CMSPASHIN24010  
Search for mediuminduced jet axis decorrelations with inclusive jets from PbPb collisions at $ \sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}} = $ 5.02 TeV  
CMS Collaboration  
24 September 2024  
Abstract: The angular correlation between two different jet axes for a given jet of $ R = $ 0.4, obtained by using two different clustering algorithms on the same collection of anti$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jets, is studied using leadlead collision data at a centerofmass energy per nucleon pair of 5.02 TeV. The dataset, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 0.662 $ \mathrm{nb}^{1} $, was collected with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC. The jet axis correlations are examined across collision centrality selections and jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. A centralitydependent evolution of the measured distributions is observed, with a progressive narrowing seen in more central events. This narrowing could result from mediuminduced modification of the internal jet structure or reflect colorcharge effects in energy loss. The new measurements study jet substructure in previously unexplored kinematic domains and show great promise for providing new insights on the color charge dependence of energy loss to jet quenching models.  
Links: CDS record (PDF) ; CADI line (restricted) ; 
Figures  
png pdf 
Figure 1:
The unfolded normalized correlation distributions $ \Delta\text{j} $ are measured in different centrality intervals for 120 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 150 GeV (top left), 150 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 190 GeV (top right), 190 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 230 GeV (bottom left), and 230 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 300 GeV (bottom right). In each panel, the black circles show measurements for 010% centrality interval, the red squares 1030%, and the blue and green triangles 3050% and 5080% centrality intervals, respectively. The lower panels show the ratio of the correlation distribution within each centrality interval to that of 5080% selection. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. 
png pdf 
Figure 1a:
The unfolded normalized correlation distributions $ \Delta\text{j} $ are measured in different centrality intervals for 120 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 150 GeV (top left), 150 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 190 GeV (top right), 190 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 230 GeV (bottom left), and 230 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 300 GeV (bottom right). In each panel, the black circles show measurements for 010% centrality interval, the red squares 1030%, and the blue and green triangles 3050% and 5080% centrality intervals, respectively. The lower panels show the ratio of the correlation distribution within each centrality interval to that of 5080% selection. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. 
png pdf 
Figure 1b:
The unfolded normalized correlation distributions $ \Delta\text{j} $ are measured in different centrality intervals for 120 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 150 GeV (top left), 150 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 190 GeV (top right), 190 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 230 GeV (bottom left), and 230 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 300 GeV (bottom right). In each panel, the black circles show measurements for 010% centrality interval, the red squares 1030%, and the blue and green triangles 3050% and 5080% centrality intervals, respectively. The lower panels show the ratio of the correlation distribution within each centrality interval to that of 5080% selection. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. 
png pdf 
Figure 1c:
The unfolded normalized correlation distributions $ \Delta\text{j} $ are measured in different centrality intervals for 120 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 150 GeV (top left), 150 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 190 GeV (top right), 190 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 230 GeV (bottom left), and 230 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 300 GeV (bottom right). In each panel, the black circles show measurements for 010% centrality interval, the red squares 1030%, and the blue and green triangles 3050% and 5080% centrality intervals, respectively. The lower panels show the ratio of the correlation distribution within each centrality interval to that of 5080% selection. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. 
png pdf 
Figure 1d:
The unfolded normalized correlation distributions $ \Delta\text{j} $ are measured in different centrality intervals for 120 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 150 GeV (top left), 150 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 190 GeV (top right), 190 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 230 GeV (bottom left), and 230 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 300 GeV (bottom right). In each panel, the black circles show measurements for 010% centrality interval, the red squares 1030%, and the blue and green triangles 3050% and 5080% centrality intervals, respectively. The lower panels show the ratio of the correlation distribution within each centrality interval to that of 5080% selection. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. 
png pdf 
Figure 2:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 2a:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 2b:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 2c:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 2d:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 2e:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 2f:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 2g:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 2h:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 2i:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 2j:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 2k:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 2l:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 2m:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 2n:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 2o:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 2p:
The unfolded $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions (black circles) are compared with PYTHIA, HERWIG, and twocomponent fit simulations, shown as colored bands, across different centrality and $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. The medium q/g and JEWEL predictions, represented by hatched lines, are displayed only for the 010% centrality range. The ratios between data and simulations are shown in the lower panel. The vertical solid line represents the statistical uncertainty, while the rectangles and shaded areas represent the correlated and uncorrelated systematic uncertainties, respectively. The simulation distributions account for statistical uncertainties only. 
png pdf 
Figure 3:
The predicted gluon fractions in inclusive $ R = $ 0.4 jet sample in vacuum (based on PYTHIA 8 with tune CP5) and in medium (based on Refs. [45,46]). 
Tables  
png pdf 
Table 1:
Summary of absolute systematic uncertainties, averaged over the $ \Delta\text{j} $ distributions for different centrality intervals. The range of uncertainty values reflects the maximum variation across different $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals. 
Summary 
This note presents the first measurement of angular correlations between two types of jet axes for inclusive jets from leadlead (PbPb) collision data collected with the CMS detector at the LHC, at a nucleonnucleon centerofmass energy of $ \sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}} = $ 5.02 TeV. The correlations are measured using anti$ k_T $ jets with a radius parameter $ R = $ 0.4 and $ \eta < $ 1.6 in four centrality intervals (5080%, 3050%, 1030%, and 010%) and four $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ intervals (120 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 150 GeV, 150 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 190 GeV, 190 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 230 GeV, and 230 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 300 GeV). Significant modifications of correlations are observed in central compared to peripheral collisions, with a progressive narrowing of the distributions toward more central events. This narrowing behavior could result from mediuminduced modifications of the internal jet structure, although the possibility of a selection bias towards a lessquenched sample should be considered. Such a bias could arise from the predicted colorcharge dependence of partonic energy loss, which displaces gluon jets further down in energy compared to quark jets. Comparisons with phenomenological and toy Monte Carlo models indicate that the observed narrowing in the fully unfolded distributions from central PbPb collisions may be explained by a suppression of the relative gluon jet abundance, while peripheral data distributions are consistent with no modifications. These new measurements explore jet substructure in previously unexplored kinematic domains and show great promise for providing new insights into the colorcharge dependence of energy loss in jet quenching models. 
References  
1  D. A. Appel  Jets as a probe of quarkgluon plasmas  PR 33 (1986) 717  
2  J. CasalderreySolana and C. A. Salgado  Introductory lectures on jet quenching in heavy ion collisions  in Theoretical physics. Proceedings, 47th Cracow School, Zakopane, Poland, 2007 link 
0712.3443 
3  PHENIX Collaboration  Suppressed $ \pi^{0} $ production at large transverse momentum in central AuAu collisions at $ \sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}}= $ 200 GeV  PRL 91 (2003) 072301  
4  STAR Collaboration  Direct observation of dijets in central Au+Au collisions at $ \sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}} = $ 200 GeV  PRL 97 (2006) 162301  nuclex/0604018 
5  CMS Collaboration  Overview of highdensity QCD studies with the CMS experiment at the LHC  CMSHIN23011 2405.10785 

6  ATLAS Collaboration  Observation of a centralitydependent dijet asymmetry in leadlead collisions at $ \sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}} = $ 2.76 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC  PRL 105 (2010) 252303  1011.6182 
7  CMS Collaboration  Observation and studies of jet quenching in PbPb collisions at $ \sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}}= $ 2.76 TeV  Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 024906  CMSHIN10004 1102.1957 
8  ALICE Collaboration  Measurement of jet suppression in central PbPb collisions at $ \sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}}= $ 2.76 TeV  PLB 746 (2015) 1  1502.01689 
9  CMS Collaboration  Girth and groomed radius of jets recoiling against isolated photons in leadlead and protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}} = $ 5.02 TeV  CMSHIN23001 2405.02737 

10  CMS Collaboration  First measurement of jet axis decorrelation with photontagged jets in pp and PbPb collisions at 5.02 TeV  CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2024 CMSPASHIN21019 
CMSPASHIN21019 
11  ALICE Collaboration  Measurement of the angle between jet axes in PbPb collisions at $ \sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}} = $ 5.02 TeV  2303.13347  
12  P. Cal, D. Neill, F. Ringer, and W. J. Waalewijn  Measurement of the angle between jet axes in PbPb collisions at $ \sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}} = $ 5.02 TeV  JHEP 04 (2020) 211  1911.06840 
13  ALICE Collaboration  Measurement of the angle between jet axes in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 5.02 TeV  JHEP 07 (2022) 201  2211.08928 
14  CMS Collaboration  Performance of the CMS level1 trigger in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  JINST 15 (2020) P10017  CMSTRG17001 2006.10165 
15  CMS Collaboration  The CMS trigger system  JINST 12 (2017) P01020  CMSTRG12001 1609.02366 
16  CMS Collaboration  The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 3 (2008) S08004  
17  CMS Collaboration  Precision luminosity measurement in protonproton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS  EPJC 81 (2021) 800  CMSLUM17003 2104.01927 
18  CMS Collaboration  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  technical report, CERN, Geneva, 2018 CDS 

19  CMS Collaboration  CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 datataking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  technical report, CERN, Geneva, 2019 CDS 

20  CMS Collaboration  Chargedparticle nuclear modification factors in PbPb and pPb collisions at $ \sqrt{\smash[b]{s_{_{\mathrm{NN}}}}} = $ 5.02 TeV  JHEP 04 (2017) 039  CMSHIN15015 1611.01664 
21  CMS Collaboration  Description and performance of track and primaryvertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker  JINST 9 (2014) P10009  CMSTRK11001 1405.6569 
22  CMS Collaboration  Transversemomentum and pseudorapidity distributions of charged hadrons in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 0.9 and 2.36 TeV  JHEP 02 (2010) 041  CMSQCD09010 1002.0621 
23  T. Sjöstrand et al.  An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159  1410.3012 
24  CMS Collaboration  Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlyingevent measurements  EPJC 80 (2020) 4  CMSGEN17001 1903.12179 
25  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions from highprecision collider data  EPJC 77 (2017) 663  1706.00428 
26  C. Gale, S. Jeon, and B. Schenke  Hydrodynamic modeling of heavy ion collisions  Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28 (2013) 1340011  1301.5893 
27  GEANT4 Collaboration  GEANT 4a simulation toolkit  NIM A 506 (2003) 250  
28  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  The anti$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm  JHEP 04 (2008) 063  0802.1189 
29  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  FastJet user manual  EPJC 72 (2012) 1896  1111.6097 
30  CMS Collaboration  Particleflow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector  JINST 12 (2017) P10003  CMSPRF14001 1706.04965 
31  P. Berta, M. Spousta, D. W. Miller, and R. Leitner  Particlelevel pileup subtraction for jets and jet shapes  JHEP 06 (2014) 092  1403.3108 
32  D. Bertolini, T. Chan, and J. Thaler  Jet observables without jet algorithms  JHEP 04 (2014) 013  1310.7584 
33  A. J. Larkoski, D. Neill, and J. Thaler  Jet shapes with the broadening axis  JHEP 04 (2014) 017  1401.2158 
34  CMS Collaboration  Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV  JINST 12 (2017) P02014  CMSJME13004 1607.03663 
35  CMS Collaboration  Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data  JINST 15 (2020) P09018  CMSJME18001 2003.00503 
36  G. D'Agostini  A multidimensional unfolding method based on Bayes' theorem  NIM A 362 (1995) 487  
37  W. H. Richardson  Bayesianbased iterative method of image restoration  Opt. Soc. Am. 62 (1972) 55  
38  L. B. Lucy  An iterative technique for the rectification of observed distributions  Astron. J. 79 (1974) 745  
39  T. Adye  Unfolding algorithms and tests using RooUnfold  in Proceedings of the PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop, CERN, 2011 link 
1105.1160 
40  S. Gieseke, P. Stephens, and B. Webber  New formalism for QCD parton showers  JHEP 12 (2003) 045  hepph/0310083 
41  NNPDF Collaboration  Parton distributions for the LHC Run 2  JHEP 04 (2015) 040  1410.8849 
42  B. R. Webber  A QCD model for jet fragmentation including soft gluon interference  NPB 238 (1984) 492  
43  CMS Collaboration  Development and validation of HERWIG 7 tunes from CMS underlyingevent measurements  EPJC 81 (2021) 312  CMSGEN19001 2011.03422 
44  R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli and K. C. Zapp  Medium response in JEWEL and its impact on jet shape observables in heavy ion collisions  JHEP 07 (2017) 141  1707.01539 
45  J.W. Qiu, F. Ringer, N. Sato, and P. Zurita  Factorization of jet cross sections in heavyion collisions  PRL 122 (2019) 252301  1903.01993 
46  J.W. Qiu, F. Ringer, N. Sato, and P. Zurita  QCD factorization and universality of jet cross sections in heavyion collisions  Nucl. Phys. A 1005 (2021) 121853  2002.01652 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 