EUROPEAN ORGANISATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH (CERN)

Submitted to: Phys. Rev. Lett. CERN-EP-2022-250

January 16, 2023
arXiv:2301.05606v1 [nucl-ex] 13 Jan 2023

Measurement of suppression of large-radius jets

and its dependence on substructure in Pb+Pb
√
collisions at 𝒔NN = 5.02 TeV with the ATLAS
detector

The ATLAS Collaboration

This letter presents a measurement of the nuclear modification factor of large-radius jets in
√
𝑠NN = 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb collisions by the ATLAS experiment. The measurement is performed
using 1.72 nb−1 and 257 pb−1 of Pb+Pb and 𝑝 𝑝 data, respectively. The large-radius jets are
reconstructed with the anti-𝑘 𝑡 algorithm using a radius parameter of 𝑅 = 1.0, by re-clustering
anti-𝑘 𝑡 𝑅 = 0.2 jets, and are measured over the kinematic range of 158 < 𝑝 T < 1000 GeV
and |𝑦| < 2.0. The large-radius jet constituents
√ are further re-clustered using the 𝑘 𝑡 algorithm
in order to obtain the splitting parameters, 𝑑12 and Δ𝑅12 , which characterize the transverse
momentum scale and angular separation for the hardest splitting in the jet, respectively. The
nuclear modification factor, 𝑅AA , obtained by comparing the Pb+Pb jet yields √ to those in 𝑝 𝑝
collisions, is measured as a function of jet transverse momentum (𝑝 T ) and 𝑑12 or Δ𝑅12 . A
significant difference in the quenching of large-radius jets having single sub-jet and those with
more complex substructure is observed. Systematic comparison of jet suppression in terms
of 𝑅AA for different jet definitions is also provided. Presented results support the hypothesis
that jets with hard internal splittings lose more energy through quenching and provide a new
perspective for understanding the role of jet structure in jet suppression.

© 2023 CERN for the benefit of the ATLAS Collaboration.

Reproduction of this article or parts of it is allowed as specified in the CC-BY-4.0 license.
Heavy-ion collisions at high energies lead to the creation of matter composed of unconfined quarks and
gluons known as quark-gluon plasma (QGP). Studies of the collective expansion of the QGP [1] have
demonstrated that the plasma is strongly coupled. A major goal of the experimental high-energy nuclear
physics programs at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is
to understand how the strong coupling of the QGP arises from a theory that is asymptotically free [2,
3]. Jets, collimated sprays of hadrons originating in hard scattering processes, represent a key tool for
studying the microscopic interactions between color charges within the QGP that ultimately determine its
properties. Those interactions can alter the energy and angular distributions of constituents within the
jets — a phenomenon referred to as “jet quenching” [4, 5]. As a result, the jet yields are suppressed and
jet properties are significantly modified in heavy-ion collisions relative to those measured in elementary
proton–proton (𝑝 𝑝) collisions.
At the LHC, jet quenching was studied using many observables [6]. Jet substructure observables [7],
constructed from measured jet constituents, are versatile tools to measure the changes in jet properties due
to jet quenching. These observables, calculated separately for each jet using a variety of algorithms, were
originally motivated by studies of highly Lorentz-boosted massive objects in elementary collisions [8]. Jet
grooming algorithms that remove soft and wide-angle radiation can help mitigate impact of backgrounds
from multiple collisions within one bunch crossing (pileup) or the underlying event (UE) on these
observables. They also can be used to separate hard components of a parton shower, for example,
sub-jets, in a jet with multi-prong structure [9, 10]. In the context of jet quenching, these methods enable
distinguishing sub-jets resulting from hard splittings in the parton shower from soft medium-induced
radiation [11], soft particles resulting from jet-induced medium excitations [12], and the UE. Furthermore,
the dependence of the jet quenching on such splittings, and more generally, the complexity of the parton
shower [13] can be studied using substructure techniques.
One specific phenomenon connected with the parton shower complexity is the color (de)coherence [14–16].
This phenomenon results from quantum interference between successive splittings, and it is believed to
largely dictate the magnitude of the energy loss [17, 18]. In-medium jet evolution is then characterized by a
vacuum-like parton cascade whose constituents are either resolved by the medium due to color decoherence
or remain unresolved and radiate coherently as a single color charge. This induces a dependence of
the observed jet suppression on the structure of splittings, which may be experimentally accessed by
substructure techniques [13].
Jet substructure was measured in lead-lead (Pb+Pb) collisions at the LHC using several observables:
the momentum ratio of two leading sub-jets, 𝑧 𝑔 [19–21], the groomed jet radius, 𝜃 𝑔 [21], the groomed
jet mass [22], the number of branches obtained in the iterative declustering of the jet [20], and the
𝑁-subjetiness [23]. Typically the per-jet normalized distributions of substructure observables are measured
in Pb+Pb collisions and compared with the same quantity measured in 𝑝 𝑝 collisions or to that obtained
from Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. A recent measurement of 𝑧 𝑔 , fully corrected for detector effects and
with a robust grooming method to reduce the impact of fluctuating backgrounds on the sub-jet selection,
reported no significant change of the 𝑧 𝑔 distribution in Pb+Pb collisions [21]. A narrowing of the 𝜃 𝑔
distribution was observed in Pb+Pb collisions [21] which may be due to the color coherence effects or
due to the difference in the relative suppression of quark- and gluon-initiated jets [24]. No change of the
groomed mass distribution for the core of the jet was observed, and only a hint of an increase for jets with
large jet mass was seen [22]. Furthermore, no significant change in the per-jet yields of the two-pronged
structure was observed in Pb+Pb collisions relative to the MC-based reference in the measurement of
𝑁-subjetiness [23].

2
One important conceptual issue associated with jet substructure measurements is that the QGP may not
directly modify the hard splittings of a jet since their formation time is much shorter than the formation
time of the QGP [18]. Thus, changes in substructure distributions can only arise from a substructure-
dependent quenching mechanism of the jets. Rather than measuring the per-jet normalized distributions of
a substructure variable, which are resulting from an admixture of jets suffering different energy loss, it may
be advantageous to, instead, quantify the suppression of jets having different substructure using the jet
nuclear modification factor, 𝑅AA [25].
This Letter provides the first observation and quantification of the dependence of the large-radius jet
suppression on the jet substructure, namely on the presence of hard splittings in the parton shower.
The suppression of large-radius jets is measured with the ATLAS detector differentially in jet transverse
momentum (𝑝 T ) and also in two specific substructure observables. The jet √suppression is quantified in terms
of jet 𝑅AA . The two substructure observables are the splitting parameter, 𝑑12 , and the angular separation,
Δ𝑅12 , which characterize the transverse momentum scale and the angular separation, respectively, for the
hardest splitting in the jet. This quantification allows direct access to the difference between the energy
loss of single-prong jets and the energy loss of jets with more complex structure involving early hard
splittings which was not possible with previous measurements. The use of large-radius jets then delimits the
measured kinematics of the internal splitting. The results also provide a direct quantification of cone-size
dependence of energy loss. Detailed quantification of jet suppression as a function of angular separation at
small opening angles using tracks associated with calorimeter small-radius jets follows in a separate study
by ATLAS [26].
The principal components of the ATLAS detector [27] used in this measurement are the inner tracking
detector, electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters, and the online trigger system. The inner tracking
detector is surrounded by a thin superconducting solenoid providing a 2 T axial magnetic field and it
covers the pseudorapidity range |𝜂| < 2.5.1 It consists of silicon pixel, silicon microstrip, and transition
radiation tracking detectors. Lead/liquid-argon (LAr) sampling calorimeters provide electromagnetic (EM)
energy measurements with high granularity. A steel/scintillator-tile hadron calorimeter covers the central
pseudorapidity range (|𝜂| < 1.7). Liquid-argon calorimeters with separate EM and hadronic compartments
instrument the endcap (up to |𝜂| = 3.2) and forward (FCal, up to |𝜂| = 4.9) regions. Both the inner detector
and calorimeter systems have a 2𝜋 coverage in azimuth. Two zero-degree calorimeters (ZDC) are composed
of four longitudinal layers of tungsten absorbers and quartz rods. They are situated in the far forward
region |𝜂| > 8.3 and primarily measure the spectator neutrons from the struck Pb nuclei. An extensive
software suite [28] is used in data simulation, in the reconstruction and analysis of real and simulated data,
in detector operations, and in the trigger and data acquisition systems of the experiment.
√
The analysis uses 1.72 nb−1 of Pb+Pb data at 𝑠NN = 5.02 TeV recorded in 2018 and 257 pb−1 of 𝑝 𝑝
data collected in 2017 at the same center-of-mass energy. Events were selected using a combination of
calorimeter-based jet triggers [29, 30]. Both the 𝑝 𝑝 and Pb+Pb events are required to contain at least one
primary vertex. All jets in the analysis are in a kinematic range where the jet trigger was fully efficient. The
Pb+Pb data contain only a small fraction of events (<0.5%) with multiple collisions per bunch crossing
which are further suppressed using the anti-correlation of signal from ZDC and FCal. The 𝑝 𝑝 data were

1 ATLAS uses a right-handed coordinate system with its origin at the nominal interaction point (IP) in the center of the detector
and the 𝑧-axis along the beam pipe. The 𝑥-axis points from the IP to the center of the LHC ring, and the 𝑦-axis points upward.
Cylindrical coordinates (𝑟, 𝜙) are used in the transverse plane, 𝜙 being the azimuthal angle around the 𝑧-axis. The pseudorapidity
is defined in terms of the polar angle 𝜃 as 𝜂 = − ln tan(𝜃/2). The rapidity is defined as 𝑦 = 0.5 ln[(𝐸 + 𝑝 𝑧 )/(𝐸 − 𝑝 𝑧 )] where 𝐸
and 𝑝 𝑧 are the energy and 𝑧-component of the momentum along the beam direction, respectively.

3
collected with typically 1.4 − 4.4 inelastic interactions per bunch crossing. No pileup rejection is applied
in the analysis of 𝑝 𝑝 data.
The centrality of Pb+Pb events is defined using the total transverse energy measured in the FCal, Σ𝐸 TFCal [31,
32]. Events in Pb+Pb data are classified into four centrality intervals, ordered from the most central to the
most peripheral: 0 − 10%, 10 − 30%, 30 − 50%, and 50 − 80%. The values of the mean nuclear thickness
function with their uncertainties, h𝑇AA i (used as an input to 𝑅AA ), are evaluated in each centrality interval
by a Glauber model analysis of the Σ𝐸 TFCal distribution [33, 34].
Several MC simulation samples are used to evaluate the performance of the analysis procedure and to
correct the measured distributions for detector effects. The 𝑝 𝑝 MC sample uses 4 × 107 Pythia8 [35]
√
jet events at 𝑠 = 5.02 TeV with the A14 ATLAS tune [36] and the NNPDF23LO parton distribution
functions (PDF) [37]. Pileup from additional 𝑝 𝑝 collisions is generated by Pythia8, with parameter values
set to the A2 tune [38] and using the MSTW2008 [39] PDF set, with a distribution of the number of extra
collisions matching that of data.
The Pb+Pb MC sample uses 4 × 107 𝑝 𝑝 Pythia8 events with the same tune and PDFs as in 𝑝 𝑝 MC samples
that are overlaid on top of events from a dedicated sample of Pb+Pb data events. This sample was recorded
with a combination of minimum-bias and total energy triggers requiring 1.5 TeV or 6.5 TeV to enhance the
number of central collisions. This “MC overlay” sample was re-weighted on an event-by-event basis such
that it has the same centrality distribution as the jet-triggered data sample. The detector response in all MC
samples was simulated using Geant4 [40, 41].
First, jets with radius parameter 𝑅 = 0.2 are reconstructed using the anti-𝑘 𝑡 algorithm [42, 43] from
calorimeter energy deposits as described in Ref. [44]. The jet kinematics are corrected event-by-event for
the contribution from the UE particles, and are calibrated using simulations of the calorimeter response
and in situ measurement of the absolute energy scale [45].
The large-radius jets are defined by clustering the small-radius, 𝑅 = 0.2, jets with 𝑝 T > 35 GeV and
|𝜂| < 3.0 using anti-𝑘 𝑡 algorithm with radius parameter 𝑅 = 1.0. These requirements and procedure limits
the impact of UE on the measurement but prohibits recovering the quenched jet energy [11] transferred
outside the 𝑅 = 0.2 sub-jets. The 𝑘 𝑡 jet finding algorithm [43, √ 46] is used to re-cluster 𝑅 = 0.2 jet
constituents to obtain two observables of interest, Δ𝑅12 and 𝑑12 . These are defined as the angular
separation and the splitting parameter of the 𝑘 𝑡 algorithm calculated for two jets before the final clustering
step of 𝑅 = 1.0 jet √︃ √︁
Δ𝑅12 = Δ𝑦 212 + Δ𝜙212 , 𝑑12 = min( 𝑝 T 1 , 𝑝 T 2 ) × Δ𝑅12 .

The large-radius jet yields in Pb+Pb collisions and jet cross-section in 𝑝 𝑝 collisions measured in the
kinematic range of 158 < 𝑝 T < 1000 GeV and |𝑦| < 2.0 are evaluated inclusively and differentially in each
of the two substructure
√ observables. The 𝑘 𝑡 clustering of large-radius jet constituents with only a single
sub-jet defaults to 𝑑12 = 0 and Δ𝑅12 = 0. These jets, which consist of a single 𝑅 = 0.2 jet, centered on
the√𝑅 = 1.0 jet axis with no other clustered activity in the large-radius cone, populate only the first interval
in 𝑑12 and Δ𝑅12 . The fraction of reconstructed large-radius jets with a single sub-jet in 𝑝 𝑝 collisions is
75% in the 𝑝 T interval of 158 − 200 GeV and 62% in the 𝑝 T interval of 316 − 500 GeV. More details of
the sub-jet multiplicity can be found in the Appendix. The jet performance of large-radius reclustered jets
was analyzed using MC samples. The jet energy scale (JES) was found to be within a 3% range from 1.
The measured inclusive and differential distributions are corrected for detector effects by the iterative
Bayesian unfolding method [47, 48] in one dimension and two dimensions, respectively, to return the

4
 √
Figure 1: The values of 𝑅AA for 𝑅 = 1.0 re-clustered jets as function of 𝑑12 (left) and Δ𝑅12 (right) in four centrality
intervals. The label ‘SSJ’ on the 𝑥-axis identifies the single sub-jet configuration. The vertical bars on the data points
indicate statistical uncertainties, the shaded boxes indicate systematic uncertainties. The fully correlated fractional
uncertainties due to the luminosity and h𝑇AA i are represented by boxes at 𝑅AA = 1. One data point with a relative
statistical uncertainty above 50% is not displayed.

distributions to the particle level. The unfolding accounts for the effects of bin migrations due to the
jet energy resolution (JER) and JES. It also corrects the combinatoric sub-jet contribution originating
from fluctuations of the UE and from jets from different hard partonic interactions in the same Pb+Pb
collision resulting in migration in the substructure observable.√To better represent the data, the simulated
distributions are re-weighted along the generator-level jet 𝑝 T , 𝑑12 , and Δ𝑅12 axes by the reconstruction-
level data-to-simulation ratio before the unfolding. The number of iterations in the unfolding was chosen
such that the result is stable when changing the number of iterations while minimizing the amplification
of statistical uncertainties. Four iterations were used for inclusive 𝑅 = 0.2√and 𝑅 = 1.0 jet yields and
cross-sections, while six and eight iterations were used in the unfolding of 𝑑12 and Δ𝑅12 distributions,
respectively. Generator-level jets that do not match to a reconstructed jet passing the selection criteria are
incorporated as an inefficiency correction after the unfolding.
A dominant source of systematic uncertainty is the uncertainty in the JES. For more central collisions,
the uncertainty in JER is equally important. The systematic uncertainty on the JES contains components
from calorimeter response uncertainties derived from in situ studies [45], a component connected with
the JES in the Pb+Pb environment [49], components accounting for inaccuracies in the description of the
relative abundances of jets initiated by quarks and gluons and their calorimetric response, and a component
connected with the jet radius. The magnitude
√ of the uncertainty in the 𝑅AA from the JES uncertainty varies
from 5% to 20% as a function of 𝑝 T , 𝑑12 , Δ𝑅12 , and centrality. The primary component of the JER
uncertainty is derived using an in situ technique involving studies of dijet energy √ balance [50, 51]. The
resulting uncertainty in 𝑅AA reaches ∼20% in 0–10% central collisions at low 𝑑12 and Δ𝑅12 , but it is
typically below 5%. The systematic uncertainty of the unfolding procedure is estimated by repeating the
analysis with response matrices without the re-weighting to match the shapes of measured distributions
in data and it is typically bellow 5%. Other systematic uncertainties consist of the deviation between
the unfolded result and the underlying generator-level distribution in simulation, the uncertainty in the
determination of h𝑇AA i values [44], and the uncertainty in the determination of the 𝑝 𝑝 luminosity [52].

5
Figure 2: Comparison of 𝑅AA distributions evaluated in 0 − 10% central collisions as a function of 𝑝 T for several
jet definitions: 𝑅 = 1.0 re-clustered inclusive jets (circles), 𝑅 = 1.0 re-clustered jets with a single sub-jet (crosses),
𝑅 = 1.0 re-clustered jets with multiple sub-jets (squares), 𝑅 = 0.2 jets (diamonds), 𝑅 = 0.4 jets (stars) [44]. The
vertical bars on the data points indicate statistical uncertainties, the shaded boxes indicate systematic uncertainties.
The colored boxes at 𝑅AA = 1 represent fractional uncertainty in h𝑇AA i and 𝑝 𝑝 luminosity in this measurement and
𝑝 𝑝 luminosity in previous analysis [44], which both affect the overall normalization.

The nuclear modification

√ factor for large-radius jets evaluated in the 𝑝 T interval of 200 − 251 GeV as a
function of the 𝑑12 is shown in the left panel of Figure 1. The 𝑅AA values for large-radius jets with a
single sub-jet are significantly larger
√ compared with the 𝑅AA for large-radius jets with a more complex
substructure having a non-zero 𝑑12 . This observation is qualitatively consistent with the scenario in
which the medium cannot resolve partonic fragments below a certain transverse scale [53]. This result is
also consistent with the previous measurement of correlated production of pairs of nearby jets in Pb+Pb
collisions
√ [54] where a larger suppression of neighboring jets√ compared with inclusive jets was observed.
For 𝑑12 > 0, the 𝑅AA values are constant as a function of 𝑑12 within uncertainties for all the centrality
intervals.
The right panel of Figure 1 shows 𝑅AA of large-radius jets evaluated as a function√of Δ𝑅12 for 𝑝 T =
200 − 251 GeV. The trends seen for 𝑅AA (Δ𝑅12 ) are the same as those seen for 𝑅AA ( 𝑑12 ): suppression
is significantly smaller for the single sub-jets case, and then constant within uncertainties for non-zero
Δ𝑅12 values. The other 𝑝 T intervals spanning the range of 158 < 𝑝 T < 500 GeV show the same
trends. These observations are in contrast with non-monotonic 𝑝 T and radial dependence of production
of charged particles associated with jets measured
√ using fragmentation functions or jet shapes [55–57].
The measurement of the 𝑘 𝑡 splitting scale by 𝑑12 and radial dependence of sub-jet suppression by Δ𝑅12
thus provide new information relative to previously measured transverse and radial structure of jets using
charged particles.
A systematic comparison of jet suppression in terms of jet 𝑅AA (𝑝 T ) for different jet definitions is provided
in Figure 2. The jet 𝑅AA is measured for: 𝑅 = 1.0 re-clustered jets with single sub-jet, 𝑅 = 1.0 re-clustered
jets with multiple sub-jets, 𝑅 = 1.0 re-clustered inclusive jets, 𝑅 = 0.2 jets, and 𝑅 = 0.4 jets [44].

6
Production of 𝑅 = 1.0 re-clustered inclusive jets is suppressed more than the production of 𝑅 = 0.2 or
𝑅 = 0.4 jets. Various theoretical calculations of the jet quenching where the jet energy is distributed to
soft particles predict less suppression when expanding the jet radius by recovering more lost energy, see
e.g. Ref. [58]. This energy recovery may however not happen in the case of re-clustered large-radius jets
where energy radiated outside of 𝑅 = 0.2 sub-jets is removed. A singular situation when the re-clustered
large-radius jet is completely removed due to all sub-jets being suppressed below 35 GeV cut is very
unlikely given the minimum 𝑝 T threshold of 158 GeV on 𝑅 = 1.0 jet and relatively small multiplicity
of sub-jets. Thus, in general, variations in the jet definition used in this study allow including different
fractions of the lost energy and energy from the medium response to the showering process. Comparing new
results with theoretical calculations may therefore help to understand possible biases in the quantification
of energy loss using traditional, small-radius jets. The presented quantification of cone-size dependence of
𝑅AA may also be used to constrain theoretical uncertainties in the recently analytically calculated cone-size
dependent energy loss [59].
The 𝑅 = 1.0 re-clustered jets with multiple sub-jets show the largest suppression while the 𝑅 = 1.0
re-clustered jets with a single sub-jet show the smallest suppression out of all jet definitions. The sizable
difference between the 𝑅AA for multiple sub-jet and single sub-jet configurations provides an important
input for understanding the role of color decoherence in the jet quenching. This sizable difference is not
due to missing a contribution from the energy radiated out of the 𝑅 = 0.2 cone since this radiated energy
is not measured in all configurations of 𝑅 = 1.0 jets with sub-jets. The lack of jet 𝑝 T dependence in the
𝑅AA of 𝑅 = 1.0 re-clustered jets with multiple sub-jets might be understood to be the consequence of
increasing sub-jet multiplicity with increasing jet 𝑝 T (see sub-jet multiplicity distributions in Appendix).
More sub-jets may imply more sources of radiation which may lead to flattening of 𝑅AA at high-𝑝 T . Finally,
it should be noted that any direct comparisons of 𝑅AA between different jet definitions should be treated
with care as the same particles reconstructed with a different procedure might appear in different jet 𝑝 T
intervals.
In conclusion, this Letter provides a measurement of the jet nuclear modification factor for large-radius jets
which is differential in 𝑝 T and in transverse and radial substructure observables. Presented observations
are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that jets with hard internal splittings lose more energy, and
provide a new perspective for understanding the role of jet structure in jet suppression in the QGP.

7
Appendix

The measured uncorrected distribution of the yield of jets evaluated as a function of a number of sub-jets
with 𝑝 T above 35 GeV is shown in Figure 3. The yield is shown for large-radius jets measured in 𝑝 𝑝
collisions and in four centrality intervals of Pb+Pb collisions. The fraction of reconstructed large-radius
jets with a single sub-jet in 𝑝 𝑝 collisions is 75% in the 𝑝 T interval of 158 − 200 GeVand 62% in the
𝑝 T interval of 316 − 500 GeV. In 0–10% central Pb+Pb collisions, the fractions are 73% and 68% in
the 𝑝 T interval of 158 − 200 GeVand 316 − 500 GeV, respectively. In 50–80% peripheral collisions, the
fractions are 77% and 65%, in the 𝑝 T interval of 158 − 200 GeVand 316 − 500 GeV, respectively. The
measured distributions in Pb+Pb collisions include a contribution from jets that originate from different
hard partonic interactions in the same Pb+Pb collision and from the spurious fluctuations of UE. These
two contributions increase with the increasing centrality of the collision. In general, the observed increase
of yield of large-radius jets with multiple sub-jets with increasing jet 𝑝 T is expected both in 𝑝 𝑝 and Pb+Pb
collisions, since it was previously measured that the yield of neighboring jets that accompany a given
higher-𝑝 T jet increases with increasing jet 𝑝 T [54, 60].

Figure 3: Measured uncorrected distributions of the number of sub-jets of the large-radius jets in 𝑝 𝑝 collisions and
four centrality intervals of Pb+Pb collisions for jet 𝑝 T in the range 158–200 GeV (left) and 316–500 GeV (right).

8
References
[1] 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].
[2] 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].
[3] F. Gelis, Some aspects of the theory of heavy ion collisions, Rept. Prog. Phys. 84 (2021) 056301,
arXiv: 2102.07604 [hep-ph].
[4] G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang, Jet quenching in high-energy heavy-ion collisions,
Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24 (2015) 1530014, arXiv: 1511.00790 [hep-ph].
[5] J.-P. Blaizot and Y. Mehtar-Tani, Jet structure in heavy ion collisions,
Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24 (2015) 1530012, arXiv: 1503.05958 [hep-ph].
[6] 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].
[7] S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and M. Spannowsky,
Looking inside jets: an introduction to jet substructure and boosted-object phenomenology, vol. 958,
Springer, 2019, arXiv: 1901.10342 [hep-ph].
[8] J. M. Butterworth, A. R. Davison, M. Rubin, and G. P. Salam,
Jet Substructure as a New Higgs-Search Channel at the Large Hadron Collider,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 242001, arXiv: 0802.2470 [hep-ph].
[9] M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani, and G. P. Salam,
Towards an understanding of jet substructure, JHEP 09 (2013) 029, arXiv: 1307.0007 [hep-ph].
[10] A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, Soft drop, JHEP 05 (2014) 146,
arXiv: 1402.2657 [hep-ph].
[11] J.-P. Blaizot, F. Dominguez, E. Iancu, and Y. Mehtar-Tani, Medium-induced gluon branching,
JHEP 01 (2013) 143, arXiv: 1209.4585 [hep-ph].
[12] Y. Tachibana, Medium response to jet-induced excitation: theory overview,
Nucl. Phys. A 982 (2019) 156, ed. by F. Antinori et al.
[13] H. A. Andrews et al., Novel tools and observables for jet physics in heavy-ion collisions,
J. Phys. G 47 (2020) 065102, arXiv: 1808.03689 [hep-ph].
[14] Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk,
Antiangular Ordering of Gluon Radiation in QCD Media, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 122002,
arXiv: 1009.2965 [hep-ph].
[15] Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk,
Jets in QCD media: From color coherence to decoherence, Phys. Lett. B 707 (2012) 156,
arXiv: 1102.4317 [hep-ph].
[16] J. Casalderrey-Solana, Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk,
New picture of jet quenching dictated by color coherence, Phys. Lett. B 725 (2013) 357,
arXiv: 1210.7765 [hep-ph].
[17] Y. Mehtar-Tani and K. Tywoniuk, Sudakov suppression of jets in QCD media,
Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 051501, arXiv: 1707.07361 [hep-ph].

9
[18] P. Caucal, E. Iancu, A. H. Mueller, and G. Soyez,
Vacuumlike Jet Fragmentation in a Dense QCD Medium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 232001,
arXiv: 1801.09703 [hep-ph].
[19] CMS Collaboration,
√
Measurement of the Splitting Function in 𝑝 𝑝 and PbPb collisions at 𝑠NN = 5.02 TeV,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 142302, arXiv: 1708.09429 [hep-ex].
[20] ALICE Collaboration, Exploration of jet substructure using iterative declustering in pp and Pb–Pb
collisions at LHC energies, Phys. Lett. B 802 (2020) 135227, arXiv: 1905.02512 [nucl-ex].
[21] ALICE Collaboration, Measurement of the groomed jet radius and momentum splitting fraction in
√
pp and Pb−Pb collisions at 𝑠 𝑁 𝑁 = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 102001,
arXiv: 2107.12984 [nucl-ex].
[22] CMS Collaboration,
√
Measurement of the groomed jet mass in PbPb and 𝑝 𝑝 collisions at 𝑠NN = 5.02 TeV,
JHEP 10 (2018) 161, arXiv: 1805.05145 [hep-ex].
[23] ALICE Collaboration,
√
First measurements of 𝑁-subjettiness in central Pb−Pb collisions at 𝑠NN = 2.76 TeV,
JHEP 10 (2021) 003, arXiv: 2105.04936 [nucl-ex].
[24] F. Ringer, B.-W. Xiao, and F. Yuan,
Can we observe jet 𝑃𝑇 -broadening in heavy-ion collisions at the LHC?
Phys. Lett. B 808 (2020) 135634, arXiv: 1907.12541 [hep-ph].
[25] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurements of the Nuclear Modification Factor for Jets in Pb+Pb
√
Collisions at 𝑠NN = 2.76 TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 072302,
arXiv: 1411.2357 [hep-ex].
[26] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of substructure-dependent jet suppression in Pb+Pb collisions
at 5.02 TeV with the ATLAS detector, (2022), arXiv: 2211.11470 [nucl-ex].
[27] ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,
JINST 3 (2008) S08003.
[28] ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Collaboration Software and Firmware,
ATL-SOFT-PUB-2021-001, 2021, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2767187.
[29] ATLAS Collaboration, Trigger Menu in 2018, ATL-DAQ-PUB-2019-001, 2019,
url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2693402.
[30] ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS trigger system in 2015,
Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 317, arXiv: 1611.09661 [hep-ex].
[31] ATLAS Collaboration, Prompt and non-prompt 𝐽/𝜓 and 𝜓(2S) suppression at high transverse
momentum in 5.02 TeV Pb+Pb collisions with the ATLAS experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 762,
arXiv: 1805.04077 [hep-ex].
[32] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of photon-jet transverse momentum correlations in 5.02 TeV
Pb+Pb and 𝑝 𝑝 collisions with ATLAS, Phys. Lett. B 789 (2019) 167,
arXiv: 1809.07280 [hep-ex].
[33] 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 [nucl-ex].

10
[34] C. Loizides, J. Nagle, and P. Steinberg, Improved version of the PHOBOS Glauber Monte Carlo,
SoftwareX 1-2 (2015) 13, arXiv: 1408.2549 [nucl-ex].
[35] T. Sjöstrand et al., An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159,
arXiv: 1410.3012 [hep-ph].
[36] ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to 7 TeV data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014,
url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1966419.
[37] R. D. Ball et al., Parton distributions with LHC data, Nucl. Phys. B 867 (2013) 244,
arXiv: 1207.1303 [hep-ph].
[38] ATLAS Collaboration, Further ATLAS tunes of Pythia 6 and Pythia 8, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-014,
2011, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1400677.
[39] A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt, Parton distributions for the LHC,
Eur. Phys. J. C 63 (2009) 189, arXiv: 0901.0002 [hep-ph].
[40] GEANT4 Collaboration, S. Agostinelli, et al., Geant4 – a simulation toolkit,
Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506 (2003) 250.
[41] ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Simulation Infrastructure, Eur. Phys. J. C 70 (2010) 823,
arXiv: 1005.4568 [physics.ins-det].
[42] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, The anti-𝑘 𝑡 jet clustering algorithm, JHEP 04 (2008) 063,
arXiv: 0802.1189 [hep-ph].
[43] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, FastJet user manual, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896,
arXiv: 1111.6097 [hep-ph].
[44] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the nuclear modification factor for inclusive jets in Pb+Pb
√
collisions at 𝑠NN = 5.02 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B 790 (2019) 108,
arXiv: 1805.05635 [hep-ex].
[45] ATLAS Collaboration, Jet energy scale measurements and their systematic uncertainties in
√
proton–proton collisions at 𝑠 = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 072002,
arXiv: 1703.09665 [hep-ex].
[46] S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. H. Seymour, and B. R. Webber,
Longitudinally-invariant 𝑘 ⊥ -clustering algorithms for hadron-hadron collisions,
Nucl. Phys. B 406 (1993) 187.
[47] G. D’Agostini, A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes’ theorem,
Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 362 (1995) 487.
[48] T. Adye, “Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold,”
Proceedings, 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search
Experiments and Unfolding (PHYSTAT 2011) (CERN, Geneva, Switzerland, Jan. 17–20, 2011) 313,
arXiv: 1105.1160 [physics.data-an].
[49] 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.
√
[50] ATLAS Collaboration, Jet energy resolution in proton–proton collisions at 𝑠 = 7 TeV recorded in
2010 with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2306, arXiv: 1210.6210 [hep-ex].

11
[51] ATLAS Collaboration, Data-driven determination of the energy scale and resolution of jets
√
reconstructed in the ATLAS calorimeters using dijet and multijet events at 𝑠 = 8 TeV,
ATLAS-CONF-2015-017, 2015, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2008678.
√
[52] ATLAS Collaboration, Luminosity determination for low-pileup datasets at 𝑠 = 5 and 13 TeV
using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, ATLAS-CONF-2020-023, 2020,
url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2725195.
[53] J. Casalderrey-Solana, Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk,
Probing jet decoherence in heavy ion collisions, Nucl. Phys. A 967 (2017) 564.
[54] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the production of neighbouring jets in lead-lead collisions
√
at 𝑠NN = 2.76 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B 751 (2015) 376,
arXiv: 1506.08656 [hep-ex].
[55] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of angular and momentum distributions of charged particles
√
within and around jets in Pb+Pb and 𝑝 𝑝 collisions at 𝑠NN = 5.02 TeV with the ATLAS detector,
Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) 064901, arXiv: 1908.05264 [hep-ex],
Erratum: Phys. Rev. C 101 (2019) 059903.
[56] ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of jet fragmentation in Pb+Pb and 𝑝 𝑝 collisions at
√
𝑠NN = 5.02 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C 98 (2018) 024908,
arXiv: 1805.05424 [hep-ex].
√
[57] CMS Collaboration, Modification of jet shapes in PbPb collisions at 𝑠NN = 2.76 TeV,
Phys. Lett. B 730 (2014) 243, arXiv: 1310.0878 [hep-ex].
[58] Y.-T. Chien and I. Vitev, Towards the understanding of jet shapes and cross sections in heavy ion
collisions using soft-collinear effective theory, JHEP 05 (2016) 023,
arXiv: 1509.07257 [hep-ph].
[59] Y. Mehtar-Tani, D. Pablos, and K. Tywoniuk,
Cone-Size Dependence of Jet Suppression in Heavy-Ion Collisions,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 252301, arXiv: 2101.01742 [hep-ph].
√
[60] D∅ Collaboration, Measurement of angular correlations of jets at 𝑠 = 1.96 TeV and determination
of the strong coupling at high momentum transfers, Phys. Lett. B 718 (2012) 56,
arXiv: 1207.4957 [hep-ex].

12