inclusive charged hadrons can stand in for pions in p+Pb
    Figure 1 caption: 'inclusive hadrons used as pion proxies'; the paper acknowledges uncertainties from this in the text.
  • domain assumption pT threshold p_thresh ~4.5 GeV/c marks the onset of partonic energy loss
    Text: 'fixed above p_thresh ~4.5 GeV/c, where partonic energy loss dominates'; the threshold is later lowered when needed, so it is not a fixed operational definition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Do QGP Droplets Drive Anisotropy in Small Systems? Insights from RHIC and the LHC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F2IIYPIT

@misc{pith2026250421183,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Do QGP Droplets Drive Anisotropy in Small Systems? Insights from RHIC and the LHC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F2IIYPIT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21183}
}
abstract

Azimuthal anisotropy scaling functions for identified mesons and baryons are analyzed in large (Pb+Pb at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 2.76$ and 5.02 TeV, Au+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV), intermediate (Cu+Cu at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$~GeV), and small (p+Pb at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ and 8.16 TeV, p+Au, d+Au, and $^3$He+Au at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV) collision systems. The scaling functions' fidelity supports a hydrodynamic-like origin for anisotropies in the flow-dominated regime. Central Pb+Pb, Au+Au, and Cu+Cu reflect QGP-driven expansion with strong radial flow and significant jet quenching, while peripheral Pb+Pb and Cu+Cu exhibit hadronic-dominated dynamics. In contrast, central RHIC small systems show hadronic-dominated behavior, with strong re-scattering, negligible radial flow, and suppressed jet quenching, following the hierarchy p+Au $>$ d+Au $>$ $^3$He+Au. At the LHC, ultra-central p+Pb collisions display enhanced radial flow, reduced re-scattering, and small but nonzero jet quenching. Scaling violations at high $p_T$ reflect partial suppression of partonic energy loss. These findings demonstrate that QGP-like behavior in small systems depends sensitively on both system size and beam energy, and establish the scaling framework as a robust diagnostic of collectivity and medium properties across diverse collision conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21183 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) Construction of anisotropy scaling functions for identified species in ultra-central Pb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) Comparison of scaling functions for identified particles in peripheral Pb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Scaling procedure for 0–5% central p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) Scaling procedure for 0–5% central [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Do the low-p T anisotropies in small systems reflect gen- uine hydrodynamic expansion, or could they stem from other mechanisms such as initial-state correlations (e.g., gluon saturation in the color-glass condensate) or parton escape dynamics [20, 21]?

    work page

  2. [2]

    If hydrodynamic behavior is present, do the short life- times, low multiplicities, and large surface-to-volume ratios limit QGP development? Would this favor hadronic re-scattering and suppress jet quenching at highp T , altering the balance between flow- and jet- driven anisotropies and complicating their interpreta- tion? Azimuthal anisotropy scaling fu...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    This choice minimizes trivial kinematic effects, highlights collective flow, and ensures consistent treatment of mesons and baryons

    is used as the abscissa. This choice minimizes trivial kinematic effects, highlights collective flow, and ensures consistent treatment of mesons and baryons. The mesonv 2 scaling relation is v2(p T,uc) ε2(uc) e 2β0 Ruc (2+κp2 T ) =e αζ (X) M 2β0 Ruc (2+κp2 T ) v′ 2(p T ) ε′ 2 !ζ(X) m e 2ζ(X) m β Ruc Ruc R′−1 (2+κp2 T ) ,(2) where primed quantities denote ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    E. V . Shuryak, Phys. Rept.61, 71 (1980)

    work page 1980

  5. [5]

    K. Yagi, T. Hatsuda, and Y . Miake,Quark-gluon plasma: From big bang to little bang, V ol. 23 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Gyulassy and L

    M. Gyulassy and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A750, 30 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0405013

    arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    Heinz and R

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.63, 123 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    Ollitrault, Phys

    J.-Y . Ollitrault, Phys. Rev.D46, 229 (1992)

    work page 1992

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    V oloshin and Y

    S. V oloshin and Y . Zhang, Z. Phys. C70, 665 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9407282

    1996

  2. [10]

    Danielewicz, R

    P. Danielewicz, R. A. Lacey, P. Gossiaux, C. Pinkenburg, P. Chung, J. Alexander, and R. McGrath, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 2438 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9803047

    1998 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S. A. V oloshin, A. M. Poskanzer, and R. Snellings, Landolt- Bornstein23, 293 (2010), arXiv:0809.2949 [nucl-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C. Gale, S. Jeon, and B. Schenke, Int. J. Mod. Phys.A28, 1340011 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Baier, Y

    R. Baier, Y . L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller, S. Peigne, and D. Schiff, Nucl. Phys. B483, 291 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9607355

    1997

  6. [14]

    Majumder and C

    A. Majumder and C. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 202301 (2012), arXiv:1103.0809 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    C. A. Salgado, Mod. Phys. Lett. A19, 271 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0312127

    2004

  8. [16]

    Everettet al.(JETSCAPE), Phys

    D. Everettet al.(JETSCAPE), Phys. Rev. C103, 054904 (2021), arXiv:2011.01430 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys

    A. Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C97, 064904 (2018), arXiv:1710.09736 [nucl-ex]

    2018

  10. [18]

    M. I. Abdulhamidet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C110, 064902 (2024), arXiv:2312.07464 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  11. [19]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Lett.B718, 795 (2013), arXiv:1210.5482 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 082301 (2018), arXiv:1804.09767 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Abelevet al.(ALICE), Phys

    B. Abelevet al.(ALICE), Phys. Lett. B719, 29 (2013), arXiv:1212.2001 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 182302 (2013), arXiv:1212.5198 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Dusling, W

    K. Dusling, W. Li, and B. Schenke, Int. J. Mod. Phys.E25, 1630002 (2016), arXiv:1509.07939 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Schlichting and P

    S. Schlichting and P. Tribedy, Adv. High Energy Phys.2016, 8460349 (2016), arXiv:1611.00329 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    R. A. Lacey, A. Taranenko, J. Jia, D. Reynolds, N. N. Ajitanand, J. M. Alexander, Y . Gu, and A. Mwai, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 082302 (2014), arXiv:1305.3341 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    R. A. Lacey, (2024), arXiv:2410.04329 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  19. [27]

    R. A. Lacey, (2024), arXiv:2410.22688 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Majumder, B

    A. Majumder, B. Muller, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 192301 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0703082

    2007 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Dusling, G

    K. Dusling, G. D. Moore, and D. Teaney, Phys.Rev.C81, 034907 (2010), arXiv:0909.0754 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Teaney, J

    D. Teaney, J. Lauret, and E. V . Shuryak, (2001), arXiv:nucl- th/0110037

    2001

  23. [31]

    Huovinen, P

    P. Huovinen, P. F. Kolb, U. W. Heinz, P. V . Ruuskanen, and S. A. V oloshin, Phys. Lett. B503, 58 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0101136

    2001

  24. [32]

    R. A. Lacey, Phys. Rev. C110, L031901 (2024), arXiv:2402.09389 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Liu and R

    P. Liu and R. A. Lacey, Phys. Rev. C98, 021902 (2018), arXiv:1802.06595 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Adamet al.(ALICE), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 222302 (2016), arXiv:1512.06104 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    R. A. Lacey, P. Liu, N. Magdy, M. Csan ´ad, B. Schweid, N. N. Ajitanand, J. Alexander, and R. Pak, (2016), arXiv:1601.06001 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B724, 213 (2013), arXiv:1305.0609 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    U. A. Acharyaet al.(PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C105, 064902 (2022), arXiv:2111.05756 [nucl-ex]

    2022

  30. [38]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), JHEP05, 243 (2023), arXiv:2206.04587 [nucl-ex]

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), JHEP05, 243 (2023), arXiv:2206.04587 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Khachatryanet al.(CMS), Phys

    V . Khachatryanet al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B742, 200 (2015), arXiv:1409.3392 [nucl-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.57, 205 (2007), arXiv:nucl-ex/0701025

    2007 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Alveret al.(PHOBOS), Phys

    B. Alveret al.(PHOBOS), Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 242302 (2007), arXiv:nucl-ex/0610037

    2007 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys

    A. Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C93, 051902 (2016), arXiv:1412.1038 [nucl-ex]

    2016

  35. [43]

    Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys

    A. Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C92, 034913 (2015), arXiv:1412.1043 [nucl-ex]

    2015

  36. [44]

    Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Eur

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2847 (2014), arXiv:1307.3442 [hep-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    B. B. Abelevet al.(ALICE), Phys. Lett. B728, 25 (2014), arXiv:1307.6796 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Y . L. Dokshitzer and D. E. Kharzeev, Phys. Lett. B519, 199 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0106202

    2001 arXiv

  39. [47]

    R. A. Lacey, A. Taranenko, R. Wei, N. Ajitanand, J. Alexander, et al., Phys.Rev.C82, 034910 (2010), arXiv:1005.4979 [nucl- ex]. 8

    2010 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys

    A. Adareet al.(PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 232301 (2008), arXiv:0801.4020 [nucl-ex]

    2008 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.