Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Observation of top-quark pair production in lead-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02$ TeV with the ATLAS detector

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ATLAS observes top-quark pair production in lead-lead collisions at 5.02 TeV with a 5.0-sigma significance and a measured cross-section of 3.6 microbarns, consistent with nuclear-modified predictions.

desk verdict First 5-sigma observation of ttbar in Pb+Pb with a credible cross-section; the abstract's pre-equilibrium QGP flavor claim outruns what the measurement shows. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10186 v2 pith:CQPBFAVL submitted 2024-11-15 hep-ex

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords topquarkpairproductionlead-leadcollisionsheavy-ionquark-gluonplasmacrosssectionmeasurementdileptonchannelnuclearpartondistributionfunctionsATLASdetector
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The ATLAS Collaboration reports the first observation of top-quark pair production in lead-lead collisions. Using 1.9 inverse nanobarns of data at a nucleon-pair center-of-mass energy of 5.02 TeV, the analysis selects events with exactly one electron, one muon, and at least two jets. The observed signal has a significance of 5.0 standard deviations, with 4.1 expected, and the measured production cross-section is 3.6 (+1.0/-0.9 statistical, +0.8/-0.5 systematic) microbarns. Because top quarks decay before the quark-gluon plasma forms, this measurement supports the presence of all quark flavors in the pre-equilibrium stage of the plasma, offering a new probe of the earliest moments of heavy-ion collisions.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the electron-muon dilepton selection combined with a data-driven estimate of the fake-lepton background. The signal is extracted from two signal regions defined by the dilepton transverse momentum, and the fake-lepton contribution is estimated with the ABCD method using same-sign and anti-isolated control regions. Because jet quenching is not modeled in the Monte Carlo simulation, effective jet energy scale corrections derived separately for central and peripheral collisions from Z+jets events are applied; the analysis deliberately uses only the jet count, not jet kinematics, as a selection variable to reduce sensitivity to jet-quenching modeling.

What would settle it

Repeat the signal extraction with the effective jet energy scale corrections removed (set to unity), and check whether the observed significance falls below 5 sigma or the fitted signal strength shifts beyond its uncertainty; alternatively, measure the cross-section using b-tagged jets, which do not rely on the Z+jets-derived corrections, and see if the result is consistent within uncertainties.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Top-quark pair production is observed in lead-lead collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, marking the first time this process is seen in nucleus-nucleus collisions. The measurement uses the electron-muon decay channel, which has the least background, and divides events into two signal regions based on the dilepton transverse momentum to improve sensitivity. The observed (expected) significance is 5.0 (4.1) standard deviations, and the inclusive cross-section is measured to be $\sigma_{t\bar{t}} = 3.6\;^{+1.0}_{-0.9}\;\mathrm{(stat.)}\;^{+0.8}_{-0.5}\;\mathrm{(syst.)}~\mu\mathrm{b}$, with a total relative uncertainty of 31%. This value is consistent with theoretical predictions using a range of nuclear parton distribution functions and with the proton-proton cross-section scaled by the lead mass number squared. The result consolidates evidence that all quark flavors are present in the pre-equilibrium stage of the quark-gluon plasma.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the effective jet energy scale corrections, derived separately for central and peripheral collisions from Z+jets events, fully account for the jet-quenching effects that the Monte Carlo simulation does not model; if these corrections are biased, the signal efficiency, and thus the measured cross-section and significance, could be affected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • This is the first observation of top-quark pair production in nucleus-nucleus collisions, providing direct evidence that top quarks, and by extension all quark flavors, are produced in the early stage of the quark-gluon plasma.
  • The measured cross-section agrees with predictions scaled by $A^2$ and with several nuclear parton distribution function sets, but the 31% uncertainty is too large to discriminate among these nuclear PDFs.
  • Because no b-tagging is required, the event sample provides a useful basis for calibrating heavy-flavor jets in heavy-ion collisions.
  • The established reconstruction of top-quark pairs in lead-lead collisions opens the possibility of using hadronically decaying W bosons from top decays to probe the time structure of the quark-gluon plasma.

Reading between the lines

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

  • With additional data from future LHC runs, the same analysis strategy could be extended to measure the cross-section as a function of centrality, potentially separating initial-state nuclear PDF effects from final-state energy-loss effects.
  • The effective jet energy scale corrections, derived from Z+jets events, could be validated specifically for b-quark jets once larger ttbar samples become available, which would reduce a leading source of systematic uncertainty.
  • If the observed cross-section is slightly above the $A^2$-scaled proton-proton expectation, a future, more precise measurement might reveal small nuclear modifications or energy-loss effects that are currently hidden by the 31% uncertainty.
  • The design choice of relying only on jet multiplicity rather than jet kinematics as the discriminating variable could be reused for other rare probes in heavy-ion collisions where jet-quenching modeling is uncertain.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first observation of top-quark pair (ttbar) production in lead-lead (Pb+Pb) collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=5.02 TeV, using 1.9 nb^-1 of ATLAS data from 2015 and 2018. Events with exactly one electron and one muon and at least two jets are analyzed in two signal regions defined by the dilepton transverse momentum. A profile likelihood fit to the e-mu invariant mass distribution yields an observed (expected) significance of 5.0 (4.1) standard deviations and a measured cross-section of sigma_ttbar = 3.6 +1.0/-0.9 (stat.) +0.8/-0.5 (syst.) microbarns. The result is compared with theoretical predictions using several nuclear PDF sets and with the CMS measurement in Pb+Pb, finding agreement within uncertainties.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a landmark measurement: the first observation of top-quark pair production in nucleus-nucleus collisions, opening a new probe of the quark-gluon plasma. The analysis is carefully executed, with a profile likelihood fit, a data-driven ABCD estimate of the dominant fake-lepton background, extensive systematic uncertainties, and a transparent comparison to nPDF predictions. The statistical power is limited (32 events in the signal regions), and the central claim depends on a jet-quenching calibration that is partially indirect, but the overall methodology is sound and the result is plausible. The paper also explicitly states the limitation that jet quenching is not modeled in the MC simulation, which is commendable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Page 5, 'Effects of jet quenching' paragraph] The effective jet energy scale correction factors are derived from Z+jets events with at least one jet, while the signal selection requires at least two jets with pT>35 GeV. The probability that a second jet crosses this threshold is a key acceptance factor and is exactly the quantity most affected by jet quenching. The systematic uncertainty is evaluated by variations with no corrections applied and symmetrized; this brackets the overall correction amplitude but does not test a pT-, centrality-, or flavor-dependent bias in the 2-jet selection efficiency. A closure test of the 2-jet/1-jet ratio in the Z+jets control sample, or an alternative estimate, should be provided to support the claim that the signal acceptance uncertainty is adequately covered. Since both the fitted signal strength and the significance propagate through this acceptance, this point is load-bearing for the observation claim.
  2. [Page 5, 'Fake-lepton backgrounds' paragraph] The fake-lepton background, the largest background, is estimated with the ABCD method, which assumes no correlations between the isolation and charge requirements. The paper notes that regions B-D have limited events and that the fake background is estimated inclusively for electrons and muons. Systematic variations are described, but no validation of the correlation assumption or of the inclusive treatment is shown. Given the small event counts, a closure test using MC samples or a comparison with an alternative background estimation method would increase confidence that the fake-background normalization and shape are unbiased. Without such validation, the background subtraction, and hence the signal significance, is more fragile than the quoted uncertainties suggest.
  3. [Page 6, 'Signal strength' and significance paragraph] The expected significance is 4.1 sigma and the observed is 5.0 sigma, with the signal modeling uncertainty quoted as the leading systematic (differences up to 12% between alternative signal MC samples). The paper does not show how the fitted signal strength or the significance changes when the alternative signal generators (Herwig, h_damp variation) are used instead of the nominal Powheg+Pythia sample. Since the observation claim is based on the profile likelihood with the signal template shape, a brief statement of the impact of each alternative signal sample on the fitted mu_ttbar and on the significance would demonstrate that the observation is robust against signal modeling choices.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion] The statement that the observation 'consolidates the evidence of the existence of all quark flavors in the pre-equilibrium stage of the quark-gluon plasma' is an interpretation that goes beyond the measurement; the data demonstrate ttbar production, but the connection to the pre-equilibrium stage is indirect and should be phrased as an outlook rather than a direct implication.
  2. [Page 5, 'Effects of jet quenching' paragraph] The mismatch between the Z+jets control sample (at least one jet) and the signal selection (at least two jets) is mentioned only implicitly; an explicit sentence explaining why the one-jet calibration is expected to cover the two-jet acceptance would help the reader assess the systematic uncertainty.
  3. [Figure 1 and Section 4] The paper gives the observed event counts in SR1 and SR2 (22 and 10) but does not provide a table of the fitted signal and background yields in each region; such a table would make the result easier to interpret and would allow the reader to understand the background composition in the signal regions.
  4. [Page 6, 'Signal strength' definition] The phrase 'ratio of the observed ttbar cross-section' in the definition of mu_ttbar could be misread as the measured cross-section; consider rephrasing to 'the fitted signal yield relative to the theoretical prediction without nuclear modifications' to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Page 5, 'Systematic uncertainties' paragraph] The integrated luminosity uncertainty of 1.5% is referenced to a pp luminosity paper; it would be useful to clarify whether the Pb+Pb luminosity determination includes any additional uncertainty specific to heavy-ion running conditions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the 5.0σ observation and cross-section are determined by a free signal-strength fit against a background-only hypothesis, not by the NNLO normalization.

full rationale

The analysis extracts the t-tbar signal via a profile-likelihood fit of a free signal strength μ_ttbar to the m_eμ distributions in SR1/SR2, with backgrounds estimated from data (ABCD method) and MC simulation. The significance is computed against a background-only hypothesis using the CL_s procedure, so no fitted parameter is forced to equal the theoretical cross-section. The signal MC templates are normalized to the NNLO+NNLL cross-section, but μ is a free parameter in the fit; the quoted cross-section is obtained by multiplying the fitted μ by the external theoretical σ_th, which is a standard model-dependent conversion rather than a prediction that reduces by construction. The expected significance of 4.1σ assumes the SM signal, while the observed 5.0σ is determined by data. Comparisons with nPDF predictions and with the ATLAS pp measurement scaled by A_Pb^2 are external checks, not inputs of the fit. Self-citations to ATLAS calibration notes and the pp cross-section are used as calibrations or comparisons, not as load-bearing derivations. The absence of jet-quenching modeling in the MC is addressed through effective jet-energy-scale corrections derived from Z+jets data and through symmetrized systematic variations; whether those corrections fully cover the physics is a systematic-uncertainty and correctness question, not a circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurement rests on data-driven background estimates and simulation-based signal modeling, with several background normalizations and jet energy corrections fitted or constrained from data. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The analysis uses standard assumptions about the Standard Model, MC simulation fidelity, and the ABCD method.

free parameters (6)
  • Signal strength mu_ttbar = Implied by cross-section 3.6 microbarns (not quoted directly)
    The signal strength is the ratio of observed to theoretical ttbar cross-section and is the primary fit parameter in the profile likelihood fit to the e-mu mass distributions in SR1 and SR2.
  • VV background normalization = Allowed to vary by 26%
    Nuisance parameter in the likelihood fit, constrained by a Gaussian prior corresponding to the Sherpa generator uncertainty extrapolated to the Pb+Pb system.
  • Z->tautau background normalization = 10% uncertainty
    Normalization uncertainty reflecting the measurement uncertainty of Z boson production in heavy-ion collisions, applied to the Z->tautau background.
  • tW background normalization = 9.5% uncertainty
    Normalization uncertainty for the single-top tW process, taken from prior measurements.
  • Fake-lepton background normalization = Estimated via ABCD method; no single value quoted
    Determined from data using same-sign and inverted isolation control regions, with the m_e_mu shape smoothed using an exponential function due to small event counts.
  • Effective jet energy scale correction factors = Derived from Z+jets data; values not quoted
    Separate correction factors for central and peripheral collisions to account for residual jet energy scale mis-modeling, including jet quenching effects not modeled in MC.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Standard Model NNLO+NNLL calculation of the ttbar production cross-section in pp collisions at 5.02 TeV, scaled by A^2, is an accurate reference.
    Used to translate the measured signal strength into an absolute cross-section and to compare with theoretical predictions using various nPDF sets.
  • domain assumption The ABCD method yields an unbiased fake-lepton background estimate because isolation and charge requirements are uncorrelated.
    The paper explicitly states 'assuming no correlations between isolation and the charge requirements' when deriving the fake-background estimate as N_B N_C / N_D.
  • domain assumption Jet quenching effects are adequately captured by effective jet energy scale correction factors derived from Z+jets data, despite not being modeled in MC.
    The text says jet quenching is not modeled in MC and that effective correction factors account for the remaining mis-modeling; the analysis depends on this modeling choice.
  • domain assumption The 0-80% centrality selection avoids photon-induced processes and the contribution from the 80-100% range is below 1%.
    The selection is applied to suppress photon-induced backgrounds; the minimal effect on signal yield is an estimate from simulation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observation of top-quark pair production in lead-lead collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02$ TeV with the ATLAS detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQPBFAVL

@misc{pith2026241110186,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observation of top-quark pair production in lead-lead collisions at $\sqrts_\mathrmNN=5.02$ TeV with the ATLAS detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQPBFAVL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10186}
}
abstract

Top-quark pair production is observed in lead-lead (Pb+Pb) collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02$ TeV at the Large Hadron Collider with the ATLAS detector. The data sample was recorded in 2015 and 2018, amounting to an integrated luminosity of 1.9 nb$^{-1}$. Events with exactly one electron and one muon and at least two jets are selected. Top-quark pair production is measured with an observed (expected) significance of 5.0 (4.1) standard deviations. The measured top-quark pair production cross-section is $\sigma_{t\bar{t}} = 3.6\;^{+1.0}_{-0.9}\;\mathrm{(stat.)}\;^{+0.8}_{-0.5}\;\mathrm{(syst.)} ~\mathrm{\mu b}$, with a total relative uncertainty of 31%, and is consistent with theoretical predictions using a range of different nuclear parton distribution functions. The observation of this process consolidates the evidence of the existence of all quark flavors in the pre-equilibrium stage of the quark-gluon plasma at very high energy densities, similar to the conditions present in the early universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10186 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Post-fit distributions of the 𝑚𝑒𝜇 variable in (a) the SR1 and (b) the SR2, with total post-fit uncertainties represented by the hatched area. The filled markers in the bottom panels show the ratio between data and the sum of predictions. The 𝑉𝑉 background normalization is allowed to vary by 26%, which corresponds to the uncertainty in Sherpa generator predictions extrapolated to the center-of-mass energy of the Pb+P… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between observed and predicted values of 𝜎𝑡𝑡¯. This measurement is compared with the CMS Collaboration measurement of 𝜎𝑡𝑡¯ in Pb+Pb collisions at √ 𝑠NN=5.02 TeV [13] and the ATLAS measurement in 𝑝 𝑝 collisions at √ 𝑠 = 5.02 TeV [36]. The latter is scaled by 𝐴 2 Pb. The theoretical cross section is obtained from NLO calculations using the MCFM generator [61] scaled to the NNLO+NNLL precision by the 𝐾-facto… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Busza, K

    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, arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    QCD in heavy ion collisions

    E. Iancu, QCD in heavy ion collisions, (2012), arXiv:1205.0579 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Ratti, Lattice QCD and heavy ion collisions: a review of recent progress, Rept

    C. Ratti, Lattice QCD and heavy ion collisions: a review of recent progress, Rept. Prog. Phys.81 (2018) 084301, arXiv:1804.07810 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Top-quark production in proton-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions at LHC energies and beyond

    D. d’Enterria, K. Krajczár, and H. Paukkunen,Top-quark production in proton–nucleus and nucleus–nucleus collisions at LHC energies and beyond, Phys. Lett. B746 (2015) 64, arXiv: 1501.05879 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Apolinário, J

    L. Apolinário, J. G. Milhano, G. P. Salam, and C. A. Salgado, Probing the time structure of the quark-gluon plasma with top quarks, Phys. Rev. Lett.120 (2018) 232301, arXiv:1711.03105 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Khanpour and S

    H. Khanpour and S. Atashbar Tehrani,Global Analysis of Nuclear Parton Distribution Functions and Their Uncertainties at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 014026, arXiv: 1601.00939 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    J. J. Ethier and E. R. Nocera,Parton Distributions in Nucleons and Nuclei, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70 (2020) 43, arXiv:2001.07722 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Single top-quark production at the Tevatron and the LHC

    A. Giammanco and R. Schwienhorst,Single top-quark production at the Tevatron and the LHC, Rev. Mod. Phys.90(2018) 035001, arXiv:1710.10699 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Czakon, P

    M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov, Total Top-Quark Pair-Production Cross Section at Hadron Colliders ThroughO(𝛼4 𝑆), Phys. Rev. Lett.110 (2013) 252004, arXiv:1303.6254 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  2. [10]

    d’Enterria, Top-quark and Higgs boson perspectives at heavy-ion colliders, Nucl

    D. d’Enterria, Top-quark and Higgs boson perspectives at heavy-ion colliders, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc.289-290(2017) 237, ed. by G.-Y. Qin, X.-N. Wang, Y.-P. Wang, B.-W. Zhang, and D.-C. Zhou, arXiv:1701.08047 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    CMS Collaboration, Observation of Top Quark Production in Proton–Nucleus Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.119 (2017) 242001, arXiv:1709.07411 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Observation of𝑡¯𝑡 production in the lepton+jets and dilepton channels in 𝑝+Pb collisions at√𝑠NN= 8.16TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP11(2024) 101, arXiv: 2405.05078 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    CMS Collaboration, Evidence for top quark production in nucleus–nucleus collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (2020) 222001, arXiv:2006.11110 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, JINST 3 (2008) S08003

    2008

  7. [15]

    Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST 13 (2018) P07017

    G. Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST 13 (2018) P07017

    2018

  8. [16]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS trigger system in 2015, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 317, arXiv:1611.09661 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Software and computing for Run 3 of the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, (2024), arXiv:2404.06335 [hep-ex]. 10

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of photon-jet transverse momentum correlations in5.02TeV Pb+Pb and𝑝𝑝 collisions with ATLAS, Phys. Lett. B789(2019) 167, arXiv: 1809.07280 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Prompt and non-prompt𝐽/𝜓 and𝜓(2S) suppression at high transverse momentum in5.02TeVPb+Pb collisions with the ATLAS experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 762, arXiv: 1805.04077 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    M. L. Miller, K. Reygers, S. J. Sanders, and P. Steinberg, Glauber Modeling in High-Energy Nuclear Collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.57 (2007) 205, arXiv: nucl-ex/0701025

    2007 arXiv

  13. [21]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of electron and photon triggers in ATLAS during LHC Run 2, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 47, arXiv:1909.00761 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS muon triggers in Run 2, JINST 15 (2020) P09015, arXiv:2004.13447 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS inner detector trigger performance in𝑝𝑝 collisions at13TeV during LHC Run 2, Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 206, arXiv:2107.02485 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Vertex Reconstruction Performance of the ATLAS Detector at√𝑠= 13 TeV, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-026, 2015,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2037717

    2015

  17. [25]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Electron and photon performance measurements with the ATLAS detector using the 2015–2017 LHC proton–proton collision data, JINST14(2019) P12006, arXiv: 1908.00005 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of𝑊± boson production in Pb+Pb collisions at√𝑠NN= 5.02TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) 935, arXiv: 1907.10414 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Muon reconstruction and identification efficiency in ATLAS using the full Run 2𝑝𝑝 collision data set at√𝑠= 13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 578, arXiv: 2012.00578 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Dijet azimuthal correlations and conditional yields in𝑝𝑝 and𝑝 + Pb collisions at√𝑠NN= 5.02TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C100 (2019) 034903, arXiv: 1901.10440 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez,The anti-𝑘𝑡 jet clustering algorithm, JHEP04(2008) 063, arXiv: 0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez,FastJet user manual, Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 1896, arXiv: 1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  23. [31]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Jet energy scale and resolution measured in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 689, arXiv: 2007.02645 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Jet energy scale and its uncertainty for jets reconstructed using the ATLAS heavy ion jet algorithm, ATLAS-CONF-2015-016, 2015,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2008677

    2015

  25. [33]

    ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Simulation Infrastructure, Eur. Phys. J. C70(2010) 823, arXiv: 1005.4568 [physics.ins-det]. 11

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Agostinelli et al.,GEANT4–a simulation toolkit, Nucl

    S. Agostinelli et al.,GEANT4–a simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250

    2003

  27. [35]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of the𝑡¯𝑡 production cross-section in the lepton+jets channel at√𝑠= 13TeV with the ATLAS experiment, Phys. Lett. B810 (2020) 135797, arXiv: 2006.13076 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the𝑡¯𝑡 production cross-section in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 5.02TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP06(2023) 138, arXiv:2207.01354 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Alioli, P

    S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re,A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX, JHEP06(2010) 043, arXiv: 1002.2581 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball, et al.,Parton distributions for the LHC run II, JHEP 04(2015) 040, arXiv:1410.8849 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput

    T. Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun.191 (2015) 159, arXiv: 1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    NNPDF Collaboration, R. D. Ball, et al.,Parton distributions with LHC data, Nucl. Phys. B867 (2013) 244, arXiv:1207.1303 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  33. [41]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to7TeV data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1966419

    2014

  34. [42]

    D. J. Lange,The EvtGen particle decay simulation package, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A462 (2001) 152

    2001

  35. [43]

    Bähr et al.,Herwig++ physics and manual, Eur

    M. Bähr et al.,Herwig++ physics and manual, Eur. Phys. J. C58(2008) 639, arXiv: 0803.0883 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note, Eur

    J. Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.0/Herwig++ 3.0 release note, Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 196, arXiv: 1512.01178 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.2 release note, Eur

    J. Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.2 release note, Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 452, arXiv: 1912.06509 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Czakon and A

    M. Czakon and A. Mitov, Top++: A program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders, Comput. Phys. Commun.185 (2014) 2930, arXiv:1112.5675 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Oleari, The POWHEG BOX, Nucl

    C. Oleari, The POWHEG BOX, Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl.205-206(2010) 36, arXiv: 1007.3893 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Frederix, E

    R. Frederix, E. Re, and P. Torrielli, Single-top𝑡-channel hadroproduction in the four-flavour scheme with POWHEG and aMC@NLO, JHEP 09(2012) 130, arXiv:1207.5391 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Re,Single-top𝑊𝑡-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method, Eur

    E. Re,Single-top𝑊𝑡-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method, Eur. Phys. J. C71(2011) 1547, arXiv:1009.2450 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Frixione, E

    S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski, C. White, and B. R. Webber, Single-top hadroproduction in association with a𝑊 boson, JHEP07(2008) 029, arXiv: 0805.3067 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034, arXiv: 1905.09127 [hep-ph]

    E. Bothmann et al.,Event generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys.7(2019) 034, arXiv: 1905.09127 [hep-ph]. 12

    2019 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bíró et al.,HIJING, a Heavy Ion Jet INteraction Generator for the High-Luminosity Era of the LHC and Beyond, MDPI Proc.10(2019), arXiv:1811.02131 [physics.comp-ph]

    G. Bíró et al.,HIJING, a Heavy Ion Jet INteraction Generator for the High-Luminosity Era of the LHC and Beyond, MDPI Proc.10(2019), arXiv:1811.02131 [physics.comp-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.142301 for distributions of the invariant mass and𝑝T of the dilepton system and the breakdown of relative systematic uncertainties in the measured𝑡¯𝑡 cross-section

    doi

  46. [54]

    Qin and X.-N

    G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang,Jet quenching in high-energy heavy-ion collisions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E24(2015) 1530014, ed. by X.-N. Wang, arXiv:1511.00790 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Cunqueiro and A

    L. Cunqueiro and A. M. Sickles,Studying the QGP with Jets at the LHC and RHIC, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.124 (2022) 103940, arXiv:2110.14490 [nucl-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Measurements of the𝑊 production cross sections in association with jets with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 82, arXiv:1409.8639 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [57]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Measurement of differential cross sections and𝑊+/𝑊− cross-section ratios for𝑊 boson production in association with jets at√𝑠= 8TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 05(2018) 077, arXiv:1711.03296 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    ATLAS Collaboration, 𝑍 boson production in Pb+Pb collisions at√𝑠NN= 5.02TeV measured by the ATLAS experiment, Phys. Lett. B802 (2020) 135262, arXiv:1910.13396 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Luminosity determination in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 982, arXiv:2212.09379 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    A. L. Read,Presentation of search results: the𝐶𝐿𝑠 technique, J. Phys. G28 (2002) 2693

    2002

  53. [61]

    J. M. Campbell, D. Wackeroth, and J. Zhou,Study of weak corrections to Drell-Yan, top-quark pair, and dijet production at high energies with MCFM, Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 093009, arXiv: 1608.03356 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Klasen and H

    M. Klasen and H. Paukkunen, Nuclear Parton Distribution Functions After the First Decade of LHC Data, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.74 (2024) 49, arXiv:2311.00450 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado,Towards EPPS21 nuclear PDFs, SciPost Phys. Proc.8 (2022) 033, arXiv:2106.13661 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Kovarik et al.,nCTEQ15 - Global analysis of nuclear parton distributions with uncertainties in the CTEQ framework, Phys

    K. Kovarik et al.,nCTEQ15 - Global analysis of nuclear parton distributions with uncertainties in the CTEQ framework, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 085037, arXiv:1509.00792 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Duwentäster et al.,Impact of heavy quark and quarkonium data on nuclear gluon PDFs, Phys

    P. Duwentäster et al.,Impact of heavy quark and quarkonium data on nuclear gluon PDFs, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 114043, arXiv:2204.09982 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Abdul Khalek et al.,nNNPDF3.0: evidence for a modified partonic structure in heavy nuclei, Eur

    R. Abdul Khalek et al.,nNNPDF3.0: evidence for a modified partonic structure in heavy nuclei, Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 507, arXiv:2201.12363 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    TUJU21: nuclear PDFs with electroweak-boson data at NNLO,

    I. Helenius, M. Walt, and W. Vogelsang, “TUJU21: nuclear PDFs with electroweak-boson data at NNLO,” 29th International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects, 2022, arXiv: 2207.04654 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Heinz and R

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings,Collective Flow and Viscosity in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.63 (2013) 123, arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th]. 13

    2013 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Demokritos

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Computing Acknowledgements, ATL-SOFT-PUB-2025-001, 2025, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2922210. 14 The ATLAS Collaboration G. Aad 105, E. Aakvaag 17, B. Abbott 124, S. Abdelhameed 120a, K. Abeling 57, N.J. Abicht 51, S.H. Abidi 30, M. Aboelela 46, ...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.