Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Predictions for $R_{AA}$ in 5.36 TeV C+C, O+O, and Ne+Ne collisions at the LHC

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For C+C and O+O at 5.36 TeV, R_AA differs by ~0.1–0.15 depending on whether pp collisions make a mini-QGP.

desk verdict A clear, falsifiable set of predictions for R_AA in light-ion collisions that deserves referee time, but the headline difference rests on an unobservable R_pp computed inside the same model. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07741 v1 pith:DLFTUFSD submitted 2025-09-09 hep-ph nucl-th

B.G. Zakharov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords nuclearmodificationfactorjetquenchingsmallcollisionsystemsquark-gluonplasmalightioncollisionsLHCR_pppartonenergyloss
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 predicts the nuclear modification factor R_AA for charged hadrons in 5.36 TeV C+C, O+O, and Ne+Ne collisions at the LHC, comparing two scenarios: one where pp collisions produce a small quark-gluon plasma (mini-QGP) and one where they do not. The central result is that the two scenarios differ measurably: for minimum-bias C+C and O+O, R_AA in the mini-QGP scenario is larger by about 0.1–0.15 at transverse momentum between 10 and 20 GeV. The difference grows as the atomic number decreases, because for large nuclei the refit of the coupling absorbs the effect, whereas for small nuclei the R_pp factor in the denominator survives. If the prediction holds, measured light-ion R_AA data could settle whether jets are quenched in ordinary pp collisions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the identity R_AA = R_st^AA / R_pp, where R_st^AA is the nuclear modification factor computed with ordinary pQCD in the denominator and R_pp is the medium modification factor for jets in pp collisions. The energy-loss side is the LCPI approach to induced gluon emission, extended with a temperature-dependent running coupling α_s(Q,T) with a single fitted parameter κ. For small systems, the N=1 rescattering term dominates the induced gluon spectrum and is a linear functional of the medium density profile, which is what suppresses event-by-event fluctuations in the model.

What would settle it

Measure minimum-bias charged-hadron R_AA in 5.36 TeV C+C and O+O collisions at pT ~ 10–20 GeV: if the data match the no-mini-QGP prediction within ~0.02 while the mini-QGP prediction lies 0.1–0.15 above, the central claim fails; conversely, if the data land in the upper band, the claim is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the identity R_AA = R_st^AA / R_pp, where R_pp is the medium modification factor for jets in pp collisions, makes light-ion collisions a clean discriminator of mini-QGP formation in pp. Because the energy-loss calculation is refitted to heavy-ion data so that both scenarios give nearly the same R_AA for large nuclei, the difference for C, O, and Ne comes almost entirely from R_pp being less than unity. The magnitude is driven by the paper's Eq. (12): ΔR_AA ≈ R_st^AA(w/o mQGP)(1 − R_pp), giving 0.1–0.15 at pT ~ 10–20 GeV for minimum-bias C+C and O+O. The predictions are parameter-free after fitting a single coupling parameter κ to 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb data, and the

Load-bearing premise

The induced gluon spectrum for small systems is dominated by the single-rescattering term, which is a linear functional of the medium density; if higher-order rescatterings or nonlinear density fluctuations matter, the extrapolation from heavy-ion fits would carry much larger uncertainties than the paper assumes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Minimum-bias C+C and O+O collisions at 5.36 TeV should show ΔR_AA of about 0.1–0.15 at pT ~ 10–20 GeV, with the mini-QGP scenario giving the larger R_AA.
  • The scenario gap grows as atomic number decreases, so C+C should show the largest difference and Ne+Ne a smaller but nonzero one.
  • Measuring the 0–100% centrality bin avoids the multiplicity–impact parameter decorrelation problem, because the nuclear overlap factor for the full range equals A²/σ_in and is insensitive to decorrelation.
  • Nuclear-PDF uncertainties are subdominant: for minimum-bias C+C, the no-quenching nuclear-PDF factor differs from unity by at most 20–30% of the jet-quenching deviation at pT ≤ 30 GeV.
  • Model uncertainties (thermalization time, fireball radius, soft coupling form) change the predicted R_AA much less than the 0.1–0.15 scenario difference.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted gap is observed, R_pp can be extracted point-by-point as R_st^AA/R_AA from light-ion data, turning the measurement into a direct readout of pp energy loss.
  • The mechanism suggests even lighter systems, such as He+He or p+Pb at comparable energies, could amplify the sensitivity; the paper does not compute these cases.
  • The predictions could be tested with already-collected LHC oxygen-run data, at least for the 0–100% centrality bin, before dedicated C+C runs become available.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses the author's LCPI-based jet-quenching framework, previously fitted to Pb+Pb R_AA data, to predict the nuclear modification factor R_AA for 5.36 TeV C+C, O+O, and Ne+Ne collisions. It compares two scenarios: one with and one without mini-QGP formation in pp collisions. The central result is that the with-mini-QGP scenario gives larger R_AA, with a difference of about 0.1-0.15 at pT ~ 10-20 GeV for minimum-bias C+C and O+O, growing as the atomic number decreases. This difference is traced to the model-computed pp medium modification factor R_pp, which divides the standard R_AA in the with-mini-QGP scenario. Parameter scans over thermalization time, fireball geometry, and the soft-Q behavior of alpha_s show that the predictions are stable for the four tested parameter sets.

Significance. If the predictions are correct, they offer a concrete, falsifiable way to address the question of whether jet quenching occurs in pp collisions, using light-ion data that are already being collected at the LHC. The paper's strengths are the use of a mature jet-quenching formalism with resummation of rescatterings and finite-size effects, explicit treatment of Coulomb effects, and a systematic scan over model parameters. The paper also provides the no-quenching nuclear-PDF baseline R_pdf_AA, which helps assess the dominant background. However, the headline signal is strongly tied to the unobservable model-computed R_pp, and the treatment of event-by-event density fluctuations is not quantitatively justified. These issues need to be addressed before the predictions can be considered robust.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II.A (fluctuation remark) and Eqs. (3), (8)] The assertion that event-by-event QGP density fluctuations are negligible because the N=1 induced-gluon spectrum is a linear functional of the density profile does not control the observable. The medium-modified fragmentation function in Eq. (8) depends on the exponentiated one-gluon spectrum; R_pp and R_AA are averages of exp(-x) over fluctuating densities, not exp(-<x>). With R_pp ~ 0.78 at pT ~ 10 GeV the relevant exponent is ~0.25, while the UE multiplicity density ~12.85 is used only as a mean and pp multiplicity fluctuations are known to be large. A 30-50% relative fluctuation of the line-integrated density would shift R_pp by several percent, comparable to the predicted Delta R_AA ~ 0.1-0.15. A quantitative estimate, e.g., using a fluctuation distribution matched to measured dN_ch/deta fluctuations, is needed to support the neglect of event-by-event fluctuations.
  2. [Sec. III, Eqs. (2), (3), (12)] The headline difference is essentially driven by the model-computed, unobservable R_pp rather than by a new light-nucleus effect. The paper correctly states R_pp is unobservable, but the numerical size of the prediction is fixed by R_pp ~ 0.78 at 10 GeV through Eq. (12). Since kappa is separately fitted to Pb+Pb data in each scenario, the two scenarios are both tuned to describe heavy-ion data, and R_pp itself is not constrained by that fit. The phrase 'without free parameters' should be softened to 'without additional free parameters'. The sensitivity of R_pp to the pp fireball parameters (R_f, entropy density, profile) is asserted to be small via a compensation argument, but no numerical evidence is shown. A quantitative propagation of these uncertainties should be included.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I] The caption says 'w/ mQCD and w/o mQCD scenarios'; this should be 'mQGP' rather than 'mQCD'.
  2. [Figs. 1-3] The horizontal axes in the figures appear to start at pT = 20 GeV, while the abstract and text emphasize the difference at pT ~ 10-20 GeV. If the plotted range indeed starts at 20 GeV, the largest signal region is not displayed; the figures should be extended to 10 GeV or the claims adjusted to the plotted range.
  3. [Eq. (12)] The approximation Delta R_AA ~ R_AA^st(1 - R_pp) omits the 1/R_pp factor that follows from Eq. (3); with R_pp = 0.78 the exact factor is (1/R_pp - 1) = 0.282 versus 0.22. The '~' hides this, but it would be clearer to define the approximation precisely.
  4. [Sec. II.B] The description of the pp geometry in Eq. (6) is brief: the MIT bag model distribution for hard partons and the averaging procedure for central pp collisions are mentioned but not specified. A short definition or reference to Eq. numbers in [16] would help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction; light-ion R_AA are parameter-free extrapolations from a heavy-ion fit.

full rationale

The central light-ion predictions are genuine extrapolations, not refitted outputs. The single free parameter κ is fitted to external 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb R_AA data, and the same κ is then used without further adjustment to compute R_AA for C+C, O+O, and Ne+Ne in both scenarios. R_pp is a computed quantity of the model, not a parameter fitted to the predicted light-ion data, and ΔR_AA follows from Eqs. (3), (10)–(12) as an extrapolation of the fitted heavy-ion behavior. The heavy use of self-citations defines the LCPI jet-quenching framework, but the framework is anchored by external heavy-ion data and lattice-motivated α_s; no self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for the calculation. The paper's explicit admission that 'Rpp is an unobservable quantity' (after Eq. (2)) is a model-dependence limitation, not a circular step. Similarly, the event-by-event fluctuation argument may be too weak because R_pp is an exponential functional of the medium, but that is a correctness/robustness concern, not an identity or fitted-vs-predicted circularity. The predictions are falsifiable against future light-ion data.

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

The prediction relies on the author's LCPI jet-quenching model with parameters fitted to Pb+Pb data; no genuinely new entities are introduced in this paper. The 'mini-QGP in pp' scenario and R_pp are inherited from prior work and carry no external constraint, which is the main source of model dependence.

free parameters (6)
  • kappa (w/o mQGP) = 3.2 (set A)
    Fitted to R_AA in 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb; sets the alpha_s scale in the scenario without mini-QGP in pp.
  • kappa (w/ mQGP) = 2.35 (set A)
    Fitted similarly but for the scenario with mini-QGP in pp, giving a slightly different alpha_s.
  • tau_0 (thermalization time) = 0.5 fm (0.8 fm variant)
    Chosen by hand; enters the initial entropy density via Bjorken relation.
  • k (overlap radius factor) = 2 (3 variant)
    Defines QGP overlap area S_f with radius R_A + k d; hand-tuned.
  • c (low-Q shape of alpha_s) = 0.8 (0 variant)
    Controls alpha_s behavior below Q_fr; motivated by lattice but the functional form is a modeling choice.
  • R_f (effective pp fireball radius) = 1.493 fm
    Taken from IP-Glasma multiplicity dependence; not fitted in this paper but required to compute R_pp.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption LCPI approach to induced gluon emission is valid, with N=1 rescattering dominating for small systems.
    Section II.A and II.B; the claim that event-by-event fluctuations are negligible relies on this.
  • domain assumption Bjorken 1+1D expansion with s(tau) proportional to 1/tau.
    Section II.A; used to map entropy density to initial temperature.
  • domain assumption Optical Glauber wounded-nucleon plus binary-collision model predicts dN_ch/deta for light nuclei.
    Section II.A; sets the fireball size and initial density.
  • domain assumption Hard parton production in pp occurs in central head-on collisions with the MIT bag model spatial distribution.
    Section II.B; needed to average the pp medium modification factor R_pp over geometry.
  • domain assumption Transverse flow corrections to R_AA are small.
    Section II.A, citing [43,44]; flow is neglected in the Bjorken fireball.
  • domain assumption EPS09 nuclear PDFs describe nuclear modifications for light ions.
    Section II.B; used for the no-quenching R_pdf curves and to estimate nPDF uncertainties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predictions for $R_{AA}$ in 5.36 TeV C+C, O+O, and Ne+Ne collisions at the LHC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DLFTUFSD

@misc{pith2026250907741,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predictions for $R_AA$ in 5.36 TeV C+C, O+O, and Ne+Ne collisions at the LHC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DLFTUFSD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07741}
}
abstract

Experiments on collisions of light nuclei at $\sqrt{s}=5.36$ TeV have recently begun at the LHC. In this regard we make predictions for nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ in 5.36 TeV C+C, O+O, and Ne+Ne collisions for scenarios with and without quark-gluon plasma formation in $pp$ collisions. We find a sizeable difference in $R_{AA}$ for these two scenarios, which grows with decreasing atomic number. This says that data on $R_{AA}$ for light nuclei could potentially give information on the presence of jet quenching in $pp$ collisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07741 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Same as in Fig.1 for O+O collisions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Same as in Fig.1 for Ne+Ne collisions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Connors, C

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

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Harris and B

    J.W. Harris and B. M¨ uller, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 247 (2024) [arXiv:2308.05743]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Baier, Y.L

    R. Baier, Y.L. Dokshitzer, A.H. Mueller, S. Peign´ e, and D. Schiff, Nucl. Phys. B 483, 291 (1997) [hep- ph/9607355]

    arXiv 1997

  4. [4]

    Zakharov, JETP Lett

    B.G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 63, 952 (1996) [hep- ph/9607440]

    arXiv 1996

  5. [5]

    Wiedemann, Nucl

    U.A. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. A 690, 731 (2001 [hep- ph/0008241]

    work page arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    Gluballs in the String Quark Model

    M. Gyulassy, P. L´ evai, and I. Vitev, Nucl. Phys. B 594, 371 (2001) [hep-ph/0006010]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    Arnold, G.D

    P. Arnold, G.D. Moore, and L.G. Yaffe, JHEP 0206, 030 (2002) [hep-ph/0204343]

    arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1009, 091 (2010) [arXiv:1009.4122]

    arXiv 2010

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 172301 (2016) [arXiv:1509.04776]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Nature Phys. 13, 535 (2017) [arXiv:1606.07424]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Campanini, G

    R. Campanini, G. Ferri, and G. Ferri, Phys. Lett. B 703, 237 (2011) [arXiv:1106.2008]

    2011 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Grosse-Oetringhaus and U.A

    J.F. Grosse-Oetringhaus and U.A. Wiedemann, arXiv:2407.07484

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Broniowski and W

    W. Broniowski and W. Florkowski, Phys. Rev. C 65, 024905 (2002) [nucl-th/0110020]

    2002 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Zakharov, Phys

    B.G. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 032301 (2014) [arXiv:1307.3674]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Zakharov, J

    B.G. Zakharov, J. Phys. G 41, 075008 (2014) [arXiv:1311.1159]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Zakharov, JHEP 09, 087 (2021) [arXiv:2105.09350]

    B.G. Zakharov, JHEP 09, 087 (2021) [arXiv:2105.09350]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zakharov, J

    B.G. Zakharov, J. Phys. G 48, 055009 (2021) [arXiv:2007.09772]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Zakharov, JETP Lett

    B.G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 112, 681 (2020) [arXiv:2011.01526]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Zakharov, Nucl

    B.G. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 146, 151 (2005) [hep-ph/0412117]

    2005 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Zakharov, JETP 129 521 (2019) [arXiv:1912.04875]

    B.G. Zakharov, JETP 129 521 (2019) [arXiv:1912.04875]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    https://home.cern/news/news/accelerators/first-e ver- collisions-oxygen-lhc

  14. [22]

    Zakharov, JETP Lett

    B.G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 73, 49 (2001) [hep- ph/0012360]

    2001

  15. [23]

    Zakharov, JETP Lett

    B.G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 116, 347 (2022) [arXiv:2208.10339]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Zakharov, JETP Lett

    B.G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 120, 169 (2024) [arXiv:2407.01997]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Tripathy [for ALICE Collaboration], in 24th DAE- BRNS High Energy Physics Symposium, 14-18 December 7 2020, Jatni, India, [arXiv:2103.07218]

    S. Tripathy [for ALICE Collaboration], in 24th DAE- BRNS High Energy Physics Symposium, 14-18 December 7 2020, Jatni, India, [arXiv:2103.07218]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 843, 137649 (2023) [arXiv:2204.10157]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bjorken, Phys

    J.D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D 27, 140 (1983)

    1983

  20. [28]

    M¨ uller and K

    B. M¨ uller and K. Rajagopal, Eur. Phys. J. C43, 15 (2005) [hep-ph/0502174]

    2005 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Kharzeev and M

    D. Kharzeev and M. Nardi, Phys. Lett. B 507, 121 (2001) [nucl-th/0012025]

    2001 arXiv

  22. [30]

    T.Y. Wu, B.H. Sun, H.H. Xie, J.Y. Xu, and G. Guo, Atom. Data Nucl.Data Tabl. 165, 101733 (2025) [arXiv:2505.04876]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Miller, K

    M.L. Miller, K. Reygers, S.J. Sanders, and P. Stein- berg, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57, 205 (2007) [nucl- ex/0701025]

    2007

  24. [32]

    Field, Acta Phys

    R. Field, Acta Phys. Polon. B 42, 2631 (2011) [arXiv:1110.5530]

    2011 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 83, 112001 (2011) [arXiv:1012.0791]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Zakharov, JETP Lett

    B.G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 104, 6 (2016) [arXiv:1605.06012]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Zakharov, J.Exp.Theor.Phys

    B.G. Zakharov, J.Exp.Theor.Phys. 124, 860 (2017) [arXiv:1611.05825]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    for centrality dependence of dNch(AA)/dη in 5.44 TeV Xe+Xe collisions for dNch(AA)/dη ∼ 50 − 200 (at centrality ∼ 40 − 60%), which is of the order of the av- erage multiplicity in jet events for C, O, and Ne nuclei, agree very well with the ALICE data [58] (the same is the cas...

  29. [37]

    Zakharov, Eur

    B.G. Zakharov, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 427 (2018) [arXiv:1804.05405]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Eur. Phys.J. C 77, 33 (2017) [arXiv:1509.07541]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2456 (2013) [arXiv:1208.4968]

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Borsanyi, G

    S. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, A. Jakovac, S.D. Katz , S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo, JHEP 1011, 077 (2010) [arXiv:1007.2580]

    2010 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bzdak, B

    A. Bzdak, B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. C 87, 064906 (2013) [arXiv:1304.3403]

    2013 arXiv

  34. [42]

    McLerran, M

    L. McLerran, M. Praszalowicz, and B. Schenke, Nucl. Phys. A 916, 210 (2013) [arXiv:1306.2350]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [43]

    L´ evai and U

    P. L´ evai and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. C57, 1879 (1998) [hep- ph/9710463]

    1998

  36. [44]

    Baier, A.H

    R. Baier, A.H. Mueller, and D. Schiff, Phys. Lett. B 649, 147 (2007) [nucl-th/0612068]

    2007 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Betz and M

    B. Betz and M. Gyulassy, AIP Conf. Proc. 1701, 060006 (2016); DOI: 10.1063/1.4938669

    2016 doi

  38. [46]

    Zakharov, JETP Lett

    B.G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 88, 781 (2008) [arXiv:0811.0445]

    2008 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Sjostrand, L

    T. Sjostrand, L. Lonnblad, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, arXiv:hep-ph/0308153

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Kniehl, G

    B.A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, and B. Potter, Nucl. Phys. B582, 514 (2000) [hep-ph/0010289]

    2000 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Eskola, H

    K.J. Eskola, H. Paukkunen, and C.A. Salgado, JHEP 0904, 065 (2009) [arXiv:0902.4154]

    2009 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Baier, Y.L

    R. Baier, Y.L. Dokshitzer, A.H. Mueller, and D. Schiff, JHEP 0109, 033 (2001) [hep-ph/0106347]

    2001 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Zakharov, JETP Lett

    B.G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 80, 617 (2004) [arXiv:hep- ph/0410321]

    2004

  44. [52]

    Zakharov, JETP Lett

    B.G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 86, 444 (2007) [arXiv:0708.0816]

    2007 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bazavov, N

    A. Bazavov, N. Brambilla, P. Petreczky, A. Vairo, and J.H. Weber, Phys. Rev. D 98, 054511 (2018) [arXiv:1804.10600]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. [ALICE Collaboration], JHEP 1811, 013 (2018) [arXiv:1802.09145]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    The ATLAS collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2017-012, http://cds.cern.ch/record/2244824?ln=en

    2017

  48. [56]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1704, 039 (2017) [arXiv:1611.01664]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Zakharov, JETP Lett

    B.G. Zakharov, JETP Lett. (in press) [arXiv:2508.02623]

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Gebhard, A

    J. Gebhard, A. Mazeliauskas, and A. Takacs, JHEP 04, 034 (2025) [arXiv:2410.22405]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 790, 35 (2019) [arXiv:1805.04432]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. [ALICE Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 222302 (2016), [arXiv:1512.06104]

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.