Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 49 references

D0 meson elliptic flow tracks charged-particle flow when events are sorted by the same initial geometry, showing that charm quarks inherit the collision shape.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 07:36 UTC pith:BJV7R7HA

load-bearing objection Solid CMS extension of ALICE event-shape engineering for D0 v2; data-driven linear correlation with soft-particle proxy is clean and well-documented, with only the expected high-pT/central softening.

arxiv 2607.11017 v1 pith:BJV7R7HA submitted 2026-07-13 nucl-ex hep-ex

Exploring the origin of D⁰ meson elliptic flow in PbPb collisions at sqrt{s_NN} = 5.02 TeV using event shape engineering

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification nucl-ex hep-ex PACS 25.75.Ld25.75.Cj12.38.Mh
keywords elliptic flowD0 mesonsevent-shape engineeringquark-gluon plasmaheavy-ion collisionscharm thermalizationinitial-state geometryPbPb 5.02 TeV
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.

In lead-lead collisions at 5.02 TeV, the CMS experiment uses event-shape engineering to test whether the elliptic flow of prompt D0 mesons is driven by the initial geometry of the quark-gluon plasma. An asymmetry parameter q2 is measured from forward transverse-energy deposits and used to bin events of similar centrality into classes that share similar elliptic eccentricity. Within those classes the D0 meson v2 (mid-rapidity, 2–30 GeV) is found to rise and fall in lock-step with the low-pT charged-particle v2 that serves as a proxy for the eccentricity. The resulting linear correlation, quantified by Pearson coefficients near unity for most centralities and pT below 10 GeV, implies that the initial spatial asymmetry is the dominant source of charm-hadron collective motion. A transport-model comparison underestimates the low-pT slope, suggesting incomplete thermalization of charm quarks in that calculation.

Core claim

When PbPb events are subdivided by the forward asymmetry parameter q2, the elliptic-flow coefficient v2 of prompt D0 mesons is strongly and linearly correlated with the v2 of low-pT charged particles measured in the same q2 intervals. The correlation holds across centrality classes and for D0 transverse momenta from 2 to 30 GeV, indicating that the initial-state geometry substantially controls the development of charm-hadron flow.

What carries the argument

Event-shape engineering with the reduced flow vector q2, constructed from transverse-energy deposits in the hadron-forward calorimeters (3 < |η| < 5). Events of fixed centrality are further sorted into ten q2 percentiles so that the mid-rapidity D0 and charged-particle v2 can be compared at matched initial eccentricity.

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats the measured low-pT charged-particle v2 as a faithful experimental stand-in for the true event-by-event initial eccentricity, relying on an approximately linear hydrodynamic response and a large rapidity gap that suppresses non-flow effects.

What would settle it

A high-statistics measurement in the same q2 classes that finds the D0–charged-particle v2 correlation coefficient dropping significantly below unity (or becoming non-linear) already at low pT (2–4 GeV) in mid-central collisions would undermine the claim that initial geometry is the dominant driver.

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

If this is right

  • Charm quarks participate in the collective expansion of the QGP sufficiently early and strongly that their final-state anisotropy mirrors the initial geometric eccentricity.
  • Transport models that under-predict the low-pT slope of the D0–charged-particle correlation must increase the degree of charm thermalization to match the data.
  • At high pT (10–30 GeV) any residual weakening of the correlation can be used as a quantitative handle on path-length-dependent energy loss of charm quarks.
  • The same q2-sorting technique can be applied to other heavy-flavor species (Ds, Λc) to test whether strangeness or baryon number alters the geometry-driven response.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the correlation remains linear even after the D0 and charged-particle v2 values are normalized to their inclusive averages, the relative response of charm to geometry appears universal across the measured centrality and pT range.
  • The weaker correlation observed in the most central (0–10 %) and most peripheral (40–50 %) bins may already encode residual viscosity or non-flow contributions that become visible once the average eccentricity is small.
  • If the same linear relation is confirmed for bottom-flavor hadrons, the mass hierarchy of heavy-quark thermalization times would be tightly constrained by a single geometric observable.

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

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a CMS measurement of prompt D0 meson elliptic flow (v2) in PbPb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV (0.607 nb−1) using event-shape engineering. Events are classified by a forward calorimeter asymmetry parameter q2 (HF, 3 < |η| < 5) within 1% centrality slices that are then recombined into 10% classes, suppressing centrality bias. Scalar-product v2 is extracted for D0 (2 < pT < 30 GeV, |y| < 1) and for low-pT charged particles (1 < pT < 3 GeV, |η| < 1) in common q2 intervals. The D0 v2 is found to be strongly linearly correlated with the charged-particle v2 (Pearson r near unity for pT < 10 GeV outside the most central bin; normalized slopes consistent with 1 and intercepts with 0). The authors interpret this as evidence that initial-state geometry substantially drives charm-hadron elliptic flow. PHSD model comparisons are shown and indicate underestimation of charm thermalization at low pT.

Significance. The result supplies a clean, data-driven demonstration that charm-hadron v2 tracks the same event-by-event eccentricity variations that govern bulk flow, extending earlier ALICE ESE work with finer q2 binning, a larger pT reach, and explicit Pearson/slope/intercept quantification. The analysis is technically solid: scalar-product method with large rapidity gap, BDT selection, DCA-based 95% prompt purity, acceptance-efficiency corrections, and a documented systematic table. The normalized slopes ≈ 1 and intercepts ≈ 0 across five centralities and four pT bins constitute a falsifiable, nearly parameter-free statement of linear response. Residual non-flow or viscous non-linearity would have to conspire across many bins while remaining within the quoted systematics; that is not a load-bearing failure. The paper therefore strengthens the case that heavy quarks participate in the collective expansion of the QGP and provides a useful benchmark for transport models.

minor comments (6)
  1. Section 5.1: the modified scalar-product procedure that bins candidates in p(D0) and extracts a yield-weighted average is clear, but a short explicit statement that the same procedure is applied independently inside each q2 class would remove any residual ambiguity about order of operations.
  2. Figure 3 and Appendix A: the linear fits are performed with statistical uncertainties only; a brief note that systematic uncertainties on the D0 points are shown as boxes but not included in the fit would help the reader assess the quoted slope/intercept errors.
  3. Section 7 / Figure 4: the statement that r is consistent with unity for pT < 10 GeV outside 0–10% is supported by the data, but the larger uncertainties at 10–30 GeV make the claimed weakening of correlation only suggestive; a single clarifying sentence would avoid over-interpretation.
  4. Table 1: the ranges of absolute differences are useful, but listing the dominant source for the slope and intercept in each centrality/pT bin (or at least noting that centrality and nonprompt dominate the slope) would improve transparency.
  5. Typographical: “Crytsal Ball” appears twice in Section 4; correct to “Crystal Ball”.
  6. References: the recent ALICE Λc and D-meson flow results (arXiv:2603.18966) and the CMS Ds paper (arXiv:2602.14221) are already cited; ensuring the final published versions are updated before production is advisable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the D0–charged-particle v2 correlation is a direct data measurement under common q2 selection, not forced by definition or fit.

full rationale

The paper’s central result is an empirical observation: after classifying events by the forward calorimeter asymmetry q2 (Eq. 2, HF 3<|η|<5), the mid-rapidity prompt D0 v2 (scalar-product method, |y|<1) is linearly correlated with the low-pT charged-particle v2 (1<pT<3 GeV, |η|<1) measured in the same q2 intervals. Both observables are extracted independently from data (mass fits + SP formula Eq. 3 for D0; standard SP for charged particles). The charged-particle v2 is used only as a data-driven proxy for eccentricity, justified by the observed linear q2–v2 relation (Fig. 2) and the large rapidity gap that suppresses non-flow; it is not an input that algebraically forces the D0 result. Normalization of each q2 bin by the q2-inclusive v2 is a conventional rescaling for presentation of slopes/intercepts (Fig. 5) and does not redefine the correlation. Pearson coefficients (Eq. 7) and linear fits are post-hoc quantifiers of the measured scatter, not fitted parameters that are then re-predicted. The PHSD comparison is an external model, not a fit to the present data. No equation reduces the claimed linearity to a tautology, no uniqueness theorem is imported from overlapping authors, and no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation. The derivation chain is therefore a self-contained experimental measurement.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

Experimental measurement paper. No free parameters are fitted to produce the central correlation; the result is data-driven. Domain assumptions of heavy-ion physics (hydrodynamic response of soft particles, large-η-gap suppression of non-flow, prompt/nonprompt separation via DCA) are standard and stated. No new entities are postulated.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Low-pT charged-particle v2 responds approximately linearly to initial-state eccentricity (hydrodynamic response).
    Used to treat charged-particle v2 as a proxy for event-by-event geometry (Introduction and Section 5.2).
  • domain assumption A large pseudorapidity gap (|Δη| > 3) between HF q2 and mid-rapidity particles suppresses non-flow correlations.
    Explicitly invoked in the definition of the scalar-product method and q2 selection (Section 5).
  • domain assumption DCA < 0.0085 cm yields a sample with 95 % prompt D0 purity.
    Determined from MC template fits; residual 5 % nonprompt contamination is assigned as systematic (Section 5.1).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 44986 in / 2209 out tokens · 26105 ms · 2026-07-14T07:36:44.610725+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The influence of the initial-state geometry on the elliptic flow of prompt D$^0$ mesons in high-energy heavy ion collisions is explored. A lead-lead (PbPb) data sample at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair of 5.02 TeV and with an integrated luminosity of 0.607 nb$^{-1}$ was collected in 2018 with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC. Based on these data, an event-shape engineering technique is used to isolate collisions with similar geometrical properties. An asymmetry parameter, $q_2$, is first determined from the distribution of transverse energy in the forward region of the detector. This parameter is shown to be linearly correlated with the elliptic anisotropy of inclusive charged particles measured near mid-rapidity, as characterized by the second-order Fourier coefficients, $v_2$. Taking the charged particle $v_2$ coefficients as proxies for the initial-state eccentricity, the correlation of D$^0$ meson $v_2$ values near mid-rapidity with those of inclusive charged particles is then studied. For D$^0$ mesons with transverse momenta in the range of 2$-$30 GeV and for different degrees of collision overlap, the $v_2$ values are found strongly correlated with those for charged particles when selected based on similar $q_2$ intervals. This correlation suggests that the initial-state geometry substantially impacts the development of charm-hadron flow in heavy ion collisions. A model calculation that explores the thermalization and collective motion of D$^0$ mesons and charged particles is compared to the experimental results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11017 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An example of the fit to the invariant mass spectrum in the centrality class 40–50% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Dependence of the D0 meson (upper row) and the charged particle (lower row) v2 values on q2 . The D0 mesons have 2 < pT < 4 GeV and |y| < 1. The inclusive charged particles have 1 < pT < 3 GeV and |η| < 1. The plots are shown for events in the centrality ranges of 10–20, 20–30, 30–40 and 40–50%. The vertical lines represent the statistical uncertainties and the boxes represent the systematic uncertainties.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Scatter plots of the D0 meson v2 vs. charged particle v2 values measured in common q2 intervals. The D0 mesons have 2 < pT < 4 GeV and |y| < 1. The inclusive charged particles have 1 < pT < 3 GeV and |η| < 1. The vertical lines represent the statistical uncertainties, and the boxes represent the systematic uncertainties associated with the D0 meson v2 . The errors associated with the charged particle v2 ar… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Pearson correlation coefficients (r) obtained from the scatter plots of the prompt D0 meson v2 vs. charged particle v2 values for the indicated pT and centrality classes. The vertical lines correspond to the statistical uncertainties and the vertical bands correspond to the systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. The open symbols show the PHSD predictions in the D0 meson pT range 2–10 GeV, with t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Slopes (upper row) and intercepts (lower row) obtained from the fits of the prompt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scatter plots of the D0 meson v2 vs. charged particle v2 values measured in common q2 intervals. The inclusive charged particles have 1 < pT < 3 GeV and |η| < 1. The vertical lines represent the statistical uncertainties, and the boxes represent the systematic uncertainties as￾sociated with the D0 meson v2 values. The uncertainties associated with the inclusive charged particle v2 values are smaller than t… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The same scatter plots as Fig. 6, but for the D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗

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

49 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Theory of hadronic plasma

    E. V . Shuryak, “Theory of hadronic plasma”,Sov. Phys. JETP47(1978) 212

    1978

  2. [2]

    Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, “Collective flow and viscosity in relativistic heavy-ion collisions”,Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.63(2013) 123, doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102212-170540,arXiv:1301.2826

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102212-170540 2013

  3. [3]

    Topology studies of hydrodynamics using two particle correlation analysis

    J. Takahashi et al., “Topology studies of hydrodynamics using two particle correlation analysis”,Phys. Rev. Lett.103(2009) 242301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.242301,arXiv:0902.4870

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.242301 2009

  4. [4]

    Collision geometry fluctuations and triangular flow in heavy-ion collisions

    B. Alver and G. Roland, “Collision geometry fluctuations and triangular flow in heavy-ion collisions”,Phys. Rev. C81(2010) 054905, References 13 doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.81.054905,arXiv:1003.0194. [Erratum: doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.82.039903]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.81.054905 2010

  5. [5]

    Flow study in relativistic nuclear collisions by Fourier expansion of azimuthal particle distributions

    S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang, “Flow study in relativistic nuclear collisions by Fourier expansion of azimuthal particle distributions”,Z. Phys. C70(1996) 665, doi:10.1007/s002880050141,arXiv:hep-ph/9407282

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/s002880050141 1996

  6. [6]

    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 doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-020852 2018

  7. [7]

    Mapping the hydrodynamic response to the initial geometry in heavy-ion collisions

    F. G. Gardim, F. Grassi, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Mapping the hydrodynamic response to the initial geometry in heavy-ion collisions”,Phys. Rev. C85(2012) 024908, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.85.024908,arXiv:1111.6538

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.85.024908 2012

  8. [8]

    Event-by-event distributions of azimuthal asymmetries in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions

    H. Niemi, G. S. Denicol, H. Holopainen, and P . Huovinen, “Event-by-event distributions of azimuthal asymmetries in ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions”,Phys. Rev. C87(2013) 054901,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.87.054901,arXiv:1212.1008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.87.054901 2013

  9. [9]

    Effects of viscosity on the mapping of initial to final state in heavy ion collisions

    F. G. Gardim, J. Noronha-Hostler, M. Luzum, and F. Grassi, “Effects of viscosity on the mapping of initial to final state in heavy ion collisions”,Phys. Rev. C91(2015) 034902, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.91.034902,arXiv:1411.2574

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.91.034902 2015

  10. [10]

    Linear and cubic response to the initial eccentricity in heavy-ion collisions

    J. Noronha-Hostler, L. Yan, F. G. Gardim, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Linear and cubic response to the initial eccentricity in heavy-ion collisions”,Phys. Rev. C93(2016) 014909, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.93.014909,arXiv:1511.03896

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.93.014909 2016

  11. [11]

    Heavy quark production inp+pand energy loss and flow of heavy quarks in Au+Au collisions at √sNN =200 GeV

    PHENIX Collaboration, “Heavy quark production inp+pand energy loss and flow of heavy quarks in Au+Au collisions at √sNN =200 GeV”,Phys. Rev. C84(2011) 044905, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.84.044905,arXiv:1005.1627

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.84.044905 2011

  12. [12]

    Elliptic flow of electrons from heavy-flavor hadron decays in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = $ 200, 62.4, and 39 GeV

    STAR Collaboration, “Elliptic flow of electrons from heavy-flavor hadron decays in Au+Au collisions at √sNN =200, 62.4, and 39 GeV”,Phys. Rev. C95(2017) 034907, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.95.034907,arXiv:1405.6348

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.95.034907 2017

  13. [13]

    Measurement of D 0 azimuthal anisotropy at midrapidity in Au+Au collisions at √sNN =200 GeV

    STAR Collaboration, “Measurement of D 0 azimuthal anisotropy at midrapidity in Au+Au collisions at √sNN =200 GeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) 212301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.212301,arXiv:1701.06060

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.212301 2017

  14. [14]

    Azimuthal anisotropy of D meson production in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “Azimuthal anisotropy of D-meson production in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =2.76 TeV”,Phys. Rev. C90(2014) 034904, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.90.034904,arXiv:1405.2001

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.90.034904 2014

  15. [15]

    D-meson azimuthal anisotropy in mid-central Pb-Pb collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02}$ TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “D-meson azimuthal anisotropy in midcentral Pb-Pb collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 102301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.102301,arXiv:1707.01005

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.102301 2018

  16. [16]

    Probing charm quark dynamics via multiparticle correlations in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} =$ 5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Probing charm quark dynamics via multiparticle correlations in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022) 022001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.022001,arXiv:2112.12236

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.022001 2022

  17. [17]

    Measurement of prompt D$^0$ meson azimuthal anisotropy in PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} = $5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of prompt D 0 meson azimuthal anisotropy in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 202301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.202301,arXiv:1708.03497. 14

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.202301 2018

  18. [18]

    Measurement of prompt D 0 and D0 meson azimuthal anisotropy and search for strong electric fields in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of prompt D 0 and D0 meson azimuthal anisotropy and search for strong electric fields in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B 816(2021) 136253,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136253,arXiv:2009.12628

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136253 2021

  19. [19]

    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 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.11.007 2025

  20. [20]

    Event-shape engineering for the D-meson elliptic flow in mid-central Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “Event-shape engineering for the D-meson elliptic flow in mid-central Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,JHEP02(2019) 150, doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2019)150,arXiv:1809.09371

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep02(2019)150 2019

  21. [21]

    Transverse-momentum and event-shape dependence of D-meson flow harmonics in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    ALICE Collaboration, “Transverse-momentum and event-shape dependence of D-meson flow harmonics in Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B813(2021) 136054, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.136054,arXiv:2005.11131

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.136054 2021

  22. [22]

    Influence of strangeness on the anisotropic flow of prompt D ± s mesons in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Influence of strangeness on the anisotropic flow of prompt D ± s mesons in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”, 2026.arXiv:2602.14221. Submitted to Phys. Lett. B

    arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Evidence of differentΛ c-baryon and D-meson elliptic flow in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.36 TeV with ALICE at the LHC

    ALICE Collaboration, “Evidence of differentΛ c-baryon and D-meson elliptic flow in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.36 TeV with ALICE at the LHC”, 2026.arXiv:2603.18966. Submitted toPhys. Rev. Lett

    arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    HEPData record for this analysis, 2026.doi:10.17182/hepdata.168220

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.168220 2026

  25. [25]

    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 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/9/10/p10009 2014

  26. [26]

    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

  27. [27]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/11/p11021 2024

  28. [28]

    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 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/p10017 2020

  29. [29]

    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 doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/p01020 2017

  30. [30]

    CMS luminosity measurement using nucleus-nucleus collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV in 2018

    CMS Collaboration, “CMS luminosity measurement using nucleus-nucleus collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV in 2018”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-001, 2022

    2018

  31. [31]

    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 doi:10.1007/jhep04(2017)039 2017

  32. [32]

    An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2

    T. Sj ¨ostrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,Comput. Phys. Commun.191(2015) 159,doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024,arXiv:1410.3012. References 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024 2015

  33. [33]

    Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 155, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x,arXiv:1512.00815

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x 2016

  34. [34]

    The EvtGen particle decay simulation package

    D. J. Lange, “The EvtGen particle decay simulation package”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A462 (2001) 152,doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(01)00089-4

    doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(01)00089-4 2001

  35. [35]

    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

  36. [36]

    Review of particle physics

    Particle Data Group, S. Navas et al., “Review of particle physics”,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 030001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  37. [37]

    TMVA, the Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis with ROOT

    A. Hoecker et al., “TMVA, the Toolkit for Multivariate Data Analysis with ROOT”,PoS ACAT(2009) 040,doi:10.22323/1.050.0040,arXiv:physics/0703039v5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.22323/1.050.0040 2009

  38. [38]

    A study of the reactionsψ ′ →γγψ

    M. J. Oreglia, “A study of the reactionsψ ′ →γγψ”. PhD thesis, Stanford University,

  39. [39]

    SLAC Report SLAC-R-236

  40. [40]

    Elliptic flow from two- and four-particle correlations in Au+Au collisions at √sNN =130 GeV

    STAR Collaboration, “Elliptic flow from two- and four-particle correlations in Au+Au collisions at √sNN =130 GeV”,Phys. Rev. C66(2002) 034904, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.66.034904,arXiv:nucl-ex/0206001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.66.034904 2002

  41. [41]

    Eliminating experimental bias in anisotropic-flow measurements of high-energy nuclear collisions

    M. Luzum and J.-Y. Ollitrault, “Eliminating experimental bias in anisotropic-flow measurements of high-energy nuclear collisions”,Phys. Rev. C87(2013) 044907, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.87.044907,arXiv:1209.2323

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.87.044907 2013

  42. [42]

    Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions

    A. M. Poskanzer and S. A. Voloshin, “Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions”,Phys. Rev. C58(1998) 1671, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1671,arXiv:nucl-ex/9805001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.58.1671 1998

  43. [43]

    Directed and elliptic flow of charged pions and protons in Pb+Pb collisions at 40Aand 158AGeV

    NA49 Collaboration, “Directed and elliptic flow of charged pions and protons in Pb+Pb collisions at 40Aand 158AGeV”,Phys. Rev. C68(2003) 034903, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.68.034903,arXiv:nucl-ex/0303001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.68.034903 2003

  44. [44]

    Measurements of azimuthal anisotropy of nonprompt D 0 mesons in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Measurements of azimuthal anisotropy of nonprompt D 0 mesons in PbPb collisions at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Lett. B850(2024) 138389, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138389,arXiv:2212.01636

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138389 2024

  45. [45]

    Cumulants and nonlinear response of highp T harmonic flow at √sNN =5.02 TeV

    J. Noronha-Hostler et al., “Cumulants and nonlinear response of highp T harmonic flow at √sNN =5.02 TeV”,Phys. Rev. C95(2017) 044901, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.95.044901,arXiv:1609.05171

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.95.044901 2017

  46. [46]

    Event-by-event $v_n$ correlations of soft hadrons and heavy mesons in heavy ion collisions

    C. A. G. Prado et al., “Event-by-event correlations between soft hadrons and D 0 mesons in 5.02 TeV PbPb collisions at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”,Phys. Rev. C96(2017) 064903,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.96.064903,arXiv:1611.02965

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.96.064903 2017

  47. [47]

    Tomography of the quark-gluon plasma by charm quarks

    T. Song et al., “Tomography of the quark-gluon plasma by charm quarks”,Phys. Rev. C 92(2015) 014910,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.92.014910,arXiv:1503.03039

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.92.014910 2015

  48. [48]

    Charm production in Pb+Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider

    T. Song et al., “Charm production in Pb+Pb collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider”,Phys. Rev. C93(2016) 034906, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.93.034906,arXiv:1512.00891

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.93.034906 2016

  49. [49]

    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. 16 A Scatter plots of the D 0 mesonv 2 vs.charged particlev 2 The scatter plots of the D 0 mesonv 2 vs.charged particlev 2 values measured in commonq 2 intervals ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/04/065 2009