Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Constraining the resolution length of quark-gluon plasma with new jet substructure measurements

Arjun Srinivasan Kudinoor1,*, Daniel Pablos2,3,4,†, and Krishna Rajagopal1,‡

  • *Contact author: kudinoor@mit.edu
  • †Contact author: pablosdaniel@uniovi.es
  • ‡Contact author: krishna@mit.edu

Phys. Rev. D 114, 074061 – Published 30 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/yjg3-83g1

Abstract

We show that recent measurements of substructure-dependent jet suppression constrain the value of the resolution length of the droplets of quark-gluon plasma (QGP) formed in heavy ion collisions. This resolution length, Lres, is defined such that the medium can only resolve partons within a jet shower that are separated by more than Lres. We first use calculations done in the hybrid strong/weak coupling model for jet quenching (Hybrid Model) to reproduce ALICE measurements of the scaled soft-drop angle θg for anti-kt R=0.2 jets reconstructed from charged-particle tracks. We find that the narrowing of the θg-distribution in PbPb collisions compared to pp collisions that is seen in the ALICE data rules out a picture of fully coherent energy loss (Lres=∞) where each entire parton shower loses energy to the plasma as if it were a single unresolved colored object. We then use Hybrid Model calculations to reproduce ATLAS measurements of dR12, the soft-drop angle obtained by applying the Soft Drop grooming procedure to all charged-particle tracks in R=1 jets reconstructed from R=0.2 skinny subjets. Our analysis demonstrates that the ATLAS measurements of RAA for such R=1 jets as a function of dR12 are inconsistent with a picture of fully incoherent energy loss (Lres=0) in which every splitting in a parton shower is immediately resolved by the plasma. We find that our Hybrid Model calculations agree best with the ATLAS measurements if QGP has a finite, nonzero, resolution length Lres∼(1–2)/(πT). For the first time, jet substructure measurements are constraining the resolution length of QGP from below, as well as from above.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (56)

  1. K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A757, 184 (2005).
  2. I. Arsene et al. (BRAHMS Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A757, 1 (2005).
  3. B. B. Back et al. (PHOBOS Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A757, 28 (2005).
  4. J. Adams et al. (STAR Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A757, 102 (2005).
  5. M. Gyulassy and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A750, 30 (2005).
  6. D. Bak, A. Karch, and L. G. Yaffe, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2007) 049.
  7. Z. Hulcher, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2018) 010.
  8. J. Casalderrey-Solana, G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2020) 044.
  9. J. Casalderrey-Solana and E. Iancu, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2011) 015.
  10. Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk, Phys. Lett. B 707, 156 (2012).
  11. N. Armesto, H. Ma, Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2012) 109.
  12. Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2012) 197.
  13. J. Casalderrey-Solana, Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk, Phys. Lett. B 725, 357 (2013).
  14. F. Domínguez, J. G. Milhano, C. A. Salgado, K. Tywoniuk, and V. Vila, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 11 (2020).
  15. S. Abreu, X. Mayo López, G. Milhano, and A. Soto-Ontoso, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2025) 216.
  16. Y. Mehtar-Tani, C. A. Salgado, and K. Tywoniuk, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2012) 064.
  17. J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. Pablos, and K. Tywoniuk, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2016) 174.
  18. D. Pablos and A. Soto-Ontoso, Phys. Rev. D 107, 094003 (2023).
  19. A. S. Kudinoor, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2026) 020.
  20. P. Caucal, E. Iancu, and G. Soyez, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2019) 273.
  21. P. Caucal, A. Soto-Ontoso, and A. Takacs, Phys. Rev. D 105, 114046 (2022).
  22. C. Andres, F. Dominguez, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 262301 (2023).
  23. C. Andres, F. Dominguez, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2023) 088.
  24. L. Cunqueiro, D. Pablos, A. Soto-Ontoso, M. Spousta, A. Takacs, and M. Verweij, Phys. Rev. D 110, 014015 (2024).
  25. M. V. Kuzmin and J. M. Silva, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2025) 022.
  26. J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. C. Gulhan, J. G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2014) 019; 09 (2015) 175(E).
  27. J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. C. Gulhan, J. G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2016) 053.
  28. J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. Gulhan, G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2017) 135.
  29. J. Casalderrey-Solana, Z. Hulcher, G. Milhano, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, Phys. Rev. C 99, 051901 (2019).
  30. Z. Hulcher, D. Pablos, and K. Rajagopal, Acta Phys. Pol. B Proc. Suppl. 16, 1 (2023).
  31. S. Acharya et al. (A Large Ion Collider Experiment Collaboration and ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 102001 (2022).
  32. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 172301 (2023).
  33. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 871, 139929 (2025).
  34. A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2014) 146.
  35. T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852 (2008).
  36. T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015).
  37. P. M. Chesler and K. Rajagopal, Phys. Rev. D 90, 025033 (2014).
  38. P. M. Chesler and K. Rajagopal, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2016) 098.
  39. H. Bossi, A. S. Kudinoor, I. Moult, D. Pablos, A. Rai, and K. Rajagopal, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2024) 073.
  40. J. Casalderrey-Solana, J. G. Milhano, D. Pablos, K. Rajagopal, and X. Yao, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2021) 230.
  41. M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2008) 063.
  42. Y. L. Dokshitzer, G. D. Leder, S. Moretti, and B. R. Webber, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (1997) 001.
  43. M. Wobisch and T. Wengler, in Workshop on Monte Carlo Generators for HERA Physics (Plenary Starting Meeting) (1998), pp. 270–279, arXiv:hep-ph/9907280.
  44. A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 861, 139088 (2025).
  45. S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. H. Seymour, and B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B406, 187 (1993).
  46. S. D. Ellis and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D 48, 3160 (1993).
  47. D. Pablos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 052301 (2020).
  48. V. Chekhovsky et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 874, 140120 (2026).
  49. Z. Yang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 072302 (2025).
  50. A. Belyaev et al. (CMS Collaboration), arXiv:2602.09271.
  51. D. Pablos and S. Sanjurjo, Phys. Rev. D 110, L111502 (2024).
  52. M. Spousta and B. Cole, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 50 (2016).
  53. J.-W. Qiu, F. Ringer, N. Sato, and P. Zurita, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 252301 (2019).
  54. F. Ringer, B.-W. Xiao, and F. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B 808, 135634 (2020).
  55. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 107, 054909 (2023).
  56. S. Acharya et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 113, 044905 (2026).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation