QGP@50: More than Four Decades of Jet Quenching

Urs Achim Wiedemann; Xin-Nian Wang

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 19 cited by

QGP@50: More than Four Decades of Jet Quenching

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Jet quenching, the energy loss of fast partons crossing the quark-gluon plasma, has become a quantitative probe: the extracted jet transport parameter qhat in the hot plasma's initial stage is about two orders of magnitude larger than in co

desk verdict A historically rich, honest review of jet quenching that will be the standard reference, with a slightly over-strong 'we know' on qhat and a few editorial glitches. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18794 v1 pith:TTEWZULW submitted 2025-08-26 hep-ph

Xin-Nian Wang , Urs Achim Wiedemann This is my paper

classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.Mh25.75.-q

keywords jetquenchingquark-gluonplasmatransportparameterpartonenergylossLandau-Pomeranchuk-Migdaleffectnuclearmodificationfactorheavy-ioncollisionssubstructure

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 review consolidates four decades of theory and data into a single claim: jet quenching is no longer just a qualitative signal but a calibrated instrument for measuring properties of the quark-gluon plasma. The authors trace the chain from the original 1982 insight that only final-state high-transverse-momentum partons can sense the plasma, through the radiative energy-loss formalisms of the 1990s, to modern fits of hadron and jet suppression data at relativistic heavy-ion colliders. If the review's central statement is correct, the jet transport parameter qhat — the average squared transverse momentum a plasma transfers to a fast parton per unit path length — is known in the initial hot stage to about qhat/T^3 ≈ 4–5, roughly two orders of magnitude above its value in cold nuclei. That would make jet quenching a quantitative window into the color field strength of deconfined matter, with the historical and experimental record assembled here as the supporting evidence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the jet transport parameter qhat_R, the average squared transverse momentum that the medium transfers to a parton in color representation R per unit path length. In the close-to-eikonal approximation, the entire medium sensitivity of a fast parton reduces to the transverse color field strength it sees, parametrized by qhat or equivalently by a dipole cross section. The argument then runs through the BDMPS-Z mechanism: multiple scattering imprints a phase on a nascent gluon, gluons with energy below the characteristic frequency ω_c = qhat L^2/2 decohere and are emitted, producing an LPM-suppressed spectrum dI/dω ∝ 1/sqrt(ω) and an average energy loss ΔE ∼ α_s qhat L

What would settle it

Measure the energy and angular distribution of medium-induced radiation inside isolated photon-tagged jets with high statistics: if the extracted single-gluon spectrum does not follow the LPM-suppressed 1/sqrt(omega) form and its predicted scaling with path length, the radiative-energy-loss basis of the quoted qhat values is falsified. A second decisive test is the O+O collision run: extrapolations of all existing quenching models predict suppression larger than 5%, while the no-quenching baseline is known to better than 5%; data below the predicted band would falsify the current framework.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that jet quenching has matured from a speculative idea into a mature, quantitative field. The authors argue that the measured suppression of high-pT hadrons, the increased asymmetry of dijets and photon/Z-tagged jets, the modification of jet substructure, and the recently observed diffusion wake are all described by one coherent mechanism: a fast parton propagating through the quark-gluon plasma exchanges transverse color field strength with the medium, leading to LPM-suppressed gluon radiation and elastic scattering. All of these phenomena are controlled by a single medium property, the jet transport parameter qhat, defined as the average squared transverse mome

Load-bearing premise

The quoted value of qhat assumes that one of the reviewed energy-loss models correctly describes the actual mechanism by which fast partons lose energy in the quark-gluon plasma; if the true mechanism differs from every fitted model, the inferred qhat is systematically wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is correct, jet quenching provides a quantitative, calibrated handle on the color field strength of the quark-gluon plasma, with qhat/T^3 ≈ 4–5 in the initial hot stage.
Measured suppression of high-pT hadrons, dijet and gamma/Z-jet asymmetries, and jet substructure modifications are unified by one medium property; future measurements should be inverted into tighter constraints on qhat and its temperature and energy dependence.
The observed cone-size dependence of jet suppression and the flow of energy to large angles imply that full jet reconstruction, not just leading hadrons, is needed to account for all energy lost.
The first direct evidence of a diffusion wake in Z-hadron correlations establishes a new observable set — jet-hadron correlations in rapidity and azimuth — that can image the medium response and constrain the equation of state.
Since qhat in the initial QGP is two orders of magnitude above cold-nucleus values, jet quenching distinguishes deconfined matter sharply from cold nuclear matter and provides a benchmark for non-equilibrium early-time dynamics, where qhat may become a tensor and may be anomalously large.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct cross-calibration of qhat from deep-inelastic scattering in cold nuclei and from heavy-ion suppression has not yet been done within a single formalism; if performed, it would test whether the two-orders-of-magnitude jump is a genuine deconfinement effect rather than a model-dependent offset.
The review's own caveat that model uncertainties are not marginalized suggests that current quoted qhat values are conditional on the energy-loss mechanism; an information-field-style Bayesian analysis that relaxes priors already finds a stronger temperature dependence, so the central value may shift as more jet-substructure data enter.
The predicted smooth onset of quenching in O+O collisions, with a no-quenching baseline known to better than 5%, gives a sharp test: if small-system data show suppression below the extrapolated qhat, coherence or finite-size effects beyond the current formalism will be needed.
Using the QGP as a testbed for QCD jet physics — formation time, vacuum-versus-medium interference, and hadronization — is an implicit inversion of the probe logic that the review only sketches; it may be where the next decade's insights come from.

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

First thing you should know: this is a review, not a new result, but it is the most useful historical synthesis of jet quenching I have read. It earns its place as a reference. It is co-authored by two people who built parts of the formalism, and it does not airbrush their own record—the section where the Gyulassy-Wang model was corrected by BDMPS-Z and Zakharov is presented straight.

What is actually new: the account of Bjorken's unpublished August 1982 preprint, the timeline of the Hard Probes Collaboration, and the narrative of how the community moved from eikonal single-parton energy loss to full jets. The physics is standard, quoted with caveats: the BDMPS-Z estimate is flagged as back-of-the-envelope, the close-to-eikonal limit is stated explicitly. The paper also lists the major experimental landmarks chronologically; that list alone is worth having.

Where it is soft: the headline claim 'We know that qhat ... is about two orders of magnitude higher than in cold nuclei' is stronger than the extraction supports. The paper itself concedes in Sec. 4.3.2 that model uncertainties have not been introduced in existing Bayesian efforts. The quoted error bars cover statistical and some systematic effects but not model-selection uncertainty. The qualitative two-order-of-magnitude ratio is probably right; the word 'know' oversells. That is a wording problem, not a fatal flaw. There is also a missing citation placeholder ('ALICE [?]' in the 2022 dead-cone entry) and a unit typo ('5.02 GeV' should be '5.02 TeV' for the 2024 LHC entry). Small editorial defects, but in a review meant to be authoritative they matter.

The peripheral-collision failure is discussed honestly: models fail beyond 70% centrality, and the paper explains the likely cause in the overlap-function normalization. That is the kind of self-critical accounting you want in a review.

Bottom line: this is a well-constructed review by serious people. The model-uncertainty gap in the qhat extraction deserves a sentence of tempering in the summary, and the editorial glitches need fixing. As a definitive reference it will be used. I would send it to peer review and, after minor revision, accept. I would bring it to a reading group for the history section, not for new physics.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a historical review of jet quenching in high-energy nuclear collisions, from Bjorken's 1982 preprints and the first Gyulassy-Wang estimates through the RHIC discovery, LHC jet measurements, and an outlook toward HL-LHC and EIC. It covers the theoretical formalism of medium-induced radiation (GW model, BDMPS-Z, opacity expansion, HT, AMY, SCETG), the definition and extraction of the jet transport parameter qhat, Monte Carlo implementations (JEWEL, MARTINI, LBT/CoLBT, Hybrid, JETSCAPE, JetMed), and recent developments on jet substructure, medium response, and the diffusion wake. The paper's central claim is that jet quenching has matured into a quantitative probe: qhat0/T0^3 ≈ 4.6±1.2 (RHIC) and 3.7±1.4 (LHC), about two orders of magnitude larger than qhat in cold nuclei, with improved Bayesian extractions and first evidence for the jet-induced diffusion wake.

Significance. If the quantitative claim is accepted, this review documents an important milestone: jet quenching has moved from a discovery signal to a tool for extracting QGP transport properties. The manuscript's strengths are its broad but critical historical coverage; it explicitly flags the close-to-eikonal limitation, trigger bias, the peripheral-collision puzzle, and the absence of model uncertainties in qhat fits. The extensive chronological table of experimental results is a useful reference. The qualitative two-order-of-magnitude enhancement of qhat over cold nuclei is likely robust; however, as detailed below, the concluding 'we know' phrasing overstates the model-dependence acknowledged in Sec. 4.3.2. With that qualification, the review is a valuable synthesis for the field.

major comments (1)

[Sec. 6.1; Sec. 4.3.2] The concluding sentence 'We know that the jet transport parameter qhat ... is about two orders of magnitude higher than in cold nuclei' is stronger than the evidence summarized in Sec. 4.3.2 supports. There the JET Collaboration values qhat0/T0^3 = 4.6±1.2 and 3.7±1.4 are quoted, but the text immediately notes that the extraction is performed within one of several energy-loss frameworks and, in the footnote, that 'model uncertainties have not been introduced in the existing efforts.' The quoted errors therefore do not include model-selection uncertainty, and Fig. 6 shows an appreciable spread among models. The qualitative two-order-of-magnitude separation from cold-nucleus qhat extracted in DIS is likely robust, but the word 'know' should be qualified, e.g., 'current model-dependent extractions indicate,' and the model spread should be reflected in the conclusion.

minor comments (4)

[Timeline, 2022 entry] The dead-cone observation entry cites 'ALICE [?]' with a missing reference. This placeholder must be completed before publication.
[Secs. 2 and 4.1] The text calls Bjorken's jet-quenching speculation part of an 'unpublished work' and cites Ref. [31], which is the published 1983 Phys. Rev. D paper. Clarify which preprint is meant and use the corresponding reference consistently.
[Eq. (29)] The Poissonian quenching-weight formula is written with a Sudakov factor exp(−∫_0^∞ dω dI/dω). For the BDMPS-Z spectrum quoted in Eq. (19) (dI/dω ∝ ω^{-3/2}), this integral is infrared divergent unless a lower cutoff is specified. State the regularization or note that dI/dω is the regulated spectrum.
[Timeline, 2024 entry] The ALICE recoil-jet entry states '√s=5.02 GeV'; this should presumably be '√s=5.02 TeV'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: this is a historical review that synthesizes independently published results, with no new derivation whose output reduces to its input.

full rationale

The paper is a review, not an original derivation. Its central quantitative claim (Sec. 6.1: qhat in the initial QGP stage is about two orders of magnitude higher than in cold nuclei) is presented as the summary of externally published extractions (JET Collaboration [231], JETSCAPE [233], and related studies), and the paper explicitly documents the model-dependence of those extractions: 'model uncertainties have not been introduced in the existing efforts' (Sec. 4.3.2 footnote). That concession and the related note that an information-field prior gives a stronger temperature dependence (Sec. 4.3.2) are limitations on the strength of the claim, but they are not circularity: the review does not fit a parameter and then rename it a prediction, and it does not invoke an author-supplied uniqueness theorem to force a choice. The review does cite many works by its own authors, but those citations are not load-bearing in a self-referential way; the key historical episodes are narrated with external checks, including the correction of the Gyulassy-Wang model by BDMPS-Z and Zakharov (Sec. 3.3). One literal missing reference appears in the timeline ('ALICE [?]', Sec. 6.1), but this is a bibliographic gap, not a circular step. No equation in the review reduces to an input by construction, and no 'prediction' is statistically forced by a fitting procedure internal to this paper. Hence the honest finding is score 0: no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted parameters itself; the free parameters listed are values from cited phenomenological fits that the review's summary claims adopt. The axioms are background assumptions of the field, stated explicitly in the review, on which the summarized conclusions rest.

free parameters (2)

qhat/T^3 at initial time (jet transport coefficient) = 4.6±1.2 (RHIC, T0=370 MeV), 3.7±1.4 (LHC, T0=470 MeV), from the JET Collaboration; consistent JETSCAPE Bayesian results
The review's summary claim that qhat in QGP is about two orders of magnitude above cold nuclei rests on these fits to high-pT hadron spectra (Sec. 4.3.2).
Effective jet energy loss exponents = ΔE/ρ ∝ L^0.59 p_T^0.13 ln p_T
Reported from a Bayesian fit to jet R_AA data (Eq. 31, Sec. 5.3); the review uses this as a summary of the system-size and energy dependence of jet energy loss.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Collinear factorized QCD, Eq. (1), remains valid for high-pT hadroproduction in A+A collisions.
The entire baseline-and-modification framework of jet quenching (Sec. 2, Eq. 1) assumes the hard process factorizes from medium effects; if factorization breaks down in a dense medium, the interpretation of R_AA as a final-state effect is invalid.
domain assumption The close-to-eikonal approximation, Eq. (2), is adequate for quantitative qhat extraction.
Sec. 3 specifies that most theory is limited to E >> omega >> k,q; the review summarizes qhat extractions made within this approximation, so its adequacy is load-bearing for the headline qhat value.
domain assumption AdS/CFT results for N=4 SYM are informative proxies for the QCD plasma.
Sec. 3.5 uses Eq. (23) for qhat_SYM to argue the magnitude is 'in the ballpark of phenomenologically favored values'; this does not directly determine the central qhat extraction, but it shapes the narrative that strong coupling matters.
domain assumption The CMS 2025 Z-hadron valley-on-ridge structure is uniquely attributable to a diffusion wake.
Sec. 5.5 claims the diffusion wake depletion is 'unambiguous' because no other mechanism depletes hadrons in that region; this is a strong interpretation of a single measurement (Ref. [340]) and underlies the timeline entry 'first direct evidence of jet-induced diffusion wake'.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QGP@50: More than Four Decades of Jet Quenching." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TTEWZULW

@misc{pith2026250818794,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QGP@50: More than Four Decades of Jet Quenching},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TTEWZULW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18794}
}

read the original abstract

How are high-momentum transfer processes modified when embedded in the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) instead of the vacuum? How can fundamental properties of the QGP be inferred from their medium-modifications? And what can be learnt about QCD? These questions have motivated theoretical and experimental studies for more than four decades almost since the beginning of QGP research. Here we review with a historical perspective the main theoretical developments and the resulting interplay of theory and experiment at RHIC and at the LHC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18794 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (Left): Bjorken’s original sketch of the “fate of secondary high-𝑝𝑇 jets”. Depending on how the hard process is embedded in a non-central heavy-ion collision, both (a), one (b) or none (c) of the secondary jets propagates through the medium over a significant distance and is degraded in energy. (Right): The first prediction by Gyulassy and Wang of jet quenching measured via the nuclear modification factor in A+A and… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The first estimate of the jet-quenching parameter ˆ𝑞 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (Left) The first schematic drawing of the trailing string solution(s), Figure from Ref. [137]. In the gravity dual description, the quark is the endpoint of a string. At finite velocity, the string resembles a tail dragged behind along which energy flows to the horizon. An unphysical solution, in which the tail is oriented opposite, can be discarded on physical grounds. (Right) The perturbation in energy density ind… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (Left) Nuclear modification factors in central Au+Au collisions and d+Au collisions. (Right) High-𝑝𝑇 dihadron correlations in azimuthal angle in p+p, d+Au and central Au+Au collisions. Figures from Ref. [172]. jet quenching was finally confirmed by the subsequent obser…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (Left) The single inclusive charged hadron spectra in Pb+Pb collisions with different centralities compared to the p+p reference at √ 𝑠 = 2.76 TeV from ALICE experiment. (Right) Nuclear modification factors in 0-5% central Pb+Pb collisions at √ 𝑠 = 2.67 and 5.07 TeV fr…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: (Left) The scaled jet transport parameter ˆ𝑞/𝑇 3 extracted by the JET Collaboration within different approaches to the parton energy loss. (Right) Strong temperature dependence of ˆ𝑞/𝑇 3 extracted using the information-field approach to Bayesian inference as compared…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: (Left) Dijet and (Right) 𝛾-jet asymmetry distributions in Pb+Pb collisions at the LHC energies from ATLAS [34] and CMS [252] experiment as compared to theoretical calculations. Figures from Refs. [254, 296] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Nuclear modification factors 𝑅𝐴𝐴 for single inclusive jet spectra (full jets by ATLAS and charged jets by ALICE and STAR) in central heavy-ion collisions at LHC [307–309] and RHIC [310] energies. The lines with error bands are Bayesian fits according to a simple jet en…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: (Left) A schematic picture of the kinematical Lund plane spanned by the logs of the transverse opening angle 𝜃 and the longitudinal momentum fraction 𝑧. Embedded is a representative jet clustering history with the formation time of primary emissions. (Right) Characteri…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The energy density of the linear fluid dynamical response to the energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: (Left) The jet shape function relative to the direction of a leading jet in dijet events in 0-30% central Pb+Pb collisions at √ 𝑠 = 2.76 TeV from the jet-fluid model calculation and CMS experiment [337]. (Right) The ratio between charged fragmentation functions of 𝛾-j…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: (Left) Jet-hadron (𝑝𝑇 < 2 GeV/𝑐) correlation in rapidity 𝜂 and azimuthal angle 𝜙 in Pb+Pb 𝛾-jet events from CoLBT simulations. (Right) The 𝑍-hadron correlation as a function of azimuthal angle and rapidity in (upper) Pb+Pb collisions and (lower) the difference between…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 19 Pith papers

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

Lattice study of spin interactions between heavy quarks in the quark-gluon plasma
hep-lat 2026-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

The spin-dependent heavy-quark potential in the quark-gluon plasma is complex, with a channel-dependent imaginary part first extracted from lattice QCD.
Factorization of the triple-collinear $q \to qc\bar{c}$ splitting function at first order in opacity
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

At first order in opacity, the medium-modified q->q c cbar splitting function factorizes into products of q->q g and g->c cbar splitting functions in three strongly ordered collinear limits.
In-medium QCD splittings beyond the soft, large-$N_c$ and harmonic-oscillator approximations all at once
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

First complete numerical solution of BDMPS-Z equations for in-medium QCD splittings, going beyond soft, large-Nc and harmonic-oscillator approximations.
Evidence for parton energy loss in oxygen$-$oxygen collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.36}$ TeV
nucl-ex 2026-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Neutral-pion nuclear modification factors in OO collisions exhibit suppression at 4.9 sigma after subtracting cold-nuclear-matter effects via pO data, consistent with parton energy loss models.
Full energy fraction and angular dependence of medium-induced splittings in the large-$N_c$ limit
hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

In large-Nc and harmonic oscillator limits, medium-induced splittings are computed analytically double-differential in z and θ, with an improved semi-hard approximation validated for high-energy partons.
Gluon radiation from a QCD antenna with realistic parton-medium interactions
hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The in-medium antenna gluon spectrum is obtained by numerical solution of Dyson-type equations that fully resum multiple scatterings for Yukawa and HTL rates, without harmonic-oscillator or opacity truncations.
Gluon radiation from a QCD antenna with realistic parton-medium interactions
hep-ph 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Numerical solution of differential equations for the full in-medium gluon emission spectrum from a QCD antenna with realistic scattering models.
Energy-energy correlators inside single inclusive jets in heavy-ion collisions with CoLBT-hydro model
hep-ph 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A multi-stage CoLBT-hydro simulation with a 2 GeV medium scale reproduces the CMS in-jet EEC and predicts rank- and rapidity-gap-dependent modifications that encode path length and the diffusion wake.
Study of jet-induced hydro response in high-energy heavy-ion collisions with a flow-matching generative model
nucl-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

A flow-matching generative model trained on CoLBT-hydro data conditionally generates marginal final-state hadron spectra from jet-induced hydro responses in 0-10% Pb+Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, matching training data s...
Study of jet-induced hydro response in high-energy heavy-ion collisions with a flow-matching generative model
nucl-th 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A conditional flow-matching model trained on CoLBT-hydro reproduces marginal γ-jet medium-response hadron spectra in 0–10% Pb+Pb at 5.02 TeV with ~10⁶× speedup while preserving front and diffusion-wake statistics.
Measurement of jet quenching in O+O collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=200$ GeV by the STAR experiment at RHIC
nucl-ex 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

STAR reports 20% suppression of recoiling hadrons and jets in high-event-activity O+O collisions at 200 GeV, with a measured 0.7 GeV/c pT shift for large-radius jets, providing evidence for jet quenching in small systems.
Momentum Broadening in the Opacity Expansion: All-Path-Length Corrections and Improved Regge Kinematics
hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Combined short-path-length (APL) and sub-eikonal corrections to GLV momentum broadening nearly cancel, restoring the standard GLV result; the paper argues this may resolve the earlier large negative APL energy-loss co...
An improved linear Boltzmann transport model for hadron and jet suppression in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions
nucl-th 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

An improved LBT model with an earlier medium-scale insertion and color-flow tracking reproduces hadron and jet nuclear modification factors together in 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb collisions.
Geometric Bias and Centrality Dependence of Jet Quenching in High-Energy Nuclear Collisions
nucl-th 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Suppression of high-pT hadrons in peripheral Pb+Pb collisions is predominantly driven by initial-state geometric bias rather than final-state jet quenching.
Geometric Bias and Centrality Dependence of Jet Quenching in High-Energy Nuclear Collisions
nucl-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

A refined HIJING initial-condition model with geometric bias from impact-parameter effects, combined with Boltzmann jet transport, describes the centrality dependence of charged-hadron suppression in 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb co...
Gauge invariant momentum broadening of hard probes in glasma
nucl-th 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Keeping the gauge-invariant Wilson line in the glasma q̂ computation shifts the result by ~9% (5.28 vs 5.79 GeV²/fm), validating the earlier simplified calculation.
Energy-energy correlators inside single inclusive jets in heavy-ion collisions with CoLBT-hydro model
hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

Updated CoLBT-hydro simulations with Q_M=2.0 GeV reproduce CMS in-jet EEC data, validate background subtraction, and show path-length and diffusion-wake effects.
Gauge invariant momentum broadening of hard probes in glasma
nucl-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

Gauge-invariant calculation of the momentum broadening coefficient q-hat in the glasma produces results quantitatively close to prior approximations and supports the glasma's importance for jet quenching.
Light-Ion Collisions: Bridging Small and Large QCD Systems
hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

Light-ion collisions at the LHC provide evidence of quark-gluon plasma formation in small systems, bridging proton-proton and heavy-ion regimes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 14 Pith papers

[1]

Baier, D

R. Baier, D. Schiff, and B. G. Zakharov Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 50 (2000) 37–69, arXiv:hep-ph/0002198. 2, 8, 13 QGP@50: More than Four Decades of Jet Quenching 47

arXiv 2000
[2]

Gyulassy, I

M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, X.-N. Wang, and B.-W. Zhang in QGP3, edited by R. C Hwa and X.-N. Wang, World Scientific (Singapore) (2004) 123–191,arXiv:nucl-th/0302077. 2

arXiv 2004
[3]

Kovner and U

A. Kovner and U. A. Wiedemann in QGP3, edited by R. C Hwa and X.-N. Wang, World Scientific (Singapore) (2004) 192–248, arXiv:hep-ph/0304151. 2, 8, 9, 13

arXiv 2004
[4]

Casalderrey-Solana and C

J. Casalderrey-Solana and C. A. Salgado Acta Phys. Polon. B 38 (2007) 3731–3794, arXiv:0712.3443 [hep-ph] . 2, 8, 13

arXiv 2007
[5]

U. A. Wiedemann arXiv:0908.2306 [hep-ph] . 2, 8, 13

arXiv
[6]

J. P. Blaizot and Y. Mehtar-Tani Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24 (2015) no. 11, 1530012, arXiv:1503.05958 [hep-ph] . 2

arXiv 2015
[7]

Qin and X.-N

G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24 (2015) no. 11, 1530014, arXiv:1511.00790 [hep-ph] . 2

arXiv 2015
[8]

Cao and X.-N

S. Cao and X.-N. Wang Rept. Prog. Phys. 84 (2021) no. 2, 024301, arXiv:2002.04028 [hep-ph]. 2, 16, 40

arXiv 2021

Show all 300 references

[9]

S. Cao, A. Majumder, R. Modarresi-Yazdi, I. Soudi, and Y. Tachibana Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 33 (2024) no. 08, 2430002, arXiv:2401.10026 [hep-ph] . 2

2024 arXiv
[10]

Adcox et al

PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox et al. Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 184–283, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003. 2

2005 arXiv
[11]

Adams et al

STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al. Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 102–183, arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009. 2

2005 arXiv
[12]

PHOBOS Collaboration, B. B. Back et al. Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 28–101, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410022. 2

2005 arXiv
[13]

Arsene et al

BRAHMS Collaboration, I. Arsene et al. Nucl. Phys. A 757 (2005) 1–27, arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020. 2

2005 arXiv
[14]

Acharya et al

ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no. 8, 813, arXiv:2211.04384 [nucl-ex] . 2

2024 arXiv
[15]

Hayrapetyan et al

CMS Collaboration, A. Hayrapetyan et al. arXiv:2405.10785 [nucl-ex] . 2

arXiv
[16]

d’Enterria Landolt-Bornstein 23 (2010) 471, arXiv:0902.2011 [nucl-ex]

D. d’Enterria Landolt-Bornstein 23 (2010) 471, arXiv:0902.2011 [nucl-ex] . 2

2010 arXiv
[17]

Majumder and M

A. Majumder and M. Van Leeuwen Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66 (2011) 41–92, arXiv:1002.2206 [hep-ph] . 2

2011 arXiv
[18]

Connors, C

M. Connors, C. Nattrass, R. Reed, and S. Salur Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (2018) 025005, arXiv:1705.01974 [nucl-ex] . 2

2018 arXiv
[19]

Cunqueiro and A

L. Cunqueiro and A. M. Sickles Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 124 (2022) 103940, arXiv:2110.14490 [nucl-ex] . 2

2022 arXiv
[20]

Accardi et al

A. Accardi et al. arXiv:hep-ph/0310274. 2

arXiv
[21]

Armesto et al

N. Armesto et al. Phys. Rev. C 86 (2012) 064904, arXiv:1106.1106 [hep-ph] . 2, 9, 17

2012 arXiv
[22]

H. A. Andrews et al. J. Phys. G 47 (2020) no. 6, 065102, arXiv:1808.03689 [hep-ph] . 2, 38, 39

2020 arXiv
[23]

D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek Phys. Rev. Lett. 30 (1973) 1343–1346. 2

1973
[24]

H. D. Politzer Phys. Rev. Lett. 30 (1973) 1346–1349. 2

1973
[25]

T. D. Lee Rev. Mod. Phys. 47 (1975) 267–275. 2

1975
[26]

J. C. Collins and M. J. Perry Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 (1975) 1353. 2

1975
[27]

Cabibbo and G

N. Cabibbo and G. Parisi Phys. Lett. B 59 (1975) 67–69. 2

1975
[28]

E. V. Shuryak Phys. Lett. B 78 (1978) 150. 2, 3

1978
[29]

Wang Phys

X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 2321, arXiv:hep-ph/9804357. 3, 22

1998 arXiv
[30]

Wang and M

X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 (1992) 1480–1483. 3, 5, 22

1992
[31]

J. D. Bjorken Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983) 140–151. 3, 22, 33

1983
[32]

J. D. Bjorken. 3, 13
[33]

Adler et al

STAR Collaboration, C. Adler et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 082302, arXiv:nucl-ex/0210033. 4, 22, 42

2003 arXiv
[34]

Aad et al

ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 252303, arXiv:1011.6182 [hep-ex] . 4, 31, 32, 35, 36, 42

2010 arXiv
[35]

Chatrchyan et al

CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al. Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 024906, arXiv:1102.1957 [nucl-ex] . 4, 32, 35, 40, 42

2011 arXiv
[36]

Y. L. Dokshitzer Sov. Phys. JETP 46 (1977) 641–653. 4 48 Xin-Nian Wang, Urs Achim Wiedemann

1977
[37]

V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15 (1972) 438–450. 4

1972
[38]

Altarelli and G

G. Altarelli and G. Parisi Nucl. Phys. B 126 (1977) 298–318. 4

1977
[39]

Gyulassy and M

M. Gyulassy and M. Plumer Phys. Lett. B 243 (1990) 432–438. 5, 22

1990
[40]

Wang and M

X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Jets in relativistic heavy ion collisions, in RHIC Workshop: 4th Workshop on Experiments and Detectors for a Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, pp. 0079–102. 9, 1990. 5

1990
[41]

Wang and M

X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 3501–3516. 5

1991
[42]

M. H. Thoma and M. Gyulassy Nucl. Phys. B 351 (1991) 491–506. 5, 6, 13

1991
[43]

Braaten and M

E. Braaten and M. H. Thoma Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 1298–1310. 5, 6

1991
[44]

Braaten and M

E. Braaten and M. H. Thoma Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) no. 9, R2625. 5, 6

1991
[45]

Gyulassy, M

M. Gyulassy, M. Plumer, M. Thoma, and X. N. Wang Nucl. Phys. A538 (1992) 37C–50C. 5

1992
[46]

Gyulassy and X.-n

M. Gyulassy and X.-n. Wang Nucl. Phys. B 420 (1994) 583–614, arXiv:nucl-th/9306003. 6

1994 arXiv
[47]

X.-N. Wang, M. Gyulassy, and M. Plumer Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 3436–3446, arXiv:hep-ph/9408344. 6, 7

1995 arXiv
[48]

Gyulassy, P

M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 5535–5538, arXiv:nucl-th/0005032. 6, 12

2000 arXiv
[49]

Gyulassy, P

M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev Nucl. Phys. B 594 (2001) 371–419, arXiv:nucl-th/0006010. 6, 12

2001 arXiv
[50]

U. A. Wiedemann Nucl. Phys. B 588 (2000) 303–344, arXiv:hep-ph/0005129. 6, 8, 12

2000 arXiv
[51]

Zhang, G.-Y

Y.-Y. Zhang, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) no. 7, 074031, arXiv:1905.12699 [hep-ph] . 6, 15

2019 arXiv
[52]

B. G. Zakharov JETP Lett. 63 (1996) 952–957, arXiv:hep-ph/9607440. 8, 10, 12

1996 arXiv
[53]

B. G. Zakharov JETP Lett. 65 (1997) 615–620, arXiv:hep-ph/9704255. 8

1997 arXiv
[54]

L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 2225–2233, arXiv:hep-ph/9402335. 9

1994 arXiv
[55]

Buchmuller and A

W. Buchmuller and A. Hebecker Nucl. Phys. B 476 (1996) 203–224, arXiv:hep-ph/9512329. 9

1996 arXiv
[56]

L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 2233–2241, arXiv:hep-ph/9309289. 9

1994 arXiv
[57]

Iancu and R

E. Iancu and R. Venugopalan, The Color glass condensate and high-energy scattering in QCD, pp. 249–3363. 3, 2003. arXiv:hep-ph/0303204. 9

2003 arXiv
[58]

Liang, X.-N

Z.-t. Liang, X.-N. Wang, and J. Zhou Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 125010, arXiv:0801.0434 [hep-ph]. 9

2008 arXiv
[59]

D’Eramo, M

F. D’Eramo, M. Lekaveckas, H. Liu, and K. Rajagopal JHEP 05 (2013) 031, arXiv:1211.1922 [hep-ph] . 10

2013 arXiv
[60]

Kurkela and U

A. Kurkela and U. A. Wiedemann Phys. Lett. B 740 (2015) 172–178, arXiv:1407.0293 [hep-ph]. 10

2015 arXiv
[61]

Stoecker Nucl

H. Stoecker Nucl. Phys. A 750 (2005) 121–147, arXiv:nucl-th/0406018. 10, 39

2005 arXiv
[62]

Ruppert and B

J. Ruppert and B. Muller Phys. Lett. B 618 (2005) 123–130, arXiv:hep-ph/0503158. 10, 39

2005 arXiv
[63]

Casalderrey-Solana, E

J. Casalderrey-Solana, E. V. Shuryak, and D. Teaney J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 27 (2005) 22–31, arXiv:hep-ph/0411315. 10, 21, 39

2005 arXiv
[64]

Baier, Y

R. Baier, Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller, S. Peigne, and D. Schiff Nucl. Phys. B 483 (1997) 291–320, arXiv:hep-ph/9607355. 11, 12

1997 arXiv
[65]

Baier Nucl

R. Baier Nucl. Phys. A 715 (2003) 209–218, arXiv:hep-ph/0209038. 11

2003 arXiv
[66]

Wang Phys

X.-N. Wang Phys. Lett. B 485 (2000) 157–161, arXiv:nucl-th/0003033. 11

2000 arXiv
[67]

Deng and X.-N

W.-t. Deng and X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 024902, arXiv:0910.3403 [hep-ph]. 11

2010 arXiv
[68]

Ru, Z.-B

P. Ru, Z.-B. Kang, E. Wang, H. Xing, and B.-W. Zhang Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) no. 3, L031901, arXiv:1907.11808 [hep-ph] . 11

2021 arXiv
[69]

Caron-Huot Phys

S. Caron-Huot Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 065039, arXiv:0811.1603 [hep-ph] . 11

2009 arXiv
[70]

Panero, K

M. Panero, K. Rummukainen, and A. Sch ¨afer Phys. Rev. Lett.112 (2014) no. 16, 162001, arXiv:1307.5850 [hep-ph] . 11 QGP@50: More than Four Decades of Jet Quenching 49

2014 arXiv
[71]

D’Onofrio, A

M. D’Onofrio, A. Kurkela, and G. D. Moore JHEP 03 (2014) 125, arXiv:1401.7951 [hep-lat]. 12

2014 arXiv
[72]

G. D. Moore and N. Schlusser Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no. 3, 034510, arXiv:1905.09708 [hep-lat]. 12

2019 arXiv
[73]

G. D. Moore, S. Schlichting, N. Schlusser, and I. Soudi JHEP 10 (2021) 059, arXiv:2105.01679 [hep-ph] . 12

2021 arXiv
[74]

Lappi and L

T. Lappi and L. McLerran Nucl. Phys. A 772 (2006) 200–212, arXiv:hep-ph/0602189. 12

2006 arXiv
[75]

Boguslavski, A

K. Boguslavski, A. Kurkela, T. Lappi, F. Lindenbauer, and J. Peuron Phys. Lett. B 850 (2024) 138525, arXiv:2303.12595 [hep-ph] . 12

2024 arXiv
[76]

Boguslavski, A

K. Boguslavski, A. Kurkela, T. Lappi, F. Lindenbauer, and J. Peuron Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) no. 3, 034019, arXiv:2312.00447 [hep-ph] . 12

2024 arXiv
[77]

A. Ipp, D. I. M¨ uller, and D. Schuh Phys. Lett. B810 (2020) 135810, arXiv:2009.14206 [hep-ph]. 12

2020 arXiv
[78]

Avramescu, V

D. Avramescu, V. B ˘aran, V. Greco, A. Ipp, D. I. M¨ uller, and M. Ruggieri Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) no. 11, 114021, arXiv:2303.05599 [hep-ph] . 12

2023 arXiv
[79]

C. T. Institut: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1487879/. 12
[80]

L. D. Landau and I. Pomeranchuk Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ser. Fiz. 92 (1953) 535–536. 12

1953
[81]

A. B. Migdal Phys. Rev. 103 (1956) 1811–1820. 12

1956
[82]

He, L.-G

Y. He, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) no. 12, 122301, arXiv:2001.08273 [hep-ph] . 13, 27, 45

2020 arXiv
[83]

A. V. Sadofyev, M. D. Sievert, and I. Vitev Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) no. 9, 094044, arXiv:2104.09513 [hep-ph] . 13, 27

2021 arXiv
[84]

J. a. Barata, A. V. Sadofyev, and C. A. Salgado Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no. 11, 114010, arXiv:2202.08847 [hep-ph] . 13, 27

2022 arXiv
[85]

Andres, F

C. Andres, F. Dominguez, A. V. Sadofyev, and C. A. Salgado Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) no. 7, 074023, arXiv:2207.07141 [hep-ph] . 13, 27

2022 arXiv
[86]

J. a. Barata, A. V. Sadofyev, and X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) no. 5, L051503, arXiv:2210.06519 [hep-ph] . 13, 27

2023 arXiv
[87]

J. a. Barata, X. Mayo L ´opez, A. V. Sadofyev, and C. A. Salgado Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) no. 3, 034018, arXiv:2304.03712 [hep-ph] . 13, 27

2023 arXiv
[88]

M. V. Kuzmin, X. Mayo L ´opez, J. Reiten, and A. V. Sadofyev Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) no. 1, 014036, arXiv:2309.00683 [hep-ph] . 13, 27

2024 arXiv
[89]

Qiu and G

J.-w. Qiu and G. F. Sterman Nucl. Phys. B 353 (1991) 137–164. 15

1991
[90]

Qiu and G

J.-w. Qiu and G. F. Sterman Nucl. Phys. B 353 (1991) 105–136. 15

1991
[91]

Luo, J.-w

M. Luo, J.-w. Qiu, and G. F. Sterman Phys. Lett. B 279 (1992) 377–383. 15

1992
[92]

Luo, J.-w

M. Luo, J.-w. Qiu, and G. F. Sterman Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 4493–4502. 15

1994
[93]

Luo, J.-w

M. Luo, J.-w. Qiu, and G. F. Sterman Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 1951–1971. 15

1994
[94]

Guo and X.-N

X.-f. Guo and X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 3591–3594, arXiv:hep-ph/0005044. 15, 27, 33

2000 arXiv
[95]

Wang and X.-f

X.-N. Wang and X.-f. Guo Nucl. Phys. A 696 (2001) 788–832, arXiv:hep-ph/0102230. 15, 27, 33

2001 arXiv
[96]

Zhang and X.-N

Y.-Y. Zhang and X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) no. 3, 034015, arXiv:2104.04520 [hep-ph]. 15

2022 arXiv
[97]

Osborne and X.-N

J. Osborne and X.-N. Wang Nucl. Phys. A 710 (2002) 281–302, arXiv:hep-ph/0204046. 16

2002 arXiv
[98]

P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe JHEP 01 (2003) 030, arXiv:hep-ph/0209353. 16

2003 arXiv
[99]

P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe JHEP 11 (2000) 001, arXiv:hep-ph/0010177. 16, 18

2000 arXiv
[100]

Kurkela and E

A. Kurkela and E. Lu Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) no. 18, 182301, arXiv:1405.6318 [hep-ph]. 16

2014 arXiv
[101]

Kurkela and Y

A. Kurkela and Y. Zhu Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015) no. 18, 182301, arXiv:1506.06647 [hep-ph]. 16

2015 arXiv
[102]

Baier, A

R. Baier, A. H. Mueller, D. Schiff, and D. T. Son Phys. Lett. B 502 (2001) 51–58, arXiv:hep-ph/0009237. 16 50 Xin-Nian Wang, Urs Achim Wiedemann

2001 arXiv
[103]

Caron-Huot and C

S. Caron-Huot and C. Gale Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 064902, arXiv:1006.2379 [hep-ph] . 16

2010 arXiv
[104]

P. B. Arnold Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 065025, arXiv:0808.2767 [hep-ph] . 16

2009 arXiv
[105]

Mehtar-Tani JHEP 07 (2019) 057, arXiv:1903.00506 [hep-ph]

Y. Mehtar-Tani JHEP 07 (2019) 057, arXiv:1903.00506 [hep-ph] . 16, 17

2019 arXiv
[106]

Ovanesyan and I

G. Ovanesyan and I. Vitev JHEP 06 (2011) 080, arXiv:1103.1074 [hep-ph] . 17

2011 arXiv
[107]

Ovanesyan and I

G. Ovanesyan and I. Vitev Phys. Lett. B 706 (2012) 371–378, arXiv:1109.5619 [hep-ph]. 17

2012 arXiv
[108]

Blaizot, F

J.-P. Blaizot, F. Dominguez, E. Iancu, and Y. Mehtar-Tani JHEP 01 (2013) 143, arXiv:1209.4585 [hep-ph] . 17

2013 arXiv
[109]

Apolin ´ario, N

L. Apolin ´ario, N. Armesto, J. G. Milhano, and C. A. Salgado JHEP 02 (2015) 119, arXiv:1407.0599 [hep-ph] . 17

2015 arXiv
[110]

X. Feal, C. A. Salgado, and R. A. Vazquez Phys. Lett. B 816 (2021) 136251, arXiv:1911.01309 [hep-ph] . 17, 29

2021 arXiv
[111]

Andres, L

C. Andres, L. Apolin ´ario, and F. Dominguez JHEP 07 (2020) 114, arXiv:2002.01517 [hep-ph]. 17

2020 arXiv
[112]

Andres, F

C. Andres, F. Dominguez, and M. Gonzalez Martinez JHEP 03 (2021) 102, arXiv:2011.06522 [hep-ph] . 17

2021 arXiv
[113]

Barata, Y

J. Barata, Y. Mehtar-Tani, A. Soto-Ontoso, and K. Tywoniuk JHEP 09 (2021) 153, arXiv:2106.07402 [hep-ph] . 17

2021 arXiv
[114]

Schlichting and I

S. Schlichting and I. Soudi Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no. 7, 076002, arXiv:2111.13731 [hep-ph]. 17

2022 arXiv
[115]

J. H. Isaksen, A. Takacs, and K. Tywoniuk JHEP 02 (2023) 156, arXiv:2206.02811 [hep-ph]. 17

2023 arXiv
[116]

J. H. Isaksen and K. Tywoniuk JHEP 21 (2020) 125, arXiv:2107.02542 [hep-ph] . 17

2020 arXiv
[117]

Attems, J

M. Attems, J. Brewer, G. M. Innocenti, A. Mazeliauskas, S. Park, W. van der Schee, and U. A. Wiedemann JHEP 01 (2023) 080, arXiv:2203.11241 [hep-ph] . 17

2023 arXiv
[118]

Attems, J

M. Attems, J. Brewer, G. M. Innocenti, A. Mazeliauskas, S. Park, W. van der Schee, G. Soyez, and U. A. Wiedemann Phys. Rev. Lett.132 (2024) no. 21, 212301, arXiv:2209.13600 [hep-ph] . 17

2024 arXiv
[119]

T. Liou, A. H. Mueller, and B. Wu Nucl. Phys. A 916 (2013) 102–125, arXiv:1304.7677 [hep-ph]. 17

2013 arXiv
[120]

Blaizot and Y

J.-P. Blaizot and Y. Mehtar-Tani Nucl. Phys. A929 (2014) 202–229, arXiv:1403.2323 [hep-ph]. 17

2014 arXiv
[121]

Wu JHEP 12 (2014) 081, arXiv:1408.5459 [hep-ph]

B. Wu JHEP 12 (2014) 081, arXiv:1408.5459 [hep-ph] . 17

2014 arXiv
[122]

Armesto, H

N. Armesto, H. Ma, Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk JHEP01 (2012) 109, arXiv:1110.4343 [hep-ph] . 17

2012 arXiv
[123]

Casalderrey-Solana and E

J. Casalderrey-Solana and E. Iancu JHEP 08 (2011) 015, arXiv:1105.1760 [hep-ph] . 17

2011 arXiv
[124]

Mehtar-Tani, C

Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk JHEP 10 (2012) 197, arXiv:1205.5739 [hep-ph]. 17, 37

2012 arXiv
[125]

Barata, F

J. Barata, F. Dom ´ınguez, C. A. Salgado, and V. Vila JHEP05 (2021) 148, arXiv:2101.12135 [hep-ph] . 17

2021 arXiv
[126]

Arnold and S

P. Arnold and S. Iqbal JHEP 04 (2015) 070, arXiv:1501.04964 [hep-ph] . [Erratum: JHEP 09, 072 (2016)]. 17

2015 arXiv
[127]

Arnold, H.-C

P. Arnold, H.-C. Chang, and S. Iqbal JHEP 09 (2016) 078, arXiv:1605.07624 [hep-ph]. 17

2016
[128]

Arnold, T

P. Arnold, T. Gorda, and S. Iqbal JHEP 11 (2020) 053, arXiv:2007.15018 [hep-ph] . [Erratum: JHEP 05, 114 (2022)]. 17

2020 arXiv
[129]

Arnold, O

P. Arnold, O. Elgedawy, and S. Iqbal Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) no. 16, 162302, arXiv:2212.08086 [hep-ph] . 17

2023 arXiv
[130]

J. M. Maldacena Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 231–252, arXiv:hep-th/9711200. 18

1998 arXiv
[131]

S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. W. Peet Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 3915–3919, arXiv:hep-th/9602135. 18

1996 arXiv
[132]

Policastro, D

G. Policastro, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 081601, arXiv:hep-th/0104066. 18 QGP@50: More than Four Decades of Jet Quenching 51

2001 arXiv
[133]

Casalderrey-Solana, H

J. Casalderrey-Solana, H. Liu, D. Mateos, K. Rajagopal, and U. A. Wiedemann, Gauge/String Duality, Hot QCD and Heavy Ion Collisions. Cambridge University Press,
[134]

Ghiglieri, G

J. Ghiglieri, G. D. Moore, and D. Teaney JHEP 03 (2018) 179, arXiv:1802.09535 [hep-ph]. 18

2018 arXiv
[135]

Kovtun, D

P. Kovtun, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 111601, arXiv:hep-th/0405231. 18

2005 arXiv
[136]

Teaney Phys

D. Teaney Phys. Rev. C 68 (2003) 034913, arXiv:nucl-th/0301099. 18

2003 arXiv
[137]

C. P. Herzog, A. Karch, P. Kovtun, C. Kozcaz, and L. G. Yaffe JHEP 07 (2006) 013, arXiv:hep-th/0605158. 19, 20

2006 arXiv
[138]

P. M. Chesler and L. G. Yaffe Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 045013, arXiv:0712.0050 [hep-th]. 19, 21

2008 arXiv
[139]

H. Liu, K. Rajagopal, and U. A. Wiedemann Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 182301, arXiv:hep-ph/0605178. 19

2006 arXiv
[140]

D’Eramo, H

F. D’Eramo, H. Liu, and K. Rajagopal Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 065015, arXiv:1006.1367 [hep-ph]. 19

2011 arXiv
[141]

Casalderrey-Solana and D

J. Casalderrey-Solana and D. Teaney Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 085012, arXiv:hep-ph/0605199. 19, 20

2006 arXiv
[142]

S. S. Gubser Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 126005, arXiv:hep-th/0605182. 19, 20

2006 arXiv
[143]

Casalderrey-Solana and D

J. Casalderrey-Solana and D. Teaney JHEP 04 (2007) 039, arXiv:hep-th/0701123. 20

2007 arXiv
[144]

S. S. Gubser Nucl. Phys. B 790 (2008) 175–199, arXiv:hep-th/0612143. 20

2008 arXiv
[145]

G. D. Moore and D. Teaney Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 064904, arXiv:hep-ph/0412346. 20

2005 arXiv
[146]

Rajagopal, B

K. Rajagopal, B. Scheihing-Hitschfeld, and U. A. Wiedemann JHEP 07 (2025) 013, arXiv:2501.06289 [hep-ph] . 20, 21

2025 arXiv
[147]

Rajagopal, B

K. Rajagopal, B. Scheihing-Hitschfeld, and U. A. Wiedemann arXiv:2504.21139 [hep-ph]. 21
[148]

Bhattacharyya, V

S. Bhattacharyya, V. E. Hubeny, S. Minwalla, and M. Rangamani JHEP 02 (2008) 045, arXiv:0712.2456 [hep-th] . 21

2008 arXiv
[149]

P. M. Chesler and L. G. Yaffe Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 152001, arXiv:0706.0368 [hep-th]. 21

2007 arXiv
[150]

S. S. Gubser, S. S. Pufu, and A. Yarom Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 012301, arXiv:0706.4307 [hep-th] . 21

2008 arXiv
[151]

Casalderrey-Solana, E

J. Casalderrey-Solana, E. V. Shuryak, and D. Teaney arXiv:hep-ph/0602183. 21

arXiv
[152]

P. M. Chesler, K. Jensen, A. Karch, and L. G. Yaffe Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 125015, arXiv:0810.1985 [hep-th] . 21

2009 arXiv
[153]

P. M. Chesler and K. Rajagopal Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) no. 2, 025033, arXiv:1402.6756 [hep-th]. 21, 34

2014 arXiv
[154]

S. S. Gubser, D. R. Gulotta, S. S. Pufu, and F. D. Rocha JHEP 10 (2008) 052, arXiv:0803.1470 [hep-th] . 21

2008 arXiv
[155]

Ficnar, S

A. Ficnar, S. S. Gubser, and M. Gyulassy Phys. Lett. B 738 (2014) 464–471, arXiv:1311.6160 [hep-ph] . 21

2014 arXiv
[156]

Satz and X

H. Satz and X. N. Wang Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10 (1995) 2881–3090. 22

1995
[157]

Satz and X

H. Satz and X. N. Wang Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 12 (2003) 147 –271. 22

2003
[158]

Lourenco and H

C. Lourenco and H. Satz, eds., Proceedings, 1st International Conference on Hard and Electromagnetic Probes of High-Energy Nuclear Collisions (Hard Probes 2004): Ericeira, Portugal, November 4-10, 2004, vol. 43. 2005. 22

2004
[159]

X.-N. Wang, Z. Huang, and I. Sarcevic Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 231–234, arXiv:hep-ph/9605213. 22, 27

1996 arXiv
[160]

Gyulassy and P

M. Gyulassy and P. Levai Phys. Lett. B 442 (1998) 1–6, arXiv:hep-ph/9807247. 22

1998 arXiv
[161]

Wang Phys

X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. C 61 (2000) 064910, arXiv:nucl-th/9812021. 22

2000 arXiv
[162]

Wang Phys

X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. C 63 (2001) 054902, arXiv:nucl-th/0009019. 22

2001 arXiv
[163]

Gyulassy, I

M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, and X. N. Wang Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 2537–2540, arXiv:nucl-th/0012092. 22

2001 arXiv
[164]

PHENIX Collaboration, W. A. Zajc et al. Nucl. Phys. A 698 (2002) 39–53, arXiv:nucl-ex/0106001. 22 52 Xin-Nian Wang, Urs Achim Wiedemann

2002 arXiv
[165]

Adler et al

STAR Collaboration, C. Adler et al. Nucl. Phys. A 698 (2002) 64–77. 22

2002
[166]

Adcox et al

PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 022301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0109003. 22, 42

2002 arXiv
[167]

Adler et al

STAR Collaboration, C. Adler et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 202301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0206011. 22, 23, 42

2002 arXiv
[168]

Wang Phys

X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 2655–2658, arXiv:hep-ph/9804384. 22

1998 arXiv
[169]

Adams et al

STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 162301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0604018. 22

2006 arXiv
[170]

Vitev and M

I. Vitev and M. Gyulassy Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 252301, arXiv:hep-ph/0209161. 22, 27

2002 arXiv
[171]

PHENIX Collaboration, S. S. Adler et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 072303, arXiv:nucl-ex/0306021. 23, 42

2003 arXiv
[172]

Adams et al

STAR Collaboration, J. Adams et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 072304, arXiv:nucl-ex/0306024. 23, 42

2003 arXiv
[173]

PHOBOS Collaboration, B. B. Back et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 072302, arXiv:nucl-ex/0306025. 23, 42

2003 arXiv
[174]

Arsene et al

BRAHMS Collaboration, I. Arsene et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 242303, arXiv:nucl-ex/0403005. 23, 42

2004 arXiv
[175]

PHENIX Collaboration, S. S. Adler et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 232301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0503003. 23, 42

2005 arXiv
[176]

Adler et al

STAR Collaboration, C. Adler et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 032301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0206006. 23, 42

2003 arXiv
[177]

Zhang, J

H. Zhang, J. F. Owens, E. Wang, and X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 212301, arXiv:nucl-th/0701045. 23, 27

2007 arXiv
[178]

K. J. Eskola, H. Honkanen, C. A. Salgado, and U. A. Wiedemann Nucl. Phys. A 747 (2005) 511–529, arXiv:hep-ph/0406319. 23, 27

2005 arXiv
[179]

Zhang, J

H. Zhang, J. F. Owens, E. Wang, and X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 032302, arXiv:0902.4000 [nucl-th] . 23, 27

2009 arXiv
[180]

Adare et al

PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al. Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 024908, arXiv:0903.3399 [nucl-ex]. 23, 42

2009 arXiv
[181]

STAR Collaboration, B. I. Abelev et al. Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 034909, arXiv:0912.1871 [nucl-ex]. 23, 42

2010 arXiv
[182]

Adamczyk et al

STAR Collaboration, L. Adamczyk et al. Phys. Lett. B 760 (2016) 689–696, arXiv:1604.01117 [nucl-ex] . 23, 42

2016 arXiv
[183]

Adcox et al

PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 242301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0112006. 23, 42

2002 arXiv
[184]

PHENIX Collaboration, S. S. Adler et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 172301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0305036. 23, 24

2003 arXiv
[185]

PHENIX Collaboration, S. S. Adler et al. Phys. Rev. C 69 (2004) 034909, arXiv:nucl-ex/0307022. 23

2004 arXiv
[186]

R. J. Fries, B. Muller, C. Nonaka, and S. A. Bass Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 202303, arXiv:nucl-th/0301087. 23

2003 arXiv
[187]

Greco, C

V. Greco, C. M. Ko, and P. Levai Phys. Rev. Lett.90 (2003) 202302, arXiv:nucl-th/0301093. 23

2003 arXiv
[188]

PHENIX Collaboration, S. S. Adler et al. Phys. Rev. C 69 (2004) 034910, arXiv:nucl-ex/0308006. 24

2004 arXiv
[189]

PHENIX Collaboration, S. S. Adler et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 202301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0601037. 24

2006 arXiv
[190]

Acharya et al

ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. Phys. Rev. C 101 (2020) no. 4, 044907, arXiv:1910.07678 [nucl-ex] . 24

2020 arXiv
[191]

Y. L. Dokshitzer and D. E. Kharzeev Phys. Lett. B 519 (2001) 199–206, arXiv:hep-ph/0106202. 24

2001 arXiv
[192]

Armesto, C

N. Armesto, C. A. Salgado, and U. A. Wiedemann Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 114003, arXiv:hep-ph/0312106. 24 QGP@50: More than Four Decades of Jet Quenching 53

2004 arXiv
[193]

Zhang, E

B.-W. Zhang, E. Wang, and X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. Lett.93 (2004) 072301, arXiv:nucl-th/0309040. 24

2004 arXiv
[194]

Djordjevic and M

M. Djordjevic and M. Gyulassy Nucl. Phys. A 733 (2004) 265–298, arXiv:nucl-th/0310076. 24

2004 arXiv
[195]

Adcox et al

PHENIX Collaboration, K. Adcox et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 192303, arXiv:nucl-ex/0202002. 24

2002 arXiv
[196]

PHENIX Collaboration, S. S. Adler et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 032301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0510047. 24, 42

2006 arXiv
[197]

STAR Collaboration, B. I. Abelev et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 192301, arXiv:nucl-ex/0607012. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 106, 159902 (2011)]. 24, 42

2007 arXiv
[198]

Adamczyk et al

STAR Collaboration, L. Adamczyk et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) no. 14, 142301, arXiv:1404.6185 [nucl-ex] . [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 229901 (2018)]. 24, 43

2014 arXiv
[199]

Abelev et al

ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. JHEP 09 (2012) 112, arXiv:1203.2160 [nucl-ex]. 24, 42

2012 arXiv
[200]

Adamczyk et al

STAR Collaboration, L. Adamczyk et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) no. 21, 212301, arXiv:1701.06060 [nucl-ex] . 24, 43

2017 arXiv
[201]

Adam et al

STAR Collaboration, J. Adam et al. Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) no. 3, 034908, arXiv:1812.10224 [nucl-ex] . 24, 43

2019 arXiv
[202]

Wicks, W

S. Wicks, W. Horowitz, M. Djordjevic, and M. Gyulassy Nucl. Phys. A784 (2007) 426–442, arXiv:nucl-th/0512076. 24

2007 arXiv
[203]

Otwinowski J

ALICE Collaboration, J. Otwinowski J. Phys. G 38 (2011) 124112, arXiv:1110.2985 [hep-ex]. 25

2011 arXiv
[204]

Khachatryan et al

CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al. JHEP 04 (2017) 039, arXiv:1611.01664 [nucl-ex]. 25, 43

2017 arXiv
[205]

Abelev et al

ALICE Collaboration, B. Abelev et al. Phys. Lett. B 720 (2013) 52–62, arXiv:1208.2711 [hep-ex]. 25, 43

2013 arXiv
[206]

Aad et al

ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al. JHEP 09 (2015) 050, arXiv:1504.04337 [hep-ex] . 25, 43

2015 arXiv
[207]

Aamodt et al

ALICE Collaboration, K. Aamodt et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 092301, arXiv:1110.0121 [nucl-ex] . 25

2012 arXiv
[208]

Adam et al

ALICE Collaboration, J. Adam et al. Phys. Lett. B 763 (2016) 238–250, arXiv:1608.07201 [nucl-ex] . 25

2016 arXiv
[209]

CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) no. 24, 242301, arXiv:1801.04895 [hep-ex] . 25, 40, 43

2018 arXiv
[210]

Aaboud et al

ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) no. 4, 042001, arXiv:1902.10007 [nucl-ex] . 25, 43

2019 arXiv
[211]

Aad et al

ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) no. 7, 072301, arXiv:2008.09811 [nucl-ex] . 25, 44

2021 arXiv
[212]

CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) no. 12, 122301, arXiv:2103.04377 [hep-ex] . 25, 44

2022 arXiv
[213]

CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) no. 15, 152301, arXiv:1705.04727 [hep-ex] . 26, 43

2017 arXiv
[214]

CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) no. 2, 022001, arXiv:1810.11102 [hep-ex] . 26, 43

2019 arXiv
[215]

CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no. 6, 509, arXiv:1712.08959 [nucl-ex] . 26, 43

2018 arXiv
[216]

Aad et al

ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al. Phys. Lett. B 829 (2022) 137077, arXiv:2109.00411 [nucl-ex]. 26, 43

2022 arXiv
[217]

Acharya et al

ALICE Collaboration, S. Acharya et al. JHEP 12 (2022) 126, arXiv:2202.00815 [nucl-ex]. 26, 43

2022 arXiv
[218]

W.-J. Xing, S. Cao, G.-Y. Qin, and H. Xing Phys. Lett. B 805 (2020) 135424, arXiv:1906.00413 [hep-ph] . 26

2020 arXiv
[219]

Baier, Y

R. Baier, Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller, and D. Schiff JHEP 09 (2001) 033, arXiv:hep-ph/0106347. 26 54 Xin-Nian Wang, Urs Achim Wiedemann

2001 arXiv
[220]

Baier, Y

R. Baier, Y. L. Dokshitzer, A. H. Mueller, and D. Schiff Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 1706–1713, arXiv:hep-ph/9803473. 27

1998 arXiv
[221]

C. A. Salgado and U. A. Wiedemann Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 014008, arXiv:hep-ph/0302184. 27

2003 arXiv
[222]

C. A. Salgado and U. A. Wiedemann Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 092303, arXiv:hep-ph/0204221. 27

2002 arXiv
[223]

Dainese, C

A. Dainese, C. Loizides, and G. Paic Eur. Phys. J. C 38 (2005) 461–474, arXiv:hep-ph/0406201. 27

2005 arXiv
[224]

Wang and X.-N

E. Wang and X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 162301, arXiv:hep-ph/0202105. 27, 28

2002 arXiv
[225]

G.-Y. Qin, J. Ruppert, C. Gale, S. Jeon, G. D. Moore, and M. G. Mustafa Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 072301, arXiv:0710.0605 [hep-ph] . 27, 33

2008 arXiv
[226]

Wang Phys

X.-N. Wang Phys. Lett. B 595 (2004) 165–170, arXiv:nucl-th/0305010. 27

2004 arXiv
[227]

Renk Phys

T. Renk Phys. Rev. C 74 (2006) 024903, arXiv:hep-ph/0602045. 27

2006 arXiv
[228]

G.-Y. Qin, J. Ruppert, C. Gale, S. Jeon, and G. D. Moore Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 054909, arXiv:0906.3280 [hep-ph] . 27, 33

2009 arXiv
[229]

Armesto, M

N. Armesto, M. Cacciari, T. Hirano, J. L. Nagle, and C. A. Salgado J. Phys. G 37 (2010) 025104, arXiv:0907.0667 [hep-ph] . 27

2010 arXiv
[230]

S. A. Bass, C. Gale, A. Majumder, C. Nonaka, G.-Y. Qin, T. Renk, and J. Ruppert Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009) 024901, arXiv:0808.0908 [nucl-th] . 28

2009 arXiv
[231]

JET Collaboration, K. M. Burke et al. Phys. Rev. C 90 (2014) no. 1, 014909, arXiv:1312.5003 [nucl-th] . 28, 29

2014 arXiv
[232]

Chang, W.-T

N.-B. Chang, W.-T. Deng, and X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. C89 (2014) no. 3, 034911, arXiv:1401.5109 [nucl-th] . 28

2014 arXiv
[233]

Cao et al

JETSCAPE Collaboration, S. Cao et al. Phys. Rev. C 104 (2021) no. 2, 024905, arXiv:2102.11337 [nucl-th] . 28, 29

2021 arXiv
[234]

M. Xie, W. Ke, H. Zhang, and X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. C 109 (2024) no. 6, 064917, arXiv:2208.14419 [hep-ph] . 28, 29

2024 arXiv
[235]

Andr ´es, N

C. Andr ´es, N. Armesto, M. Luzum, C. A. Salgado, and P. Zurita Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) no. 9, 475, arXiv:1606.04837 [hep-ph] . 29

2016 arXiv
[236]

Xie, X.-N

M. Xie, X.-N. Wang, and H.-Z. Zhang Phys. Rev. C 103 (2021) no. 3, 034911, arXiv:2003.02441 [hep-ph] . 29

2021 arXiv
[237]

Ke and X.-N

W. Ke and X.-N. Wang JHEP 05 (2021) 041, arXiv:2010.13680 [hep-ph] . 29

2021 arXiv
[238]

Apolin ´ario, Y.-J

L. Apolin ´ario, Y.-J. Lee, and M. Winn Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.127 (2022) 103990, arXiv:2203.16352 [hep-ph] . 29

2022 arXiv
[239]

M. Xie, W. Ke, H. Zhang, and X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. C 108 (2023) no. 1, L011901, arXiv:2206.01340 [hep-ph] . 29

2023 arXiv
[240]

A. Huss, A. Kurkela, A. Mazeliauskas, R. Paatelainen, W. van der Schee, and U. A. Wiedemann Phys. Rev. C103 (2021) no. 5, 054903, arXiv:2007.13758 [hep-ph] . 29

2021 arXiv
[241]

Loizides and A

C. Loizides and A. Morsch Phys. Lett. B 773 (2017) 408–411, arXiv:1705.08856 [nucl-ex]. 30

2017 arXiv
[242]

Armesto, D

N. Armesto, D. C. G¨ ulhan, and J. G. Milhano Phys. Lett. B747 (2015) 441–445, arXiv:1502.02986 [hep-ph] . 30

2015 arXiv
[243]

A. Huss, A. Kurkela, A. Mazeliauskas, R. Paatelainen, W. van der Schee, and U. A. Wiedemann Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021) no. 19, 192301, arXiv:2007.13754 [hep-ph] . 30

2021 arXiv
[244]

K. Zapp, G. Ingelman, J. Rathsman, J. Stachel, and U. A. Wiedemann Eur. Phys. J. C 60 (2009) 617–632, arXiv:0804.3568 [hep-ph] . 31, 32

2009 arXiv
[245]

Borghini and U

N. Borghini and U. A. Wiedemann arXiv:hep-ph/0506218. 31

arXiv
[246]

Borghini and U

N. Borghini and U. A. Wiedemann Nucl. Phys. A 774 (2006) 549–552, arXiv:hep-ph/0509364. 31

2006 arXiv
[247]

Vitev, S

I. Vitev, S. Wicks, and B.-W. Zhang JHEP 11 (2008) 093, arXiv:0810.2807 [hep-ph] . 31

2008 arXiv
[248]

Vitev and B.-W

I. Vitev and B.-W. Zhang Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 132001, arXiv:0910.1090 [hep-ph]. 31 QGP@50: More than Four Decades of Jet Quenching 55

2010 arXiv
[249]

Armesto, C

N. Armesto, C. A. Salgado, and U. A. Wiedemann Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 242301, arXiv:hep-ph/0405301. 31

2004 arXiv
[250]

Sapeta and U

S. Sapeta and U. A. Wiedemann Eur. Phys. J. C 55 (2008) 293–302, arXiv:0707.3494 [hep-ph]. 31

2008 arXiv
[251]

Majumder, B

A. Majumder, B. Muller, and S. A. Bass Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 042301, arXiv:hep-ph/0611135. 31

2007 arXiv
[252]

Chatrchyan et al

CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al. Phys. Lett. B 718 (2013) 773–794, arXiv:1205.0206 [nucl-ex] . 31, 35, 36, 43

2013 arXiv
[253]

Casalderrey-Solana, J

J. Casalderrey-Solana, J. G. Milhano, and U. A. Wiedemann J. Phys. G 38 (2011) 035006, arXiv:1012.0745 [hep-ph] . 31

2011 arXiv
[254]

Qin and B

G.-Y. Qin and B. Muller Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 162302, arXiv:1012.5280 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 108, 189904 (2012)]. 31, 35, 36

2011 arXiv
[255]

Cacciari, G

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1692, arXiv:1101.2878 [hep-ph]. 31

2011 arXiv
[256]

Young, B

C. Young, B. Schenke, S. Jeon, and C. Gale Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 024907, arXiv:1103.5769 [nucl-th] . 31, 35

2011 arXiv
[257]

I. P. Lokhtin, A. V. Belyaev, and A. M. Snigirev Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011) 1650, arXiv:1103.1853 [hep-ph] . 31

2011 arXiv
[258]

Renk Phys

T. Renk Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 067902, arXiv:1110.2313 [hep-ph] . 31

2011 arXiv
[259]

A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult, and B. Nachman Phys. Rept. 841 (2020) 1–63, arXiv:1709.04464 [hep-ph] . 31

2020 arXiv
[260]

Cacciari and G

M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006) 57–61, arXiv:hep-ph/0512210. 31

2006 arXiv
[261]

Cacciari, G

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez JHEP 04 (2008) 063, arXiv:0802.1189 [hep-ph]. 31

2008 arXiv
[262]

Cacciari, G

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896, arXiv:1111.6097 [hep-ph]. 31

2012 arXiv
[263]

G. F. Sterman and S. Weinberg Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 1436. 31

1977
[264]

Cacciari, G

M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez JHEP 04 (2008) 005, arXiv:0802.1188 [hep-ph]. 31

2008 arXiv
[265]

Cacciari and G

M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 119–126, arXiv:0707.1378 [hep-ph]. 31

2008 arXiv
[266]

Cacciari, J

M. Cacciari, J. Rojo, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1539, arXiv:1010.1759 [hep-ph] . 31

2011 arXiv
[267]

A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler JHEP 05 (2014) 146, arXiv:1402.2657 [hep-ph] . 32

2014 arXiv
[268]

G. P. Salam Nucl. Phys. A 982 (2019) 149–155. 32

2019
[269]

CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) no. 14, 142302, arXiv:1708.09429 [nucl-ex] . 32, 43

2018 arXiv
[270]

Brewer, W

J. Brewer, W. van der Schee, and U. Wiedemann arXiv:2503.11764 [hep-ph] . 32

arXiv
[271]

Apolin ´ario, P

L. Apolin ´ario, P. Guerrero-Rodr´ıguez, and K. Zapp Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no. 7, 672, arXiv:2401.14229 [hep-ph] . 32

2024 arXiv
[272]

Armesto, L

N. Armesto, L. Cunqueiro, C. A. Salgado, and W.-C. Xiang JHEP 02 (2008) 048, arXiv:0710.3073 [hep-ph] . 32

2008 arXiv
[273]

Renk Phys

T. Renk Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008) 034908, arXiv:0806.0305 [hep-ph] . 32

2008 arXiv
[274]

Armesto, L

N. Armesto, L. Cunqueiro, and C. A. Salgado Eur. Phys. J. C 63 (2009) 679–690, arXiv:0907.1014 [hep-ph] . 32

2009 arXiv
[275]

Geiger and B

K. Geiger and B. Muller Nucl. Phys. B 369 (1992) 600–654. 32

1992
[276]

Zhang Comput

B. Zhang Comput. Phys. Commun. 109 (1998) 193–206, arXiv:nucl-th/9709009. 32

1998 arXiv
[277]

Z.-W. Lin, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, B. Zhang, and S. Pal Phys. Rev. C 72 (2005) 064901, arXiv:nucl-th/0411110. 32

2005 arXiv
[278]

Xu and C

Z. Xu and C. Greiner Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 064901, arXiv:hep-ph/0406278. 32

2005 arXiv
[279]

K. Zapp, J. Stachel, and U. A. Wiedemann Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 152302, arXiv:0812.3888 [hep-ph] . 32

2009 arXiv
[280]

K. C. Zapp, F. Krauss, and U. A. Wiedemann JHEP 03 (2013) 080, arXiv:1212.1599 [hep-ph]. 32 56 Xin-Nian Wang, Urs Achim Wiedemann

2013 arXiv
[281]

Schenke, C

B. Schenke, C. Gale, and S. Jeon Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 054913, arXiv:0909.2037 [hep-ph]. 33

2009 arXiv
[282]

P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe JHEP 06 (2002) 030, arXiv:hep-ph/0204343. 33

2002 arXiv
[283]

H. Li, F. Liu, G.-l. Ma, X.-N. Wang, and Y. Zhu Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 012301, arXiv:1006.2893 [nucl-th] . 33

2011 arXiv
[284]

Y. He, T. Luo, X.-N. Wang, and Y. Zhu Phys. Rev. C91 (2015) 054908, arXiv:1503.03313 [nucl-th] . [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 97, 019902 (2018)]. 33, 37

2015 arXiv
[285]

T. Luo, Y. He, S. Cao, and X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. C109 (2024) no. 3, 034919, arXiv:2306.13742 [nucl-th] . 33, 37

2024 arXiv
[286]

Wang and Y

X.-N. Wang and Y. Zhu Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) no. 6, 062301, arXiv:1302.5874 [hep-ph]. 33, 35

2013 arXiv
[287]

W. Chen, S. Cao, T. Luo, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang Phys. Lett. B 777 (2018) 86–90, arXiv:1704.03648 [nucl-th] . 34, 40

2018 arXiv
[288]

W. Zhao, W. Ke, W. Chen, T. Luo, and X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. Lett.128 (2022) no. 2, 022302, arXiv:2103.14657 [hep-ph] . 34

2022 arXiv
[289]

Casalderrey-Solana, D

J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. C. Gulhan, J. G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal JHEP 10 (2014) 019, arXiv:1405.3864 [hep-ph] . [Erratum: JHEP 09, 175 (2015)]. 34

2014 arXiv
[290]

J. H. Putschke et al. arXiv:1903.07706 [nucl-th] . 34

1903 arXiv
[291]

Majumder Phys

A. Majumder Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 014909, arXiv:1301.5323 [nucl-th] . 34

2013 arXiv
[292]

Caucal, E

P. Caucal, E. Iancu, A. H. Mueller, and G. Soyez PoS HardProbes2018 (2019) 028, arXiv:1812.05393 [hep-ph] . 34

2019 arXiv
[293]

Caucal, E

P. Caucal, E. Iancu, A. H. Mueller, and G. Soyez JHEP 10 (2020) 204, arXiv:2005.05852 [hep-ph]. 34

2020 arXiv
[294]

Caucal, E

P. Caucal, E. Iancu, and G. Soyez JHEP 04 (2021) 209, arXiv:2012.01457 [hep-ph] . 34

2021 arXiv
[295]

Caucal, E

P. Caucal, E. Iancu, A. H. Mueller, and G. Soyez Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 232001, arXiv:1801.09703 [hep-ph] . 34, 37

2018 arXiv
[296]

Z. Yang, T. Luo, W. Chen, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang Phys. Rev. Lett.130 (2023) no. 5, 052301, arXiv:2203.03683 [hep-ph] . 35, 36, 41

2023 arXiv
[297]

CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) no. 8, 082301, arXiv:1702.01060 [nucl-ex] . 35, 43

2017 arXiv
[298]

Aaboud et al

ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al. Phys. Lett. B 789 (2019) 167–190, arXiv:1809.07280 [nucl-ex] . 35

2019 arXiv
[299]

STAR Collaboration, B. E. Aboona et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (2025) no. 23, 232301, arXiv:2309.00156 [nucl-ex] . 35, 44

2025 arXiv
[2014]

arXiv:1101.0618 [hep-th] . 18

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Baier, D

R. Baier, D. Schiff, and B. G. Zakharov Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 50 (2000) 37–69, arXiv:hep-ph/0002198. 2, 8, 13 QGP@50: More than Four Decades of Jet Quenching 47

arXiv 2000

[2] [2]

Gyulassy, I

M. Gyulassy, I. Vitev, X.-N. Wang, and B.-W. Zhang in QGP3, edited by R. C Hwa and X.-N. Wang, World Scientific (Singapore) (2004) 123–191,arXiv:nucl-th/0302077. 2

arXiv 2004

[3] [3]

Kovner and U

A. Kovner and U. A. Wiedemann in QGP3, edited by R. C Hwa and X.-N. Wang, World Scientific (Singapore) (2004) 192–248, arXiv:hep-ph/0304151. 2, 8, 9, 13

arXiv 2004

[4] [4]

Casalderrey-Solana and C

J. Casalderrey-Solana and C. A. Salgado Acta Phys. Polon. B 38 (2007) 3731–3794, arXiv:0712.3443 [hep-ph] . 2, 8, 13

arXiv 2007

[5] [5]

U. A. Wiedemann arXiv:0908.2306 [hep-ph] . 2, 8, 13

arXiv

[6] [6]

J. P. Blaizot and Y. Mehtar-Tani Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24 (2015) no. 11, 1530012, arXiv:1503.05958 [hep-ph] . 2

arXiv 2015

[7] [7]

Qin and X.-N

G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24 (2015) no. 11, 1530014, arXiv:1511.00790 [hep-ph] . 2

arXiv 2015

[8] [8]

Cao and X.-N

S. Cao and X.-N. Wang Rept. Prog. Phys. 84 (2021) no. 2, 024301, arXiv:2002.04028 [hep-ph]. 2, 16, 40

arXiv 2021