Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 minor 6 cited by

A next-to-leading-order QCD calculation predicts the no-quenching baseline for charged hadrons in minimum-bias oxygen–oxygen collisions at 5.36 TeV to about 5% uncertainty in the 20–70 GeV transverse-momentum range, so any larger observed d

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-05 05:15 UTC pith:PLXVMCRV

load-bearing objection Timely, honest no-quenching baseline for the first LHC oxygen run, but the headline 5% uncertainty is conditional on untested A-interpolation of oxygen nPDFs.

arxiv 2509.07008 v1 pith:PLXVMCRV submitted 2025-09-06 hep-ph nucl-exnucl-th

Energy loss baseline for light hadrons in oxygen-oxygen collisions at sqrt{s_NN}=5.36\,TeV

Aleksas Mazeliauskas This is my paper
classification hep-ph nucl-exnucl-th PACS 25.75.-q
keywords oxygen-oxygen collisionsnuclear modification factorjet quenching baselinenuclear parton distribution functionsfragmentation functionsNLO perturbative QCDsmall collision systemsLHC light-ion run
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish what the nuclear modification factor R_AA of high-momentum hadrons in oxygen–oxygen collisions would be if no quark–gluon plasma formed. It computes the no-quenching baseline from next-to-leading-order perturbative QCD, using three modern nuclear parton distribution sets and three fragmentation function sets. The headline result is that in minimum-bias 16O+16O collisions at 5.36 TeV, the baseline for charged hadrons is under control at roughly 5% uncertainty for transverse momenta between 20 and 70 GeV, with oxygen nuclear PDFs the main source of uncertainty. If LHC data deviate beyond that band, final-state energy loss would be demonstrated; below 20 GeV and above 70 GeV, the baseline is too uncertain for such a clean statement. The same baseline is essentially unchanged for neutral pions, and a neon–neon over oxygen–oxygen ratio cancels nPDF uncertainties to about 1%.

Core claim

The central claim is a parameter-free pQCD prediction: in minimum-bias 16O+16O collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=5.36 TeV, the charged-hadron nuclear modification factor R_AA^h is computable from QCD factorization alone, with no final-state interactions, and its theoretical uncertainty is ~5% in the 20–70 GeV transverse-momentum range. The prediction uses NLO hard matrix elements convoluted with three nuclear PDF sets (EPPS21, nNNPDF3.0, TUJU21) and three fragmentation-function sets (BKK, NNFF1.1h, NPC23), with 15-point scale variation and 68% confidence intervals. The three nPDFs agree in that window, and the FFs agree to within 5%. Above 70 GeV, NNFF1.1h deviates downward because its down-quark FF

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the QCD factorization expression for the single-inclusive hadron cross section, dσ = f_i^A ⊗ f_j^B ⊗ σ^hat_{ij→l} ⊗ D_l^h, evaluated at NLO with renormalization, factorization, and fragmentation scales set to p_T^h. The baseline R_AA is the ratio of that cross section in oxygen–oxygen to A^2 times the proton–proton cross section. Uncertainty control comes from the ratio: scale and fragmentation uncertainties cancel in numerator and denominator, and nPDF error members are matched between the oxygen and proton calculations. A diagnostic appendix shows that the high-p_T spread among fragmentation-function sets is governed by the third moment of the down- versus up-quark f

Load-bearing premise

The prediction leans on oxygen nuclear parton distribution functions that no oxygen data constrain: they come from interpolating global fits in nuclear mass number A. If that interpolation misses the gluon or sea-quark content of 16O, the 20–70 GeV baseline shifts and the quoted 5% no longer covers the truth.

What would settle it

Measure oxygen nPDFs directly with the 2025 proton–oxygen run at 9.62 TeV—e.g., via dijet or electroweak-boson production—and re-derive the oxygen PDFs without A-interpolation; if the recomputed 20–70 GeV R_AA baseline moves by more than ~5%, the central precision claim fails. Independently, high-precision minimum-bias OO data at 5.36 TeV that depart from the baseline by more than the combined experimental and theoretical uncertainty would establish the final-state signal the paper prepares for.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • A measured minimum-bias OO charged-hadron R_AA that leaves the ~5% band between 20 and 70 GeV is evidence of final-state energy loss; in the same window a null result would place a clean upper bound on jet quenching in systems with roughly ten participating nucleons.
  • Neutral-pion R_AA can be used interchangeably with charged-hadron R_AA, since their baselines agree within nPDF uncertainties.
  • The NeNe/OO cross-section ratio is predicted to be unity to about 1% across most of the p_T range, providing a largely baseline-independent way to look for system-size-dependent medium effects in the 2025 LHC light-ion run.
  • Proton–oxygen data at 9.62 TeV, once included in global nPDF fits, should shrink the dominant low-p_T uncertainty and sharpen the baseline.
  • The high-p_T discrepancy between FF sets is traced to isospin symmetry breaking in one set; enforcing D_d = D_u removes the anomaly, so future FF fits that restore isospin symmetry will stabilize the p_T > 70 GeV prediction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the 20–70 GeV baseline agrees with data, that agreement would also validate A-interpolation for 16O at moderate x, indirectly testing the nuclear gluon distribution—something no single previous measurement does.
  • The isospin diagnosis suggests a concrete falsifiable cross-check in existing LHC data: the charge asymmetry of pions in OO or pO collisions should reflect whether down-quark fragmentation is truly suppressed relative to up quarks; if not, NNFF1.1h-style FFs would be disfavoured.
  • Extending the same ratio-symmetry argument to identified hadrons (kaons, protons) or to forward rapidities could give separate, correlated baselines whose cross-ratios are even better controlled than R_AA alone.
  • Because the nPDF interpolation is the weak point, a natural near-term test is to compare the 2025 OO R_AA in two p_T windows (20–70 GeV and below 20 GeV): a pattern that tracks the EPPS21 low-p_T dip rather than a smooth suppression would point to nuclear PDFs rather than quenching.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents NLO pQCD predictions for the inclusive charged-hadron and neutral-pion yield in minimum-bias proton-proton and oxygen-oxygen collisions at sqrt(s_NN)=5.36 TeV, assuming no final-state interactions. Using the INCNLO code with LHAPDF grids, the author convolves three nuclear PDF sets (EPPS21, nNNPDF3.0, TUJU21) and three fragmentation-function sets (BKK, NNFF1.1h, NPC23), with a 15-point scale variation prescription and matched PDF/FF error sets. The setup is validated against ALICE pp data at 5.02 TeV. The central result is that in the window 20 GeV < pT < 70 GeV the charged-hadron no-quenching R_AA baseline has an estimated uncertainty of about 5%, with nPDFs the dominant source; below 20 GeV the uncertainties are large, and above 70 GeV FF differences, traced to isospin assumptions in NNFF1.1h, become important. Additional results cover rapidity dependence, neutral pions, and a NeNe/OO cross-section ratio.

Significance. This is a timely and useful contribution: the LHC has just taken oxygen-oxygen data, and a transparent, reproducible no-quenching baseline is needed to interpret any observed suppression. The paper's strengths are its standard but careful NLO framework, the public code and data, the 15-point scale treatment, the correlated propagation of PDF/FF uncertainties between numerator and denominator, and the explicit comparison of several independent nPDF and FF determinations. The main limitation--that no oxygen data enter the nPDF fits, so the 16O nPDFs rest on interpolation in nuclear mass number A--is clearly acknowledged in Section II A and in the conclusions. I therefore regard this as a caveat on the absolute accuracy of the ~5% figure rather than an internal inconsistency; the authors correctly identify future pO data as the needed constraint.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Conclusions] The statement that the baseline 'can be controlled at the ~5% level' should be qualified as being conditional on the current nPDF and FF uncertainty estimates and on the assumption that the A-interpolation for 16O nPDFs is unbiased. This is stated in Section II A, but the abstract and conclusions should carry the same caveat to avoid an unconditional reading.
  2. [Section III B, after Fig. 4] The text refers to 'NNFF1.0h' twice; the correct set name is NNFF1.1h. Please fix this typo in the paragraph discussing discrepancies between FFs.
  3. [Eq. (1)] The definition of R_AA would benefit from an explicit statement that the cross sections are differential in pT and integrated/averaged over the given rapidity window |y|<y_max, matching the notation used in Section II A.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the oxygen R_AA baseline is computed from external nPDFs and FFs, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The central claim is the pQCD no-quenching baseline for R_AA in minimum-bias OO collisions. The derivation chain is Eq. (2): a factorized convolution of nPDFs, NLO partonic cross sections, and FFs, with R_AA defined in Eq. (1) as the ratio of the computed OO and pp cross sections. No parameter is fitted to oxygen R_AA data or to the oxygen data being predicted. The oxygen nPDFs are external global fits (EPPS21, nNNPDF3.0, TUJU21), and the paper explicitly notes in Section II A that 'no data with oxygen nucleus is included in the fits, and oxygen nPDFs are determined by interpolation in nuclear mass number A'. This is an untested interpolation assumption and a genuine systematic uncertainty for the 5% claim, but it is not circularity: the prediction does not reduce to its own input by construction. The validation against ALICE pp data (Fig. 1) is a sanity check, and the paper openly states the agreement is 'not surprising, since these FFs are fitted to LHC proton-proton data'; this does not force the OO/pp ratio because the same FFs enter both numerator and denominator and cancel to a large extent, with the residual FF sensitivity diagnosed in Appendix B by explicit isospin modifications. Self-citations such as Refs. [27] and [29] are used for context or as an independent LO cross-check of the numerical implementation, not as the load-bearing source of the central baseline prediction. No uniqueness theorem, no ansatz-smuggling citation, and no renaming of a known result are present. Thus the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks, and the circularity score is 0; the dominant scientific concern is the untested A-interpolation for 16O nPDFs, which is a correctness/uncertainty issue, not a circularity issue.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities; it uses existing PDFs, nPDFs, and FFs as external inputs. The central prediction relies on standard QCD factorization, on the interpolation of oxygen nPDFs from fits without oxygen data, and on the conventional use of scale variation to estimate missing higher orders.

axioms (5)
  • standard math QCD factorization for single-inclusive hadron production in minimum-bias collisions (Eq. 2)
    The entire computation rests on the Collins-Soper-Sterman factorization theorem; this is the standard framework for inclusive hadron spectra.
  • domain assumption Oxygen nPDFs can be obtained by interpolation in A from fits to heavier nuclei, with no oxygen data in the fits
    Section II A states that no oxygen data enters the nPDF fits and oxygen distributions are interpolated in A. This is load-bearing for the R_AA prediction at 20-70 GeV where nPDFs dominate the uncertainty.
  • domain assumption No final-state interactions (no quenching) in the baseline
    The baseline is defined by the assumption of no medium effects; this is the null hypothesis the paper computes, not a hidden assumption.
  • domain assumption Scale variation by a factor 2 (15-point prescription) is a valid proxy for missing higher orders
    The paper uses this conventional prescription to estimate perturbative uncertainty; it is stated in Section II A.
  • domain assumption Fragmentation functions fitted to e+e- and pp data are universal and apply to OO collisions
    The calculation uses BKK, NNFF1.1h, and NPC23 FFs from external fits; FF universality is a standard assumption, and the paper tests FF dependence but cannot validate it for oxygen.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13258 in / 11755 out tokens · 111894 ms · 2026-08-05T05:15:56.943479+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energy loss baseline for light hadrons in oxygen-oxygen collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.36\,\text{TeV}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PLXVMCRV

@misc{pith2026250907008,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energy loss baseline for light hadrons in oxygen-oxygen collisions at $\sqrts_\mathrmNN=5.36\,\textTeV$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PLXVMCRV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07008}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

I present predictions for inclusive charged hadron spectra in minimum-bias proton-proton and oxygen-oxygen collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}} = 5.36\,\text{TeV}$, assuming no final-state interactions. Using next-to-leading order perturbative QCD matrix elements, along with state-of-the-art (nuclear) parton distribution and fragmentation functions, I establish a baseline for the nuclear modification factor $R^h_\text{AA}$ in oxygen-oxygen collisions in the absence of quenching. Theoretical uncertainties in this baseline are found to be substantial for transverse momenta below $20\,\text{GeV}$. In the intermediate range $20\,\text{GeV} \lesssim p_T^h \lesssim 70\,\text{GeV}$, these uncertainties are significantly reduced to approximately 5\%. At higher momenta ($p_T^h \gtrsim 70\,\text{GeV}$), however, predictions exhibit a marked spread due to differences between fragmentation functions, reflecting varying assumptions about isospin symmetry. Finally, I show that considering neon-neon collisions in the initial state or neutral pions in the final state does not appreciably change the nuclear modification factor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07008 by Aleksas Mazeliauskas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. pQCD computation of differential charged hadron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. pQCD calculation of the charged-hadron nuclear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. pQCD computation of differential charged hadron cross section in minimum-bias (left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. pQCD computation of charged hadron nuclear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Fragmentation functions for down (solid lines) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Nuclear Modification of $\pi^0$ Production in OO Collisions with ALICE

    nucl-ex 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    ALICE presents the first R_OO for π⁰ in OO collisions, finding up to 4σ suppression relative to pp collisions and 2.4σ deviation from cold nuclear matter model predictions.

  2. Evidence for parton energy loss in oxygen$-$oxygen collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.36}$ TeV

    nucl-ex 2026-06 conditional novelty 7.0

    Neutral-pion nuclear modification factors in OO collisions exhibit suppression at 4.9 sigma after subtracting cold-nuclear-matter effects via pO data, consistent with parton energy loss models.

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

    nucl-ex 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0

    First neon-neon R_AA measurement shows charged-particle suppression increasing monotonically with nuclear size across oxygen, neon, xenon, and lead at LHC energies.

  4. Observation of suppressed charged-particle production in ultrarelativistic oxygen-oxygen collisions

    nucl-ex 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    First measurement of the nuclear modification factor R_AA in OO collisions at 5.36 TeV shows suppression with a minimum of 0.69 at p_T around 6 GeV, favoring models with parton energy loss.

  5. Bayesian Constraints on Pre-Equilibrium Jet Quenching and Predictions for Oxygen Collisions

    hep-ph 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Bayesian constraints on early-time jet quenching from large collision systems yield predictions of measurable energy loss in oxygen-oxygen collisions.

  6. Light-Ion Collisions: Bridging Small and Large QCD Systems

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    Light-ion collisions at the LHC provide evidence of quark-gluon plasma formation in small systems, bridging proton-proton and heavy-ion regimes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Heavy Ion Collisions: The Big Picture, and the Big Questions,

    Wit Busza, Krishna Rajagopal, and Wilke van der Schee, “Heavy Ion Collisions: The Big Picture, and the Big Questions,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68, 339–376 (2018), arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Studying the QGP with Jets at the LHC and RHIC,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Jet measurements in heavy ion physics,

    Megan Connors, Christine Nattrass, Rosi Reed, and Sevil Salur, “Jet measurements in heavy ion physics,” Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 025005 (2018), arXiv:1705.01974 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Jet quenching in high-energy heavy-ion collisions,

    Guang-You Qin and Xin-Nian Wang, “Jet quenching in high-energy heavy-ion collisions,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24, 1530014 (2015), arXiv:1511.00790 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Small System Collectivity in Relativistic Hadronic and Nuclear Colli- sions,

    James L. Nagle and William A. Zajc, “Small System Collectivity in Relativistic Hadronic and Nuclear Colli- sions,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68, 211–235 (2018), arXiv:1801.03477 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    A Decade of Collectivity in Small Systems,

    Jan Fiete Grosse-Oetringhaus and Urs Achim Wiede- mann, “A Decade of Collectivity in Small Systems,” (2024), arXiv:2407.07484 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Progress and challenges in small systems,

    Jorge Noronha, Bj¨ orn Schenke, Chun Shen, and Wenbin Zhao, “Progress and challenges in small systems,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33, 2430005 (2024), arXiv:2401.09208 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Evidence for Collec- tive Multiparticle Correlations in p-Pb Collisions,

    Vardan Khachatryanet al.(CMS), “Evidence for Collec- tive Multiparticle Correlations in p-Pb Collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 012301 (2015), arXiv:1502.05382 [nucl- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    Multi-strange baryon production in p-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV,

    Jaroslav Adamet al.(ALICE), “Multi-strange baryon production in p-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV,” Phys. Lett. B758, 389–401 (2016), arXiv:1512.07227 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Evidence for collec- tivity in pp collisions at the LHC,

    Vardan Khachatryanet al.(CMS), “Evidence for collec- tivity in pp collisions at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B765, 193–220 (2017), arXiv:1606.06198 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

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

    Jaroslav Adamet al.(ALICE), “Enhanced production of multi-strange hadrons in high-multiplicity proton- proton collisions,” Nature Phys.13, 535–539 (2017), arXiv:1606.07424 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    Absence of jet quenching in peripheral nucleus–nucleus collisions,

    Constantin Loizides and Andreas Morsch, “Absence of jet quenching in peripheral nucleus–nucleus collisions,” Phys. Lett. B773, 408–411 (2017), arXiv:1705.08856 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Progress in the Glauber Model at Collider Energies,

    David d’Enterria and Constantin Loizides, “Progress in the Glauber Model at Collider Energies,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 315–344 (2021), arXiv:2011.14909 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Constraints on jet quenching in p-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV mea- sured by the event-activity dependence of semi-inclusive hadron-jet distributions,

    Shreyasi Acharyaet al.(ALICE), “Constraints on jet quenching in p-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV mea- sured by the event-activity dependence of semi-inclusive hadron-jet distributions,” Phys. Lett. B783, 95–113 (2018), arXiv:1712.05603 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  15. [15]

    Strong Constraints on Jet Quenching in Centrality-Dependent p+Pb Collisions at 5.02 TeV from ATLAS,

    Georges Aadet al.(ATLAS), “Strong Constraints on Jet Quenching in Centrality-Dependent p+Pb Collisions at 5.02 TeV from ATLAS,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 072301 (2023), arXiv:2206.01138 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

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

    Vladimir Chekhovskyet al.(CMS), “Search for jet quenching with dijets from high-multiplicity pPb col- lisions at √sNN = 8.16 TeV,” JHEP07, 118 (2025), arXiv:2504.08507 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Disentangling Cen- trality Bias and Final-State Effects in the Production of High-pT Neutral Pions Using Direct Photon in d+Au Collisions at sNN=200 GeV,

    N. J. Abdulameeret al.(PHENIX), “Disentangling Cen- trality Bias and Final-State Effects in the Production of High-pT Neutral Pions Using Direct Photon in d+Au Collisions at sNN=200 GeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 022302 (2025), arXiv:2303.12899 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Contribution to differentialπ0 andγdir modification in small systems from color fluc- tuation effects,

    Dennis V. Perepelitsa, “Contribution to differentialπ0 andγdir modification in small systems from color fluc- tuation effects,” Phys. Rev. C110, L011901 (2024), arXiv:2404.17660 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Report from Working Group 5: Future physics opportunities for high-density QCD at the LHC with heavy-ion and proton beams,

    Z. Citronet al., “Report from Working Group 5: Future physics opportunities for high-density QCD at the LHC with heavy-ion and proton beams,” CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.7, 1159–1410 (2019), arXiv:1812.06772 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Opportunities of OO andpO collisions at the LHC,

    Jasmine Brewer, Aleksas Mazeliauskas, and Wilke van der Schee, “Opportunities of OO andpO collisions at the LHC,” inOpportunities of OO and pO collisions at the LHC(2021) arXiv:2103.01939 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Summary Report: Light Ion Collisions at the LHC,

    Participants of CERN TH Institute, “Summary Report: Light Ion Collisions at the LHC,” (2024)

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Glauber predictions for oxygen and neon collisions at LHC,

    Constantin Loizides, “Glauber predictions for oxygen and neon collisions at LHC,” (2025), arXiv:2507.05853 [nucl- th]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Report of RHIC Beam Operation in 2021,

    Chuyu Liuet al., “Report of RHIC Beam Operation in 2021,” JACoWIP AC2022, WEPOPT033 (2022)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    First-ever collisions of oxygen at the LHC,

    Ana ¨ ıs Schaeffer, “First-ever collisions of oxygen at the LHC,” CERN News (2025)

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    163rd LHCC Meeting – OPEN Session,

    “163rd LHCC Meeting – OPEN Session,” Indico event page, CERN (2025)

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Selection bias effects on high-p T yield and correlation measurements in Oxygen+Oxygen collisions,

    JaeBeom Park, J. L. Nagle, Dennis V. Perepelitsa, Sanghoon Lim, and Constantin Loizides, “Selection bias effects on high-p T yield and correlation measurements in Oxygen+Oxygen collisions,” (2025), arXiv:2507.03603 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Discovering Partonic Rescattering in Light Nucleus Collisions,

    Alexander Huss, Aleksi Kurkela, Aleksas Mazeliauskas, Risto Paatelainen, Wilke van der Schee, and Urs Achim Wiedemann, “Discovering Partonic Rescattering in Light Nucleus Collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 192301 (2021), arXiv:2007.13754 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Predictions for the sPHENIX physics program,

    Ron Belmontet al., “Predictions for the sPHENIX physics program,” Nucl. Phys. A1043, 122821 (2024), arXiv:2305.15491 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    No-quenching baseline for energy loss signals in oxygen-oxygen collisions,

    Jannis Gebhard, Aleksas Mazeliauskas, and Adam Takacs, “No-quenching baseline for energy loss signals in oxygen-oxygen collisions,” JHEP04, 034 (2025), arXiv:2410.22405 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Predicting parton energy loss in small collision systems,

    Alexander Huss, Aleksi Kurkela, Aleksas Mazeliauskas, Risto Paatelainen, Wilke van der Schee, and Urs Achim Wiedemann, “Predicting parton energy loss in small collision systems,” Phys. Rev. C103, 054903 (2021), arXiv:2007.13758 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Heavy and light flavor jet quenching in different collision systems at the LHC energies

    Yu-Fei Liu, Wen-Jing Xing, Xiang-Yu Wu, Guang-You Qin, Shanshan Cao, and Hongxi Xing, “Heavy and light flavor jet quenching in different collision systems at en- ergies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,” Phys. Rev. C105, 044904 (2022), arXiv:2107.01522 [hep- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Jet quenching from heavy to light ion collisions,

    B. G. Zakharov, “Jet quenching from heavy to light ion collisions,” JHEP09, 087 (2021), arXiv:2105.09350 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Searching for QGP droplets with high-pT hadrons and heavy flavor,

    Weiyao Ke and Ivan Vitev, “Searching for QGP droplets with high-pT hadrons and heavy flavor,” Phys. Rev. C 9 107, 064903 (2023), arXiv:2204.00634 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Characterizing nuclear modification effects in high-energy O-O collisions at energies avail- able at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: A transport model perspective,

    Debadatta Behera, Suman Deb, Captain R. Singh, and Raghunath Sahoo, “Characterizing nuclear modification effects in high-energy O-O collisions at energies avail- able at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: A transport model perspective,” Phys. Rev. C109, 014902 (2024), arXiv:2308.06078 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Global constraint on the jet transport coeffi- cient from single-hadron, dihadron, andγ-hadron spectra in high-energy heavy-ion collisions,

    Man Xie, Weiyao Ke, Hanzhong Zhang, and Xin-Nian Wang, “Global constraint on the jet transport coeffi- cient from single-hadron, dihadron, andγ-hadron spectra in high-energy heavy-ion collisions,” Phys. Rev. C109, 064917 (2024), arXiv:2208.14419 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Three mod- els for charged hadron nuclear modification from light to heavy ions,

    Wilke van der Schee, Isobel Kolb´ e, Govert Nijs, Kumail Ruhani, Ishtiaq Ahmed, and Shahin Iqbal, “Three mod- els for charged hadron nuclear modification from light to heavy ions,” (2025), arXiv:2509.04299 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Constraining the pre- equilibrium with jet quenching,

    Daniel Pablos and Adam Takacs, “Constraining the pre- equilibrium with jet quenching,” (2025), in preparation

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD,

    John C. Collins, Davison E. Soper, and George F. Ster- man, “Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD,” Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.5, 1–91 (1989), arXiv:hep- ph/0409313

    arXiv 1989

  39. [39]

    Parton Fragmen- tation Functions,

    Andreas Metz and Anselm Vossen, “Parton Fragmen- tation Functions,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.91, 136–202 (2016), arXiv:1607.02521 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    QCD Corrections to Parton-Parton Scattering Pro- cesses,

    F. Aversa, P. Chiappetta, Mario Greco, and J. P. Guil- let, “QCD Corrections to Parton-Parton Scattering Pro- cesses,” Nucl. Phys. B327, 105 (1989)

    work page 1989

  41. [41]

    LHAPDF6: parton den- sity access in the LHC precision era,

    Andy Buckley, James Ferrando, Stephen Lloyd, Karl Nordstr¨ om, Ben Page, Martin R¨ ufenacht, Marek Sch¨ onherr, and Graeme Watt, “LHAPDF6: parton den- sity access in the LHC precision era,” Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 132 (2015), arXiv:1412.7420 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [42]

    An analysis of Bayesian estimates for missing higher orders in perturbative calculations,

    Claude Duhr, Alexander Huss, Aleksas Mazeliauskas, and Robert Szafron, “An analysis of Bayesian estimates for missing higher orders in perturbative calculations,” JHEP09, 122 (2021), arXiv:2106.04585 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    EPPS21: a global QCD anal- ysis of nuclear PDFs,

    Kari J. Eskola, Petja Paakkinen, Hannu Paukkunen, and Carlos A. Salgado, “EPPS21: a global QCD anal- ysis of nuclear PDFs,” Eur. Phys. J. C82, 413 (2022), arXiv:2112.12462 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC,

    Tie-Jiun Houet al., “New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D103, 014013 (2021), arXiv:1912.10053 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    nNNPDF3.0: evidence for a modified par- tonic structure in heavy nuclei,

    Rabah Abdul Khalek, Rhorry Gauld, Tommaso Giani, Emanuele R. Nocera, Tanjona R. Rabemananjara, and Juan Rojo, “nNNPDF3.0: evidence for a modified par- tonic structure in heavy nuclei,” Eur. Phys. J. C82, 507 (2022), arXiv:2201.12363 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Parton distributions from high-precision collider data,

    Richard D. Ballet al.(NNPDF), “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data,” Eur. Phys. J. C77, 663 (2017), arXiv:1706.00428 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    NNLO nuclear parton distribution functions with electroweak-boson production data from the LHC,

    Ilkka Helenius, Marina Walt, and Werner Vogel- sang, “NNLO nuclear parton distribution functions with electroweak-boson production data from the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D105, 094031 (2022), arXiv:2112.11904 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    Next- to-leading order fragmentation functions for pions and kaons,

    J. Binnewies, Bernd A. Kniehl, and G. Kramer, “Next- to-leading order fragmentation functions for pions and kaons,” Z. Phys. C65, 471–480 (1995), arXiv:hep- ph/9407347

    work page arXiv 1995

  49. [49]

    Charged hadron fragmen- tation functions from collider data,

    V. Bertone, N. P. Hartland, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, and L. Rottoli (NNPDF), “Charged hadron fragmen- tation functions from collider data,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 651 (2018), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 155 (2024)], arXiv:1807.03310 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [50]

    Global analysis of fragmentation functions to charged hadrons with high-precision data from the LHC,

    Jun Gao, ChongYang Liu, XiaoMin Shen, Hongxi Xing, and Yuxiang Zhao, “Global analysis of fragmentation functions to charged hadrons with high-precision data from the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D110, 114019 (2024), arXiv:2407.04422 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Global analysis of fragmentation functions to light neutral hadrons,

    Jun Gao, ChongYang Liu, Mengyang Li, XiaoMin Shen, Hongxi Xing, Yuxiang Zhao, and Yiyu Zhou, “Global analysis of fragmentation functions to light neutral hadrons,” (2025), arXiv:2503.21311 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Transverse momentum spec- tra and nuclear modification factors of charged particles in pp, p-Pb and Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC,

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), “Transverse momentum spec- tra and nuclear modification factors of charged particles in pp, p-Pb and Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC,” JHEP11, 013 (2018), arXiv:1802.09145 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    Ratios of jet and hadron spectra at LHC energies: Measuring high-p T suppres- sion without a pp reference,

    Jasmine Brewer, Alexander Huss, Aleksas Mazeliauskas, and Wilke van der Schee, “Ratios of jet and hadron spectra at LHC energies: Measuring high-p T suppres- sion without a pp reference,” Phys. Rev. D105, 074040 (2022), arXiv:2108.13434 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    Confronting current NLO parton fragmentation functions with inclusive charged-particle spectra at hadron colliders,

    David d’Enterria, Kari J. Eskola, Ilkka Helenius, and Hannu Paukkunen, “Confronting current NLO parton fragmentation functions with inclusive charged-particle spectra at hadron colliders,” Nucl. Phys. B883, 615–628 (2014), arXiv:1311.1415 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  55. [55]

    Pion Fragmentation Functions at High Energy Colliders

    Ignacio Borsa, Daniel de Florian, Rodolfo Sassot, and Marco Stratmann, “Pion fragmentation functions at high energy colliders,” Phys. Rev. D105, L031502 (2022), arXiv:2110.14015 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Light-nuclei gluons from dijet pro- duction in proton-oxygen collisions,

    Petja Paakkinen, “Light-nuclei gluons from dijet pro- duction in proton-oxygen collisions,” Phys. Rev. D105, L031504 (2022), arXiv:2111.05368 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    Identified hadron production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD,

    Micha l Czakon, Terry Generet, Alexander Mitov, and Rene Poncelet, “Identified hadron production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD,” (2025), arXiv:2503.11489 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Single-inclusive hadron production in electron-positron annihilation at next-to-next-to-next-to- leading order in QCD,

    Chuan-Qi He, Hongxi Xing, Tong-Zhi Yang, and Hua Xing Zhu, “Single-inclusive hadron production in electron-positron annihilation at next-to-next-to-next-to- leading order in QCD,” (2025), arXiv:2503.20441 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Transmutation of 16O and 20Ne at the Large Hadron Collider,

    Govert Nijs and Wilke van der Schee, “Transmutation of 16O and 20Ne at the Large Hadron Collider,” (2025), arXiv:2507.01659 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in PbPb and pPb colli- sions at √sN N = 5.02 TeV,

    Vardan Khachatryanet al.(CMS), “Charged-particle nuclear modification factors in PbPb and pPb colli- sions at √sN N = 5.02 TeV,” JHEP04, 039 (2017), arXiv:1611.01664 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [61]

    Charged-hadron produc- tion inpp,p+Pb, Pb+Pb, and Xe+Xe collisions at√sNN = 5 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,

    Georges Aadet al.(ATLAS), “Charged-hadron produc- tion inpp,p+Pb, Pb+Pb, and Xe+Xe collisions at√sNN = 5 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,” JHEP07, 074 (2023), arXiv:2211.15257 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    A determination of the fragmentation functions of pions, kaons, and protons with faithful uncertainties,

    Valerio Bertone, Stefano Carrazza, Nathan P. Hartland, Emanuele R. Nocera, and Juan Rojo (NNPDF), “A determination of the fragmentation functions of pions, kaons, and protons with faithful uncertainties,” Eur. Phys. J. C77, 516 (2017), arXiv:1706.07049 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017