Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 10 cited by

The first measurement of charged-particle suppression in neon-neon collisions completes a four-system study showing that high-transverse-momentum suppression grows monotonically with nuclear size, favoring energy-loss models over initial-st

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 21:03 UTC pith:IUO4JW45

load-bearing objection First NeNe R_AA is a genuine new measurement, and the cross-system comparison is useful; the XeXe 0-80% proxy is the main soft spot, but not fatal. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2602.21325 v3 pith:IUO4JW45 submitted 2026-02-24 nucl-ex hep-ex

System-size dependence of charged-particle suppression in ultrarelativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification nucl-ex hep-ex PACS 25.75.-q25.75.Bh
keywords nuclear modification factorparton energy lossjet quenchingsystem size dependenceneon-neon collisionsoxygen-oxygen collisionsheavy ion collisionsLHC CMS
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper sets out to establish that the suppression of high-transverse-momentum charged particles in nucleus-nucleus collisions is ordered by the size of the colliding nuclei. To this end it presents the first measurement of the nuclear modification factor R_AA in neon-neon collisions at 5.36 TeV and recasts existing CMS measurements of oxygen-oxygen, xenon-xenon, and lead-lead collisions into a common pT binning. The central result: R_AA at fixed pT decreases monotonically with A^{1/3}, the cube root of nucleon number, while the pT shape of suppression stays qualitatively the same across all four systems. The paper argues that this trend is not reproduced by calculations with only initial-state nuclear effects, but is reproduced by parton energy-loss models for pT above about 9.6 GeV, which would tie the observed suppression to the hot deconfined medium rather than to cold nuclear effects.

Core claim

The Letter's claim is that the nuclear modification factor R_AA, measured inclusively in oxygen, neon, xenon, and lead collisions using the exact A^2 normalization of the cross-section ratio, obeys a monotonic decrease with A^{1/3} in every pT interval above about 10 GeV, while the overall pT-dependence of R_AA is universal in shape. The new neon-neon datum sits between oxygen and xenon, consistent with a smooth size-dependent suppression. Since the definition of R_AA uses an exact A^2 normalization, the paper maintains that the A^{1/3} comparison is model-independent and avoids the centrality-selection biases that complicate event-class-based system-size studies.

What carries the argument

The nuclear modification factor R_AA, defined as (1/A^2) times the ratio of the inclusive AA to pp charged-particle production cross sections, evaluated with identical pT intervals for A = 16, 20, 129, and 208. The A^2 normalization makes the denominator exact, and plotting R_AA against A^{1/3}—a quantity proportional to the nuclear radius—turns the observable into a direct, model-independent map of suppression versus system size.

Load-bearing premise

The 0–80% centrality-selected xenon-xenon measurement is taken as equivalent to an inclusive R_AA; if the excluded 20% most-peripheral collisions have a materially different R_AA, the apparent monotonic A^{1/3} ordering could be a centrality-selection artifact rather than a genuine system-size effect.

What would settle it

A minimum-bias XeXe R_AA measurement, or a re-analysis of the existing XeXe data over the full centrality range, that falls outside the quoted uncertainties of the 0–80% points would break the monotonic A^{1/3} ordering in one or more pT intervals.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A monotonic A^{1/3} ordering places a tight joint constraint on all four systems at once, so a model that describes PbPb suppression can no longer be tuned independently for OO and NeNe.
  • The failure of nPDF-only baselines at pT > 9.6 GeV means final-state parton energy loss is required even in oxygen-oxygen and neon-neon collisions, informing whether a deconfined medium forms in small systems.
  • With the NeNe point between OO and XeXe, a smooth path-length dependence of energy loss—not an abrupt turn-on—is favored across the A = 16–208 range.
  • The common binning and tabulated results give a benchmark for future light-ion runs and for selecting ion species in upcoming LHC operation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension would be to plot the same data against an average geometric path length computed from a Glauber model; if the four systems then fall on a single curve, it would suggest that path length, not A itself, is the controlling variable.
  • If a true minimum-bias XeXe R_AA becomes available, a corollary check would be whether the A^{1/3} ordering survives with XeXe moved to the inclusive selection; that would validate the paper's approximation.
  • One might use the empirical R_AA(A^{1/3}) trend to predict suppression for unmeasured intermediate-mass ions such as argon or krypton, providing a practical guide for future LHC ion-species choice.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first measurement of the charged-particle nuclear modification factor R_AA in NeNe collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=5.36 TeV using CMS data (0.76 nb^-1), and combines it with previous CMS R_AA measurements in OO, XeXe, and PbPb collisions, rebinned to a common pT scheme. The central physics claim is that R_AA as a function of pT has a similar qualitative shape across systems (minimum around 5–7 GeV, rise at high pT) and that its magnitude is ordered monotonically with nucleon number A, equivalently with A^{1/3}. The paper further compares the data with NLO pQCD calculations containing only nuclear PDF effects and with several energy-loss models, concluding that the former fail to reproduce the observed system-size trend while the latter are broadly compatible for pT > 9.6 GeV. The NeNe measurement and the cross-system rebinned comparison are documented with systematic uncertainties, and HEPData tables are promised.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable new experimental constraint on the system-size dependence of jet quenching. The NeNe point fills a gap between OO and XeXe, and the use of a common pT binning and the A^{1/3} presentation constitute a genuinely useful model-independent way to display the data. The paper explicitly refrains from fitting any model parameters and instead compares to external predictions, which is a strength. The machine-readable data tables and the transparent bin-merging procedure in Appendix B are also positive features. The main physical conclusion—that suppression grows monotonically with nuclear size and that energy-loss models, not nPDF-only baselines, describe the trend—is of clear interest to the heavy-ion community and provides guidance for future light-ion runs.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4, Eq. (1), Fig. 2] The A^{1/3} ordering treats the CMS XeXe 0–80% centrality-selected R_AA as equivalent to the inclusive/minimum-bias R_AA used for OO, NeNe, and PbPb. However, Eq. (1) defines R_AA for centrality-integrated collisions, and §1 itself emphasizes that centrality-selected observables carry selection and geometry biases. Removing the 20% most peripheral events—which are typically the least suppressed—biases the XeXe point downward relative to a true inclusive measurement. The magnitude of this bias is not quantified anywhere, and no cross-check using the centrality-differential XeXe data (e.g., comparing 0–80% with an extrapolation to 0–100%) is provided. Because this point is one of only four data points in the central monotonic-ordering claim, the issue is load-bearing. Please either quantify the bias using available centrality-dependent data or present the XeXe point with an explicit caveat
  2. [Abstract and §5 vs. §4 caveat] The abstract states that R_AA in all systems 'have a magnitude which is ordered with the nucleon number A,' and §5 states that R_AA 'is found to monotonically decrease as a function of A^{1/3}.' Yet §4 notes that 'a definitive statement on their relative suppression magnitude at high pT is not yet possible' because of luminosity uncertainties affecting the two light-ion measurements. The figures show that OO and NeNe overlap within uncertainties at high pT, so the monotonic ordering between A=16 and A=20 is not statistically established in the region pT > 20 GeV. The claim should either be softened to reflect the significance of the ordering, or a quantitative significance test for the slope in A^{1/3} should be provided.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4, Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'the vertical band representing the experimental uncertainty' but the text in §4 says 'vertical band representing the experimental uncertainty.' Clarify whether the band includes statistical plus systematic or is the quadratic sum; the same applies to Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 captions.
  2. [Appendix F and §4] The acronym for the Faraday–Horowitz calculation is given as 'DGLV+SLPC' in Appendix F but as 'DGLV+SPLC' in the main text and Fig. 4. Please make the spelling consistent (SPLC = short path-length correction).
  3. [Reference [53]] Reference [53] is cited as a CMS Collaboration paper on neon-neon R_AA but no arXiv number, DOI, or journal submission status is given. If this is a preliminary conference paper or CMS internal note, the citation should be completed or replaced.
  4. [Figure A.1] In the figure label, 'pp (arXiv:2510.09864)' is informal. The reference should be cited properly in the caption rather than by arXiv number.
  5. [§4, first paragraph] The sentence 'The calculations discussed here were provided following the first charged-particle R_AA measurement in OO collisions' is a bit unclear; it likely means they were provided after the OO result. Consider rewording to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: R_AA is a directly measured ratio and the model comparisons are external and partly pre-registered.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a direct measurement: Eq. (1) defines R_AA as the ratio of measured AA and pp cross sections with an exact A^2 normalization. The NeNe measurement is new data; the OO, XeXe, and PbPb R_AA values are recast from independent CMS measurements [9,12,22], not generated by the equations of this paper. The pp reference is taken from the OO analysis, but it is a measured pp spectrum, not a fitted output of the present derivation. The common pT binning is a rebinning procedure (Eqs. 2-4) that preserves the underlying spectral shapes and does not by construction impose the A-ordering conclusion. Model comparisons in Figs. 3-4 use external calculations, several of which were provided before the OO/NeNe results (Appendix F); no model parameter is fitted to the data presented here. The XeXe 0-80% centrality selection is explicitly acknowledged as an approximation to inclusive R_AA; this is a possible systematic/selection caveat for the A-ordering claim, but it is not a circular reduction because the XeXe point remains an independent measured value with its quoted uncertainties. Self-citations to CMS measurements are to experimental data sets and are not invoked as load-bearing theoretical premises. Therefore no step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central result is an experimental ratio with no fitted parameters in the R_AA definition. The entries above are external inputs and approximations needed for the cross-system interpretation.

free parameters (1)
  • NeNe dNch/dη for species-composition correction = 50 (assumed, from OO value 40 scaled by Glauber)
    Used to extrapolate charged-particle species fractions from pp/OO to NeNe in the tracking-correction procedure; affects the spectrum and is propagated to R_AA as an uncertainty.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption XeXe 0–80% centrality R_AA approximates minimum-bias/inclusive R_AA.
    Since XeXe data exist only in 0–80% centrality, the cross-system A^1/3 comparison treats them as inclusive despite centrality-selection biases noted in §1.
  • domain assumption R_AA is approximately independent of collision energy between 5.02 and 5.44 TeV.
    Used to compare PbPb at 5.02 TeV, XeXe at 5.44 TeV, and OO/NeNe at 5.36 TeV in the same A^1/3 plot; based on prior PbPb 2.76 vs 5.02 TeV comparisons.
  • domain assumption HIJING+PYTHIA+GEANT4 simulation accurately models tracking efficiency, acceptance, and background in NeNe collisions.
    MC corrections are the basis of the unfolding and efficiency corrections in §3.
  • domain assumption Glauber scaling of dNch/dη from OO to NeNe correctly sets the species-composition correction.
    The assumed NeNe multiplicity dNch/dη=50 is derived from OO dNch/dη=40 using Glauber inputs; this feeds into particle-species corrections.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 40720 in / 10528 out tokens · 101802 ms · 2026-08-02T21:03:35.594979+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

High-energy partons lose energy while propagating through the hot, strongly interacting medium produced in ultrarelativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions, leading to a suppression of particle production at high transverse momentum ($p_\mathrm{T}$). The dependence of this energy loss on the size of the colliding nuclear system has yet to be firmly established experimentally. This Letter presents a systematic study of charged-particle suppression across four different nucleus-nucleus collision systems using nuclear modification factors ($R_\mathrm{AA}$) measured by the CMS Collaboration at the CERN LHC. Previous CMS measurements of $R_\mathrm{AA}$ in oxygen-oxygen, xenon-xenon, and lead-lead collisions are recast with identical $p_\mathrm{T}$ intervals and are complemented by the first measurement of the charged-particle $R_\mathrm{AA}$ in neon-neon collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.36 TeV. The neon-neon data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 0.76 nb$^{-1}$. The $R_\mathrm{AA}$ in all collision systems examined show similar qualitative trends as a function of $p_\mathrm{T}$, but have a magnitude which is ordered with the nucleon number A. The $R_\mathrm{AA}$ feature a downward slope at low $p_\mathrm{T}$, a local minimum at around 5$-$7 GeV, and an upward slope with increasing $p_\mathrm{T}$. The $R_\mathrm{AA}$ are also compared in terms of A$^{1/3}$, which is proportional to the nuclear radius. Models including only initial-state nuclear effects fail to reproduce the observed trends, whereas energy loss models reproduce the trends in the region $p_\mathrm{T}$ $\gt$ 9.6 GeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.21325 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Charged-particle RAA values versus pT measured in NeNe collisions at 5.36 TeV com￾pared to previous measurements in centrality-integrated OO collisions at 5.36 TeV [22], 0–80% centrality XeXe at 5.44 TeV [9], and minimum bias PbPb collisions at 5.02 TeV [12]. The vertical error bars represent statistical uncertainties and the boxes represent systematic uncertainties. Global normalization uncertainties are … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Charged-particle RAA values, in intervals of pT , versus A 1/3 of the AA colliding sys￾tem. The open markers represent the measured RAA, with the vertical bars representing the statistical uncertainty, and the vertical band representing the experimental uncertainty. Global normalization uncertainties for each data set are shown in the light-gray boxes around unity. For visualization purposes, a subset of f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of the charged-particle RAA measured in OO [22], NeNe, XeXe [9], and PbPb [12] collisions with NLO pQCD calculations that incorporate only initial-state effects through nPDFs and do not include parton energy loss [57, 58]. The open boxes with black cir￾cular markers represent the data. The box height represents the total experimental uncertainty obtained from the quadratic combination of statist… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the charged-particle RAA measured in OO [22], NeNe, XeXe [9], and PbPb [12] collisions with calculations that incorporate parton energy loss effects [61–69]. The open boxes with black circular markers represent the data, with the box height indicating the total experimental uncertainty obtained from the quadratic combination of statistical, system￾atic, and global normalization uncertainties.… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

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

  1. Jet Quenching in the Smallest Hadronic Collision Systems

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    pQCD calculations predict jet quenching suppression scaling as R_AB ≈ (√(AB))^{1/3} in small ion collisions, with ^{3}He and ^{6}Li as clean QGP probes and energy loss models giving v_2 ≈ 0 in small systems.

  2. Evidence for sequential $\Upsilon$(nS) suppression in light ion collisions

    nucl-ex 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    First evidence of sequential Upsilon(nS) suppression in oxygen-oxygen and neon-neon collisions, with the Upsilon(3S)/Upsilon(2S) ratio reduced by 3.2 standard deviations.

  3. Observation of centrality-dependent dijet transverse momentum imbalance in O+O and Ne+Ne collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.36 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    nucl-ex 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    ATLAS observes increasing dijet imbalance with centrality in O+O and Ne+Ne collisions at 5.36 TeV, consistent with medium-induced energy loss in small systems.

  4. Wounded parton scaling of multiplicities in ultra-relativistic light- and heavy-ion collisions

    nucl-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    With four partons per nucleon and one shared entropy-to-multiplicity scale, a wounded-parton Glauber model with negative-binomial fluctuations fits O+O, Ne+Ne, Xe+Xe, and Pb+Pb multiplicity distributions from 1–80% ce...

  5. Hadronisation of in-medium $c\bar c$ pairs to the exotic $X(3872)$

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Hadron ratios for J/Ψ, Ψ(2S) and X(3872) are linked to the separation and dissociation of in-medium c cbar pairs through Fermi Golden rule overlaps between in-vacuum and in-medium wave functions.

  6. Hadronisation of in-medium $c\bar c$ pairs to the exotic $X(3872)$

    hep-ph 2026-06 conditional novelty 5.0

    Overlaps between Gaussian in-medium c-cbar wave functions and vacuum charmonium wave functions can reproduce LHC hadron ratios, implying in-medium pair sizes of about 0.85 fm (pp) and 0.55 fm (Pb-Pb compact part) and ...

  7. Photoproduction of $J/\Psi$ in peripheral Oxygen-Oxygen collisions

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Predictions for J/Ψ photoproduction in peripheral OO collisions at the LHC indicate experimental feasibility and that combining results with PbPb data can constrain models of photon-induced processes.

  8. Geometric Bias and Centrality Dependence of Jet Quenching in High-Energy Nuclear Collisions

    nucl-th 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    Suppression of high-pT hadrons in peripheral Pb+Pb collisions is predominantly driven by initial-state geometric bias rather than final-state jet quenching.

  9. Geometric Bias and Centrality Dependence of Jet Quenching in High-Energy Nuclear Collisions

    nucl-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    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...

  10. Light and heavy meson production in small collision systems

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Theoretical predictions using pQCD and hydrodynamics for light and heavy hadron modifications in O-O and Ne-Ne collisions to quantify CNM versus QGP effects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Heavy ion collisions: The big picture, and the big questions

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, “Heavy ion collisions: The big picture, and the big questions”,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68(2018) 339, doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-020852,arXiv:1802.04801

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Jet quenching

    D. d’Enterria, “Jet quenching”,Landolt–B¨ ornstein23(2010) 471, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01539-7_16,arXiv:0902.2011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Studying the QGP with jets at the LHC and RHIC

    L. Cunqueiro and A. M. Sickles, “Studying the QGP with jets at the LHC and RHIC”, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.124(2022) 103940,doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103940, arXiv:2110.14490

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Heavy quarks and jets as probes of the QGP

    L. Apolin ´ario, Y.-J. Lee, and M. Winn, “Heavy quarks and jets as probes of the QGP”, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.127(2022) 103990,doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103990, arXiv:2203.16352

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Jet quenching in dense matter

    M. Gyulassy and M. Plumer, “Jet quenching in dense matter”,Phys. Lett. B243(1990) 432,doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)91409-5

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)91409-5 1990

  7. [7]

    Energy loss of energetic partons in quark-gluon plasma: possible extinction of highp T jets in hadron-hadron collisions

    J. D. Bjorken, “Energy loss of energetic partons in quark-gluon plasma: possible extinction of highp T jets in hadron-hadron collisions”, technical report, Fermilab, Batavia, IL, 1982

    1982

  8. [8]

    Search for jet quenching with dijets from high-multiplicity pPb collisions at √sNN =8.16 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for jet quenching with dijets from high-multiplicity pPb collisions at √sNN =8.16 TeV”,JHEP07(2025) 118,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2025)118, arXiv:2504.08507

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in XeXe collisions at√sNN =5.44 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in XeXe collisions at√sNN =5.44 TeV”,JHEP10(2018) 138,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2018)138, arXiv:1809.00201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Strong constraints on jet quenching in centrality-dependent pPb collisions at 5.02 TeV from ATLAS

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Strong constraints on jet quenching in centrality-dependent pPb collisions at 5.02 TeV from ATLAS”,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 072301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.072301,arXiv:2206.01138

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Constraints on jet quenching in pPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV measured by the event-activity dependence of semi-inclusive hadron-jet distributions

    ALICE Collaboration, “Constraints on jet quenching in pPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV measured by the event-activity dependence of semi-inclusive hadron-jet distributions”, Phys. Lett. B783(2018) 3054,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.05.059, arXiv:1712.05603

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Transverse momentum dependence of inclusive primary charged-particle production in pPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “Transverse momentum dependence of inclusive primary charged-particle production in pPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) 3054,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3054-5,arXiv:1405.2737. References 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [14]

    Charged-hadron production in pp, pPb, PbPb, and XeXe collisions at √sNN =5 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Charged-hadron production in pp, pPb, PbPb, and XeXe collisions at √sNN =5 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,JHEP07(2023) 074, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2023)074,arXiv:2211.15257

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Absence of jet quenching in peripheral nucleus-nucleus collisions

    C. Loizides and A. Morsch, “Absence of jet quenching in peripheral nucleus-nucleus collisions”,Phys. Lett. B773(2017) 408,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.002, arXiv:1705.08856

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    Constraints on the initial state of PbPb Collisions via measurements of Z boson yields and azimuthal anisotropy at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Constraints on the initial state of PbPb Collisions via measurements of Z boson yields and azimuthal anisotropy at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.127 (2021) 102002,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.102002,arXiv:2103.14089

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Opportunities of OO andpO collisions at the LHC

    J. Brewer, A. Mazeliauskas, and W. van der Schee, “Opportunities of OO andpO collisions at the LHC”, inOpportunities of OO and pO collisions at the LHC. 2021. arXiv:2103.01939

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Studies for an LHC pilot run with oxygen beams

    R. Bruce et al., “Studies for an LHC pilot run with oxygen beams”, inProc. 12th Int. Particle Accelerator Conf.2021.doi:10.18429/JACoW-IPAC2021-MOPAB005

    work page doi:10.18429/jacow-ipac2021-mopab005 2021

  19. [19]

    Prospects for light-ion operation at the HL-LHC: machine developments and physics opportunities

    R. Alemany Fernandez, “Prospects for light-ion operation at the HL-LHC: machine developments and physics opportunities”,PoSLHCP2024(2025) 335, doi:10.22323/1.478.0335

    work page doi:10.22323/1.478.0335 2025

  20. [20]

    Progress in the Glauber model at collider energies

    D. d’Enterria and C. Loizides, “Progress in the Glauber model at collider energies”,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71(2021) 315,doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102419-060007, arXiv:2011.14909

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Glauber modeling of high-energy nuclear collisions at the subnucleon level

    C. Loizides, “Glauber modeling of high-energy nuclear collisions at the subnucleon level”,Phys. Rev. C94(2016) 024914,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.94.024914, arXiv:1603.07375

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    Discovery of suppressed charged-particle production in ultrarelativistic oxygen-oxygen collisions

    CMS Collaboration, “Discovery of suppressed charged-particle production in ultrarelativistic oxygen-oxygen collisions”, 2025.arXiv:2510.09864. Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    HEPData record for this analysis

    “HEPData record for this analysis”, 2026.doi:10.17182/hepdata.168218

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.168218 2026

  24. [24]

    The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST3(2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008

  25. [25]

    Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3

    CMS Collaboration, “Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3”, JINST19(2024) P05064,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05064

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/p05064 2024

  26. [26]

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

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST15(2020) P10017,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10017, arXiv:2006.10165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    The CMS trigger system

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,JINST12(2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020,arXiv:1609.02366

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2”, JINST19(2024) P11021,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/11/P11021, arXiv:2410.17038. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

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

    CMS Collaboration, “Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST16(2021) P05014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/05/P05014,arXiv:2012.06888

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

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

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P06015, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/06/P06015,arXiv:1804.04528

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

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

    CMS Collaboration, “Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker”,JINST9(2014) P10009, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/P10009,arXiv:1405.6569

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,JINST12(2017) P10003,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    The CMS phase-1 pixel detector upgrade

    Tracker Group of the CMS Collaboration, “The CMS phase-1 pixel detector upgrade”, JINST16(2021) P02027,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/16/02/P02027, arXiv:2012.14304

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Track impact parameter resolution for the full pseudorapidity coverage in the 2017 dataset with the CMS phase-1 pixel detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Track impact parameter resolution for the full pseudorapidity coverage in the 2017 dataset with the CMS phase-1 pixel detector”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2020-049, 2020

    2017

  35. [35]

    Calibration of the effective beam height in the ISR

    S. van der Meer, “Calibration of the effective beam height in the ISR”, Technical Report CERN-ISR-PO-68-31, ISR-PO-68-31, 1968

    1968

  36. [36]

    Luminosity measurement for lead-lead collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV in 2015 and 2018 at CMS

    CMS Collaboration, “Luminosity measurement for lead-lead collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV in 2015 and 2018 at CMS”, 2025.arXiv:2503.03946. Submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

    Luminosity determination using Z boson production at the CMS experiment

    CMS Collaboration, “Luminosity determination using Z boson production at the CMS experiment”,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 26, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12268-2,arXiv:2309.01008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    The physics of ultraperipheral collisions at the LHC

    A. J. Baltz et al., “The physics of ultraperipheral collisions at the LHC”,Phys. Rept.458 (2008) 1,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.12.001,arXiv:0706.3356

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  39. [39]

    Nuclear multifragmentation induced by electromagnetic fields of ultrarelativistic heavy ions

    I. A. Pshenichnov et al., “Nuclear multifragmentation induced by electromagnetic fields of ultrarelativistic heavy ions”,Phys. Rev. C57(1998) 1920, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.57.1920,arXiv:nucl-th/9711030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  40. [40]

    A data-driven method to estimate contamination from light ion beam transmutation at colliders

    S. J. Das and A. Baty, “A data-driven method to estimate contamination from light ion beam transmutation at colliders”, 2025.arXiv:2509.09736. Submitted toPhys. Rev. C

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in pp, pA and AA collisions

    X.-N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, “HIJING: A Monte Carlo model for multiple jet production in pp, pA and AA collisions”,Phys. Rev. D44(1991) 3501, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.44.3501

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.44.3501 1991

  42. [42]

    A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3

    C. Bierlich et al., “A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3”, SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022(2022) 8,doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.8, arXiv:2203.11601. References 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 4, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4,arXiv:1903.12179

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    STARlight: A Monte Carlo simulation program for ultra-peripheral collisions of relativistic ions

    S. R. Klein et al., “STARlight: A Monte Carlo simulation program for ultra-peripheral collisions of relativistic ions”,Comput. Phys. Commun.212(2017) 258, doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2016.10.016,arXiv:1607.03838

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [45]

    GEANT4—a simulation toolkit

    GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4—a simulation toolkit”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250,doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003

  46. [46]

    Production of light-flavor hadrons in pp collisions at √s=7 and√s=13 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “Production of light-flavor hadrons in pp collisions at √s=7 and√s=13 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 256, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08690-5,arXiv:2005.11120

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    Multiplicity dependence of charged pion, kaon, and (anti)proton production at large transverse momentum in pPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “Multiplicity dependence of charged pion, kaon, and (anti)proton production at large transverse momentum in pPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B760(2016) 720,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.050, arXiv:1601.03658

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  48. [48]

    Production of charged pions, kaons, and (anti-)protons in PbPb and inelastic pp collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “Production of charged pions, kaons, and (anti-)protons in PbPb and inelastic pp collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Rev. C101(2020) 044907, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.101.044907,arXiv:1910.07678

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Enhanced production of multi-strange hadrons in high-multiplicity proton-proton collisions

    ALICE Collaboration, “Enhanced production of multi-strange hadrons in high-multiplicity proton-proton collisions”,Nature Phys.13(2017) 535, doi:10.1038/nphys4111,arXiv:1606.07424

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  50. [50]

    First measurement of pseudorapidity distributions of charged hadrons in oxygen-oxygen collisions at √sNN =5.36 TeV with CMS

    CMS Collaboration, “First measurement of pseudorapidity distributions of charged hadrons in oxygen-oxygen collisions at √sNN =5.36 TeV with CMS”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-HIN-25-010, 2025

    2025

  51. [51]

    Glauber predictions for oxygen and neon collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider

    C. Loizides, “Glauber predictions for oxygen and neon collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”,Phys. Rev. C113(2026) 014914, doi:10.1103/mkp8-zgxh,arXiv:2507.05853

    arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    Measurement of tracking efficiency

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of tracking efficiency”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-TRK-10-002, 2010

    2010

  53. [53]

    Charged particle nuclear modification factor in neon-neon collisions and system-size dependence of nuclear suppression effects

    CMS Collaboration, “Charged particle nuclear modification factor in neon-neon collisions and system-size dependence of nuclear suppression effects”, 2025

    2025

  54. [54]

    Production of hadrons at large transverse momentum in 200, 300 and 400 GeV pp and pn collisions

    D. Antreasyan et al., “Production of hadrons at large transverse momentum in 200, 300 and 400 GeV pp and pn collisions”,Phys. Rev. D19(1979) 764, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.19.764

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.19.764 1979

  55. [55]

    Evidence for the collective nature of radial flow in PbPb collisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Evidence for the collective nature of radial flow in PbPb collisions with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. Lett.136(2026) 032301, doi:10.1103/ldcn-r2lq,arXiv:2503.24125

    arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    Long-range transverse momentum correlations and radial flow in PbPb collisions at the LHC

    ALICE Collaboration, “Long-range transverse momentum correlations and radial flow in PbPb collisions at the LHC”,Phys. Rev. Lett.136(2026) 032302, doi:10.1103/l36g-6f46,arXiv:2504.04796. 16

    arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    Discovering partonic rescattering in light nucleus collisions

    A. Huss et al., “Discovering partonic rescattering in light nucleus collisions”,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 192301,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.192301, arXiv:2007.13754

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Energy loss baseline for light hadrons in oxygen-oxygen collisions at√sNN =5.36 TeV

    A. Mazeliauskas, “Energy loss baseline for light hadrons in oxygen-oxygen collisions at√sNN =5.36 TeV”, 2025.arXiv:2509.07008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    EPPS21: a global QCD analysis of nuclear PDFs

    K. J. Eskola, P . Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, “EPPS21: a global QCD analysis of nuclear PDFs”,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 413, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10359-0,arXiv:2112.12462

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  60. [60]

    nNNPDF3.0: evidence for a modified partonic structure in heavy nuclei

    R. Abdul Khalek et al., “nNNPDF3.0: evidence for a modified partonic structure in heavy nuclei”,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 507, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10417-7,arXiv:2201.12363

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    From lead to helium: discovery potential for jet quenching in the smallest collision systems

    C. Faraday et al., “From lead to helium: discovery potential for jet quenching in the smallest collision systems”, 2025.arXiv:2512.17832

    arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Statistical analysis of pQCD energy loss across system size, flavor, √sNN, andp T

    C. Faraday and W. A. Horowitz, “Statistical analysis of pQCD energy loss across system size, flavor, √sNN, andp T”,JHEP11(2025) 019,doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2025)019, arXiv:2505.14568

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Jet quenching in thin quark gluon plasmas. 1. Formalism

    M. Gyulassy, P . Levai, and I. Vitev, “Jet quenching in thin quark gluon plasmas. 1. Formalism”,Nucl. Phys. B571(2000) 197,doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00713-0, arXiv:hep-ph/9907461

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  64. [64]

    Heavy quark radiative energy loss in QCD matter

    M. Djordjevic and M. Gyulassy, “Heavy quark radiative energy loss in QCD matter”, Nucl. Phys. A733(2004) 265,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2003.12.020, arXiv:nucl-th/0310076

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  65. [65]

    Jet quenching from heavy to light ion collisions

    B. G. Zakharov, “Jet quenching from heavy to light ion collisions”,JHEP09(2021) 087, doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2021)087,arXiv:2105.09350

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    Probing the path-length dependence of parton energy loss via scaling properties in heavy ion collisions

    F. Arleo and G. Falmagne, “Probing the path-length dependence of parton energy loss via scaling properties in heavy ion collisions”,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) L051503, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L051503,arXiv:2212.01324

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Global constraints from RHIC and LHC on transport properties of QCD fluids in CUJET/CIBJET framework

    S. Shi, J. Liao, and M. Gyulassy, “Global constraints from RHIC and LHC on transport properties of QCD fluids in CUJET/CIBJET framework”,Chin. Phys. C43(2019) 044101, doi:10.1088/1674-1137/43/4/044101,arXiv:1808.05461

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  68. [68]

    Probing the color structure of the perfect QCD fluids via soft-hard-event-by-event azimuthal correlations

    S. Shi, J. Liao, and M. Gyulassy, “Probing the color structure of the perfect QCD fluids via soft-hard-event-by-event azimuthal correlations”,Chin. Phys. C42(2018) 104104, doi:10.1088/1674-1137/42/10/104104,arXiv:1804.01915

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  69. [69]

    Bayesian inference of the magnetic component of quark-gluon plasma

    Y. Guo, J. Liao, and S. Shi, “Bayesian inference of the magnetic component of quark-gluon plasma”, 2025.arXiv:2510.16838

    arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    A compendium of cold-nuclear matter baseline predictions in light-ion collisions

    F. Jonas et al., “A compendium of cold-nuclear matter baseline predictions in light-ion collisions”, 2026.arXiv:2602.15928

    arXiv 2026

  71. [71]

    Information-field-based global Bayesian inference of the jet transport coefficient

    M. Xie, W. Ke, H. Zhang, and X.-N. Wang, “Information-field-based global Bayesian inference of the jet transport coefficient”,Phys. Rev. C108(2023) L011901, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.108.L011901,arXiv:2206.01340. References 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Effects of initial flow velocity fluctuation in event-by-event (3+1)D hydrodynamics

    L. Pang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, “Effects of initial flow velocity fluctuation in event-by-event (3+1)D hydrodynamics”,Phys. Rev. C86(2012) 024911, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.86.024911,arXiv:1205.5019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  73. [73]

    EPS09: A new generation of NLO and LO nuclear parton distribution functions

    K. J. Eskola, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, “EPS09: A new generation of NLO and LO nuclear parton distribution functions”,JHEP04(2009) 065, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/04/065,arXiv:0902.4154

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  74. [74]

    Three models for charged hadron nuclear modification from light to heavy ions

    W. van der Schee et al., “Three models for charged hadron nuclear modification from light to heavy ions”, 2025.arXiv:2509.04299

    arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    In-mediumk-body reduction ofn-body operators: A flexible symmetry-conserving approach based on the sole one-body density matrix

    M. Frosini et al., “In-mediumk-body reduction ofn-body operators: A flexible symmetry-conserving approach based on the sole one-body density matrix”,Eur. Phys. J. A57(2021) 151,doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00458-z,arXiv:2102.10120

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  76. [76]

    Generator-coordinate reference states for spectra and 0νββdecay in the in-medium similarity renormalization group

    J. M. Yao et al., “Generator-coordinate reference states for spectra and 0νββdecay in the in-medium similarity renormalization group”,Phys. Rev. C98(2018) 054311, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.98.054311,arXiv:1807.11053

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  77. [77]

    Abinitiotreatment of collective correlations and the neutrinoless double beta decay of 48Ca

    J. M. Yao et al., “Abinitiotreatment of collective correlations and the neutrinoless double beta decay of 48Ca”,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 232501, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.232501,arXiv:1908.05424

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  78. [78]

    Multi-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei: I. Novel PGCM-PT formalism

    M. Frosini, T. Duguet, J.-P . Ebran, and V . Som`a, “Multi-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei: I. Novel PGCM-PT formalism”,Eur. Phys. J. A58(2022) 62, doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00692-z,arXiv:2110.15737

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [79]

    Multi-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei: II. Ab initio study of neon isotopes via PGCM and IM-NCSM calculations

    M. Frosini et al., “Multi-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei: II. Ab initio study of neon isotopes via PGCM and IM-NCSM calculations”,Eur. Phys. J. A58(2022) 63,doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00693-y,arXiv:2111.00797

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  80. [80]

    Multi-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei: III. Ab initio calculations at second order in PGCM-PT

    M. Frosini et al., “Multi-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei: III. Ab initio calculations at second order in PGCM-PT”,Eur. Phys. J. A58(2022) 64, doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00694-x,arXiv:2111.01461

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

Showing first 80 references.