pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.28788 · v2 · pith:U5AMWDERnew · submitted 2026-05-27 · ✦ hep-ph

Energy-energy correlators inside single inclusive jets in heavy-ion collisions with CoLBT-hydro model

Zhong Yang , Raghav Kunnawalkam Elayavalli , Xin-Nian Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 11:16 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords energy-energy correlatorjet modificationheavy-ion collisionsquark-gluon plasmamedium modificationbackground subtractionpath length dependencedijet rapidity gap
0
0 comments X

The pith

An updated CoLBT-hydro model with a 2 GeV medium scale reproduces CMS measurements of energy-energy correlators inside jets in heavy-ion collisions.

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

The paper updates the CoLBT-hydro framework by introducing a medium scale of 2.0 GeV that splits the parton shower into separate vacuum and in-medium stages. This split supports a more consistent treatment of jet evolution together with background subtraction. The resulting simulations match recent CMS data on the in-jet energy-energy correlator and, through explicit decomposition, isolate the contribution from medium modification. Additional checks confirm that the theoretical background subtraction agrees with the experimental mixed-event method, while the observable shows clear dependence on in-medium path length and dijet rapidity gap.

Core claim

The updated CoLBT-hydro framework with Q_M = 2.0 GeV reproduces the recent CMS measurement of the in-jet energy-energy correlator. Decomposition of different contributions highlights the impact of medium modification. Results obtained with a theoretical background subtraction inside the model are consistent with those from the CMS mixed-event method. Using p_T-ranked jets, the energy-energy correlator differs between leading and sub-leading jets, reflecting dependence on in-medium path length. Its dependence on the dijet rapidity gap serves as a signal of the jet-induced diffusion wake.

What carries the argument

The medium scale Q_M = 2.0 GeV that separates vacuum and in-medium stages of the parton shower, enabling self-consistent jet evolution and background subtraction in the CoLBT-hydro model.

If this is right

  • The energy-energy correlator inside jets can probe medium-induced modifications in the quark-gluon plasma.
  • Different energy-energy correlators for leading versus sub-leading jets reflect the effect of varying in-medium path length.
  • Dependence of the leading-jet energy-energy correlator on dijet rapidity gap indicates the jet-induced diffusion wake.
  • Theoretical and CMS-style mixed-event background subtractions produce consistent results, validating the experimental procedure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same scale choice may improve modeling of other jet substructure observables in heavy-ion collisions.
  • Path-length dependence could be tested further by comparing results across different collision centralities.
  • The diffusion-wake signature may connect to collective-flow patterns induced by jets in the medium.

Load-bearing premise

A fixed medium scale of 2.0 GeV cleanly divides the vacuum and in-medium parts of the parton shower without missing important physics in the jet evolution.

What would settle it

A clear mismatch between the model's predicted in-jet energy-energy correlator and CMS data after identical background subtraction would show that the chosen scale fails to capture the medium effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.28788 by Raghav Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, Xin-Nian Wang, Zhong Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Ratio of the EEC in single-inclusive jets in 0– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. EEC distributions for three cases: including the full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Ratio of the EEC in Pb+Pb to that in p+p colli [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ratio of the EEC inside leading (red) and sub-leading [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a, c) Ratio of the EEC inside leading jet in 0–10% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The energy-energy correlator (EEC) inside jets is a sensitive observable for studying jet modification in the quark-gluon plasma (QGP). However, its interpretation in heavy-ion collisions remains challenging, requiring a consistent understanding of jet evolution across multiple dynamical scales together with a proper treatment of the background subtraction. In this work, we employ an updated CoLBT-hydro framework in which a medium scale $Q_M$ = 2.0 GeV is introduced to separate the vacuum and in-medium stages of the parton shower, enabling a more self-consistent treatment of jet evolution. Using a theoretical background subtraction within the model, the resulting simulation reproduces the recent CMS measurement of the in-jet EEC, and through a decomposition of different contributions, highlights the impact of medium modification on the observable. To further validate the experimental procedure, we also implement the CMS mixed-event background-subtraction method directly in the simulation and find the results are consistent with that obtained with the theoretical background subtraction. Using $p_T$-ranked jets in each event, we further investigate the dependence of medium modification on the in-medium path length, reflected in the different EECs of leading and sub-leading jets. Finally, we explore the dependence of the leading-jet EEC on the dijet rapidity gap as a signal of the jet-induced diffusion wake.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript updates the CoLBT-hydro framework by introducing a fixed medium scale Q_M = 2.0 GeV to separate vacuum and in-medium stages of the parton shower. It claims that this enables a self-consistent treatment that reproduces the recent CMS measurement of the in-jet energy-energy correlator (EEC) via theoretical background subtraction, yields consistent results when the CMS mixed-event method is implemented in the simulation, and allows decomposition to highlight medium modifications. Additional studies examine path-length dependence via leading versus sub-leading jets and the effect of dijet rapidity gap on the leading-jet EEC as a probe of the diffusion wake.

Significance. If the EEC reproduction holds independently of the specific Q_M choice and the background-subtraction consistency is robust, the work would supply a practical phenomenological framework for interpreting jet substructure modifications in heavy-ion collisions. The decomposition into medium contributions and the path-length/rapidity-gap explorations could aid in connecting EEC observables to QGP properties and wake effects.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / model description] Abstract and model description: Q_M = 2.0 GeV is introduced as the scale that 'separates the vacuum and in-medium stages' and 'enables a more self-consistent treatment,' yet no derivation, first-principles motivation, or variation study is referenced. Because the central claim is that the framework 'reproduces' the CMS EEC data, the absence of evidence that this scale was not chosen to match the target distribution makes it impossible to determine whether the reproduction and the subsequent decomposition are independent predictions.
  2. [Results section on EEC and background methods] Results on EEC reproduction and background subtraction: The abstract states that the simulation reproduces CMS data and that the two background methods are consistent, but supplies no quantitative measures (e.g., χ^{2}, point-by-point ratios, or error-band comparisons). Without such metrics or the corresponding figures/tables, the load-bearing claim of successful reproduction cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract would be strengthened by including at least one quantitative statement on the level of agreement with CMS data (e.g., typical deviation or χ^{2} value).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / model description] Abstract and model description: Q_M = 2.0 GeV is introduced as the scale that 'separates the vacuum and in-medium stages' and 'enables a more self-consistent treatment,' yet no derivation, first-principles motivation, or variation study is referenced. Because the central claim is that the framework 'reproduces' the CMS EEC data, the absence of evidence that this scale was not chosen to match the target distribution makes it impossible to determine whether the reproduction and the subsequent decomposition are independent predictions.

    Authors: The scale Q_M = 2.0 GeV is introduced in the updated CoLBT-hydro framework to demarcate the transition between vacuum-like shower evolution at high virtuality and medium-modified evolution at lower scales, consistent with the typical virtuality where medium-induced gluon radiation becomes dominant. We acknowledge that the current manuscript provides limited explicit motivation and no variation study. In the revised version we will expand the model section with a brief physical rationale for this choice (drawing on the model's parton-medium interaction thresholds) and add a sensitivity study varying Q_M around 2.0 GeV to demonstrate robustness of the EEC reproduction and decomposition. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section on EEC and background methods] Results on EEC reproduction and background subtraction: The abstract states that the simulation reproduces CMS data and that the two background methods are consistent, but supplies no quantitative measures (e.g., χ^{2}, point-by-point ratios, or error-band comparisons). Without such metrics or the corresponding figures/tables, the load-bearing claim of successful reproduction cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics are necessary to substantiate the reproduction claim. The revised manuscript will include χ²/dof values for the comparison of simulated EEC distributions to CMS data, together with tables or figure annotations showing point-by-point ratios and explicit discussion of error-band overlap for both the theoretical background subtraction and the CMS mixed-event method. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; Q_M introduction and data reproduction do not reduce to input by construction

full rationale

The provided abstract and excerpts introduce Q_M = 2.0 GeV as a scale 'introduced to separate the vacuum and in-medium stages' and state that the simulation 'reproduces the recent CMS measurement' with decomposition. No equation, section, or quote exhibits a reduction where the EEC result is equivalent to the choice of Q_M by construction, where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, or where a central premise rests solely on a self-citation chain that itself lacks independent verification. The model implementation and background-subtraction consistency checks retain independent content relative to the stated inputs. No load-bearing self-citation or ansatz smuggling is quoted. This is the default honest outcome when no explicit circular step can be exhibited from the text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; ledger populated only with the explicitly mentioned scale parameter.

free parameters (1)
  • Q_M = 2.0 GeV
    Medium scale introduced to separate vacuum and in-medium stages of the parton shower

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5777 in / 1123 out tokens · 27633 ms · 2026-06-29T11:16:26.225446+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 101 canonical work pages · 39 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J. D. Bjorken, (1982), reportNumber = FERMILAB- PUB-82-059-THY, FERMILAB-PUB-82-059-T

    1982

  2. [2]

    M. H. Thoma and M. Gyulassy, Nucl. Phys. B351, 491 (1991)

    1991

  3. [3]

    Braaten and M

    E. Braaten and M. H. Thoma, Phys. Rev. D44, R2625 (1991)

    1991

  4. [4]

    Multiple Collisions and Induced Gluon Bremsstrahlung in QCD

    M. Gyulassy and X.-N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B420, 583 (1994), arXiv:nucl-th/9306003

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  5. [5]

    Baier, Y

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

    work page arXiv 1997

  6. [6]

    B. G. Zakharov, JETP Lett.63, 952 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9607440. 6

    work page arXiv 1996

  7. [7]

    Jet Quenching in Thin Quark-Gluon Plasmas I: Formalism

    M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev, Nucl. Phys. B571, 197 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907461

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  8. [8]

    U. A. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. B588, 303 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0005129

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  9. [9]

    Multiple Parton Scattering in Nuclei: Parton Energy Loss

    X.-N. Wang and X.-F. Guo, Nucl. Phys. A696, 788 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0102230

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  10. [10]

    P. B. Arnold, G. D. Moore, and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP06, 030 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0204343

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  11. [11]

    Collisional Energy Loss in a Finite Size QCD Matter

    M. Djordjevic, Phys. Rev. C74, 064907 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0603066

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  12. [12]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  13. [13]

    Wang and U

    X.-N. Wang and U. A. Wiedemann (2025) arXiv:2508.18794 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Suppression of Hadrons with Large Transverse Momentum in Central Au+Au Collisions at $sqrt {s sub {sub {NN}}}_ = 130 GeV

    K. Adcoxet al.(PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 022301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0109003

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  15. [15]

    Centrality dependence of high pT hadron suppression in Au+Au collisions at sqrt(sNN)=130 GeV

    C. Adleret al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 202301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0206011

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  16. [16]

    New Forms of QCD Matter Discovered at RHIC

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  17. [17]

    Wang, Nucl

    X.-N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A750, 98 (2005), arXiv:nucl- th/0405017

    work page arXiv 2005

  18. [18]

    Suppression of charged particle production at large transverse momentum in central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV

    K. Aamodtet al.(ALICE), Phys. Lett. B696, 30 (2011), arXiv:1012.1004 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  19. [19]

    Observation of a Centrality-Dependent Dijet Asymmetry in Lead-Lead Collisions at sqrt(S(NN))= 2.76 TeV with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 252303 (2010), arXiv:1011.6182 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  20. [20]

    The theory and phenomenology of perturbative QCD based jet quenching

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  21. [21]

    Observation and studies of jet quenching in PbPb collisions at nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy = 2.76 TeV

    S. Chatrchyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. C84, 024906 (2011), arXiv:1102.1957 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  22. [22]

    Jet quenching in high-energy heavy-ion collisions

    G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang, “Quark–Gluon Plasma 5”, p. 309, edited by X. N. Wang (World Scien- tific, 2016), Int. J. Mod. Phys. E24, 1530014 (2015), arXiv:1511.00790 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    Apolin´ ario, Y.-T

    L. Apolin´ ario, Y.-T. Chien, and L. Cunqueiro Mendez, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33, 2430003 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. D17, 2298 (1978)

    1978

  25. [25]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. Lett.41, 1585 (1978)

    1978

  26. [26]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. D19, 2018 (1979)

    2018

  27. [27]

    P. T. Komiske, I. Moult, J. Thaler, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 051901 (2023), arXiv:2201.07800 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Moult and H

    I. Moult and H. X. Zhu, (2025), arXiv:2506.09119 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 262301 (2023), arXiv:2209.11236 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Z. Yang, Y. He, I. Moult, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 011901 (2024), arXiv:2310.01500 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Barata, P

    J. Barata, P. Caucal, A. Soto-Ontoso, and R. Szafron, JHEP11, 060 (2024), arXiv:2312.12527 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, JHEP09, 088 (2023), arXiv:2303.03413 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. D110, L031503 (2024), arXiv:2307.15110 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Barata, Z.-B

    J. Barata, Z.-B. Kang, X. Mayo L´ opez, and J. Penttala, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 251903 (2025), arXiv:2411.11782 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Y. Fu, B. M¨ uller, and C. Sirimanna, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 112302 (2025), arXiv:2411.04866 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Andres, F

    C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 122301 (2026), arXiv:2411.15298 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    W.-J. Xing, S. Cao, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 052301 (2025), arXiv:2409.12843 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Singh and V

    B. Singh and V. Vaidya, JHEP06, 071 (2025), arXiv:2408.02753 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Bossi, A

    H. Bossi, A. S. Kudinoor, I. Moult, D. Pablos, A. Rai, and K. Rajagopal, JHEP12, 073 (2024), arXiv:2407.13818 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Andres, J

    C. Andres, J. Holguin, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, and J. Viinikainen, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 082303 (2025), arXiv:2409.07514 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Barata, M

    J. Barata, M. V. Kuzmin, J. G. Milhano, and A. V. Sadofyev, Phys. Rev. D112, 016005 (2025), arXiv:2412.03616 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    W. Ke, B. Mecaj, and I. Vitev, (2025), arXiv:2512.11952 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    M.-Q. Yang, P. Ru, and B.-W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 112, 074008 (2025), arXiv:2505.04906 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Barata, J

    J. Barata, J. Brewer, K. Lee, and J. M. Silva, (2025), arXiv:2508.19404 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Barata, D

    J. Barata, D. Frenklakh, and S. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D112, 114505 (2025), arXiv:2507.16890 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Budhraja and B

    A. Budhraja and B. Singh, Phys. Lett. B872, 140079 (2026), arXiv:2503.20019 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Barata, I

    J. Barata, I. Moult, A. V. Sadofyev, and J. M. Silva, (2025), arXiv:2503.13603 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Liu, S.-Y

    H.-Y. Liu, S.-Y. Chen, W. Dai, and B.-W. Zhang, (2025), arXiv:2511.13495 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Apolin´ ario, R

    L. Apolin´ ario, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, N. O. Madureira, J.-X. Sheng, X.-N. Wang, and Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D112, 054018 (2025), arXiv:2502.11406 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Andres, J

    C. Andres, J. Holguin, B. Kimelman, R. Kun- nawalkam Elayavalli, J. Viinikainen, and Z. Yang, (2025), arXiv:2512.10026 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), (2024), arXiv:2409.12687 [hep-ex]

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), (2024), arXiv:2409.12687 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 071903 (2024), arXiv:2402.13864 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    B. E. Aboonaet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 111901 (2025), arXiv:2502.15925 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), (2025), arXiv:2504.03431 [hep-ex]

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), (2025), arXiv:2504.03431 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Chekhovskyet al.(CMS), Phys

    V. Chekhovskyet al.(CMS), Phys. Lett. B866, 139556 (2025), arXiv:2503.19993 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Energy-energy correlation in Z boson tagged PbPb and pp collisions at √sN N = 5.02 TeV,

    CMS, “Energy-energy correlation in Z boson tagged PbPb and pp collisions at √sN N = 5.02 TeV,” (2025), cMS-PAS-HIN-24-019

    2025

  57. [57]

    Nambrath, EPJ Web Conf.339, 02001 (2025), arXiv:2510.16195 [nucl-ex]

    A. Nambrath, EPJ Web Conf.339, 02001 (2025), arXiv:2510.16195 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    X. Liu, W. Vogelsang, F. Yuan, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 151901 (2025), arXiv:2410.16371 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Barata and S

    J. Barata and S. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D111, L031901 (2025), arXiv:2409.13816 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    K. Lee, F. Turro, and X. Yao, Phys. Rev. D111, 054514 (2025), arXiv:2409.13830 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Jaarsma, Y

    M. Jaarsma, Y. Li, I. Moult, W. J. Waalewijn, and H. X. Zhu, (2025), arXiv:2512.11950 [hep-ph]. 7

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Y. Guo, W. Vogelsang, F. Yuan, and W. Zhao, (2025), arXiv:2512.15896 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Y. Guo, F. Yuan, and W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 081904 (2026), arXiv:2507.15820 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    H. Chen, H. Ruan, and H. X. Zhu, JHEP12, 168 (2025), arXiv:2505.16753 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Bossi, Y.-C

    H. Bossi, Y.-C. Chen, Y. Chen, J. Zhang, G. M. In- nocenti, A. Badea, A. Baty, M. Maggi, C. McGinn, and Y.-J. Lee (Electron-Positron Alliance), (2025), arXiv:2505.11828 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Alipour-fard and W

    S. Alipour-fard and W. J. Waalewijn, JHEP07, 043 (2025), arXiv:2501.17218 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Budhraja, I

    A. Budhraja, I. Pels, and W. J. Waalewijn, (2026), arXiv:2603.16996 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    P. Duan, W. Ke, G.-Y. Qin, and L. Wang, (2026), arXiv:2604.01102 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    Medium Modification of \gamma-jets in High-energy Heavy-ion Collisions

    X.-N. Wang and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 062301 (2013), arXiv:1302.5874 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  70. [70]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  71. [71]

    S. Cao, T. Luo, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C94, 014909 (2016), arXiv:1605.06447 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  72. [72]

    S. Cao, T. Luo, G.-Y. Qin, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B777, 255 (2018), arXiv:1703.00822 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  73. [73]

    T. Luo, Y. He, S. Cao, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034919 (2024), arXiv:2306.13742 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    W.-J. Xing, S. Cao, G.-Y. Qin, and H. Xing, Phys. Lett. B805, 135424 (2020), arXiv:1906.00413 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  75. [75]

    L. Pang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C86, 024911 (2012), arXiv:1205.5019 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  76. [76]

    L.-G. Pang, Y. Hatta, X.-N. Wang, and B.-W. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D91, 074027 (2015), arXiv:1411.7767 [hep- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  77. [77]

    L.-G. Pang, H. Petersen, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C97, 064918 (2018), arXiv:1802.04449 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  78. [78]

    Wu, G.-Y

    X.-Y. Wu, G.-Y. Qin, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C105, 034909 (2022), arXiv:2107.04949 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  79. [79]

    W. Chen, S. Cao, T. Luo, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B777, 86 (2018), arXiv:1704.03648 [nucl- th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  80. [80]

    W. Chen, S. Cao, T. Luo, L.-G. Pang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B810, 135783 (2020), arXiv:2005.09678 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.