Does the suppression shown at LHC in O-O collisions follow the systematics obtained for A-A collisions?

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2511.22139
• Title: Does the suppression shown at LHC in O-O collisions follow the systematics obtained for A-A collisions?
• Authors: M. Petrovici, A. Pop (National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering - IFIN-HH, Bucharest, Romania)
• Categories: nucl-ex (Nuclear Experiment), nucl-th (Nuclear Theory)
• Submission Date: Submitted to arXiv on November 27, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.22139

Abstract

This paper investigates whether the π⁰ particle suppression observed in O-O collisions at the LHC at center-of-mass energy √sNN=5.36 TeV follows the universal systematics established for heavy-ion (A-A) collisions. The study compares the latest experimental results from ALICE and CMS collaborations with previously established systematic patterns, including the nuclear modification factor RAA as a function of the number of participating nucleons ⟨Npart⟩ and charged particle density ⟨dNch/dη⟩, as well as the newly introduced normalized nuclear modification factor RᴺAA. The results demonstrate that the O-O collision experimental data are highly consistent with the systematics of heavy-ion collisions.

Research Background and Motivation

Core Research Question

The central question addressed in this study is: Do the particle suppression phenomena observed in light-heavy-ion (O-O) collisions follow the universal systematic patterns established in heavy-ion (Pb-Pb, Xe-Xe, Au-Au, etc.) collisions?

Research Significance

1. Extension of Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) Research: Particle suppression in heavy-ion collisions is a key signal of QGP formation. Verifying whether light nuclear systems follow the same patterns is crucial for understanding QGP formation conditions.
2. Filling the Mass Scale Gap: O-O collisions (A=16) occupy an intermediate position between pp collisions and heavy-ion collisions (Pb-Pb, A=208), providing critical data points for studying system size dependence.
3. Peculiarity of Alpha Cluster Structure: Oxygen nuclei possess an alpha particle cluster structure, which may lead to different collision dynamics compared to traditional heavy ions.

Existing Research Foundation

• High-multiplicity pp collisions at the LHC show similarities to Pb-Pb collisions (long-range pseudorapidity correlations, azimuthal correlations, etc.)
• Previous studies (ref. 1) established RAA systematics for Cu-Cu, Au-Au, Xe-Xe, and Pb-Pb collisions at RHIC and LHC
• Despite certain similarities in high-multiplicity pp events, no obvious suppression has been observed within experimental uncertainties

Research Motivation

To verify whether the established systematic patterns can be extrapolated to light-heavy-ion systems, providing experimental evidence for understanding the universal properties of strong interaction matter.

Core Contributions

1. First Systematic Comparison of O-O Collision Data: Comprehensive comparison of the latest O-O collision π⁰ suppression data from the ALICE collaboration with established A-A collision systematics.
2. Multi-dimensional Verification of Systematic Patterns:
   • Verification of the scaling relationship between ⟨Nbin⟩/⟨dNch/dη⟩O-O/⟨dNch/dη⟩pp and ⟨Npart⟩
   • Verification of the universality of RAA as a function of ⟨Npart⟩
   • Verification of energy-independent scaling behavior of RAA as a function of ⟨dNch/dη⟩
   • Verification of the systematics of the model-independent quantity RᴺAA
3. Theoretical Explanation: Based on parton energy loss phenomenology and geometric scaling theory, explaining why different systems and energies display scaling behavior in appropriate variables.
4. Experimental Prediction Verification: Confirming that light-heavy-ion systems follow the systematics of heavy-ion systems, despite the special alpha cluster structure of oxygen nuclei.

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Core Task: Verify whether O-O collision experimental data conform to the established A-A collision systematic patterns.

Key Observable Quantities:

• Input: O-O collision data at different centralities (⟨dNch/dη⟩, ⟨Npart⟩, ⟨Nbin⟩)
• Output: Nuclear modification factors RAA and RᴺAA
• Constraints: Consistency with heavy-ion collision systematics

Definition of Core Physical Quantities

1. Nuclear Modification Factor RAA

$R_{AA} = \frac{d^2N_{AA}/dp_T d\eta}{\langle N_{bin}\rangle \cdot d^2\sigma_{pp}/dp_T d\eta}$

Physical Meaning: The ratio of yields relative to nucleon-nucleon collisions scaled by the number of binary collisions in pp collisions. RAA < 1 indicates suppression.

2. Normalized Nuclear Modification Factor RᴺAA

$R^N_{AA} = \frac{(d^2N/dp_T d\eta / \langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle)^{cen}}{(d^2N/dp_T d\eta / \langle dN_{ch}/d\eta \rangle)^{pp,INEL}}$

Innovation: This is a model-independent quantity that, through normalization by charged particle density, eliminates dependence on ⟨Nbin⟩ estimates and reduces Glauber model uncertainties.

Theoretical Framework

1. Geometric Scaling Hypothesis

Based on previous studies 5, the transverse overlap area Score⊥ (the region of nucleons undergoing multiple collisions) as a function of Npart shows good scaling:

• Score⊥ vs Npart curves for Au-Au (RHIC) and Pb-Pb (LHC) coincide
• Similar aspect ratios of transverse overlap areas across different systems

Assumption: The average path length of partons traversing the deconfined region L² ∝ S⊥

2. Energy Loss Phenomenology

Based on reference 18, the fractional form of parton energy loss is: $\frac{\Delta E}{E} \propto T^a L^b$

Where:

• T is temperature
• L is path length
• a, b are parameters (dependent on specific models)

Key Insight:

• At fixed Npart, RAA differences at different collision energies originate from temperature T differences
• When using ⟨dNch/dη⟩ (related to temperature) as the variable, energy dependence disappears
• This explains why the RAA-⟨dNch/dη⟩ relationship shows energy-independent scaling

Analysis Methods

1. Data Collection

• O-O Data: ALICE collaboration preliminary results at √sNN=5.36 TeV (Initial Stages conference 2025)
• Historical Data:
  • RHIC: Cu-Cu and Au-Au at √sNN=200 GeV
  • LHC: Xe-Xe at √sNN=5.44 TeV, Pb-Pb at √sNN=2.76 and 5.02 TeV

2. Glauber Monte Carlo Estimation

Using Glauber MC method 16, 17 to estimate:

• ⟨Npart⟩: Number of participating nucleons
• ⟨Nbin⟩: Number of nucleon-nucleon binary collisions
• O-O at 0-100% centrality: ⟨Npart⟩=10.8

3. Systematic Comparison

Overlaying O-O data on existing systematic plots to verify:

• Whether data points fall within the error bands of systematic curves
• Whether scaling behavior is preserved

Technical Innovations

1. Enhanced Model Independence: RᴺAA eliminates dependence on ⟨Nbin⟩ through normalization, representing an important methodological advance, as ⟨Nbin⟩ uncertainties can be substantial.
2. Multi-variable Cross-validation: Verification through two independent variables (⟨Npart⟩ and ⟨dNch/dη⟩) enhances reliability of conclusions.
3. Energy Scaling Analysis: Clear distinction between geometric effects (embodied through Npart) and dynamical effects (embodied through ⟨dNch/dη⟩).

Experimental Setup

Datasets

O-O Collision Data (Focus of This Study)

• Energy: √sNN = 5.36 TeV
• Detectors: ALICE (π⁰ measurement) and CMS (charged particles)
• Centrality: Multiple centrality intervals
• Observables: ⟨dNch/dη⟩ (charged particle density), RAA (π⁰)
• Data Source: Preliminary results from Initial Stages conference 2025

Historical Comparison Data

1. RHIC Data:
   • Cu-Cu, Au-Au @ √sNN=200 GeV
   • Source: STAR and PHENIX collaborations
2. LHC Data:
   • Xe-Xe @ √sNN=5.44 TeV
   • Pb-Pb @ √sNN=2.76 TeV and 5.02 TeV
   • Source: ALICE collaboration

Evaluation Metrics

1. Scaling Quality Assessment

• Error Band Consistency: Whether O-O data points fall within the error ranges of existing systematics
• Trend Consistency: Whether data points follow the systematic curve trends

2. Physical Quantity Measurements

• RAA Values: Average suppression factors in the pT=6-20 GeV/c range
• ⟨dNch/dη⟩: Charged particle density in the |η|<0.5 range
• ⟨Npart⟩: Estimated through Glauber MC

Implementation Details

Glauber Model Parameters

• Standard Glauber MC implementation from reference 16
• O-O specific parameters from reference 17
• Main uncertainty sources: nuclear density distribution, nucleon-nucleon inelastic cross section

pp Reference Data

• INEL (inelastic) pp collisions used as baseline
• ⟨dNch/dη⟩pp values at corresponding energies from published data

Centrality Definition

• Based on forward energy deposition or multiplicity percentiles
• Consistent centrality definition scheme across different experiments

Experimental Results

Main Results

1. ⟨Nbin⟩/⟨dNch/dη⟩A-A/⟨dNch/dη⟩pp vs ⟨Npart⟩ Scaling (Figure 1)

Observations:

• O-O data (yellow squares) perfectly fall on the heavy-ion systematics curve
• Near ⟨Npart⟩≈10.8, O-O data are consistent with systematic trends
• Larger error bands primarily from ⟨Nbin⟩ estimation uncertainties

Physical Significance:

• Verifies the universality of charged particle production relative to binary collision scaling
• Indicates that particle production mechanisms in O-O collisions are identical to heavy-ion systems

2. RAA vs ⟨Npart⟩ (Figure 2)

Key Findings:

• O-O RAA value at ⟨Npart⟩=10.8 (yellow box) is completely consistent with Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb systematics at similar energies
• RAA values approximately 0.6-0.8 (specific values depend on pT range)
• This confirms that at fixed ⟨Npart⟩, different nuclear size systems show identical average suppression

Theoretical Explanation:

• Supports the geometric scaling hypothesis L² ∝ S⊥ ∝ Npart
• Transverse overlap area determines average path length, which in turn determines energy loss

3. RAA vs ⟨dNch/dη⟩ (Figure 3)

Breakthrough Result:

• O-O data at ⟨dNch/dη⟩ scaling coincide with all systems (including different energies)
• Eliminates collision energy dependence
• RHIC and LHC data form a unified curve in this representation

Importance:

• Demonstrates that ⟨dNch/dη⟩ is a more fundamental scaling variable than ⟨Npart⟩
• Supports temperature-dependent energy loss mechanisms (∆E/E ∝ Tᵃ)
• Charged particle density serves as a proxy for effective temperature

Numerical Examples (inferred from figures):

• In the ⟨dNch/dη⟩≈100-200 range, RAA≈0.6-0.7
• Data points from different systems and energies overlap within ±10% error ranges

4. RᴺAA vs ⟨dNch/dη⟩ (Figure 4)

Model-Independent Verification:

• O-O RᴺAA is consistent with Pb-Pb (√sNN=2.76 and 5.02 TeV) at the same ⟨dNch/dη⟩
• Perfect agreement within error ranges
• This provides the strongest evidence, as RᴺAA does not depend on Glauber model ⟨Nbin⟩ estimates

Methodological Advantages:

• Eliminates nuclear geometry uncertainties
• Directly compares normalized pT spectra
• Insensitive to system size, dependent only on local particle density

Quantitative Summary

Experimental Findings

1. Universality Confirmed: O-O collisions completely follow heavy-ion systematics with no systematic deviations.
2. Limited Impact of Alpha Cluster Structure: Despite the special alpha cluster structure of oxygen nuclei, average RAA shows no anomalous behavior.
3. Physical Meaning of Scaling Variables:
   • ⟨Npart⟩ scaling: Reflects geometric effects
   • ⟨dNch/dη⟩ scaling: Reflects dynamical (temperature) effects
   • The latter provides energy-independent description
4. Secondary Role of Azimuthal Angle Dependence: PHENIX observations of in-plane/out-of-plane RAA differences are mentioned, but effects are small in average values, with temperature dependence dominating.

Related Work

Major Research Directions in This Field

1. QGP Signals in Heavy-Ion Collisions

• Jet Quenching: High-pT particle suppression (RAA < 1)
• Elliptic Flow: Azimuthal anisotropy
• Charm Quark Suppression: Heavy flavor physics
• Thermalization: Thermalization timescale

2. Collective Phenomena in Small Systems

• Long-range correlations in pp and p-Pb collisions (ref. 2)
• "QGP-like" behavior in high-multiplicity pp events (refs. 3, 4)
• Universality of geometric scaling (refs. 5-7)

3. System Size Scanning

• RHIC: d-Au, Cu-Cu, Au-Au
• LHC: pp, p-Pb, Xe-Xe, Pb-Pb
• Now: O-O fills the gap

Relationship Between This Work and Related Studies

Based on Previous Systematic Studies

This paper is a continuation of the authors' series of works:

• Reference 1 (2021): Establishes RAA and RᴺAA systematic framework
• Reference 5 (2018): Geometric scaling Score⊥ study
• References 6, 7 (2023, 2025): Extensions of systematics applications

Relationship with Experimental Collaborations

• Uses ALICE (refs. 8, 9) and CMS (ref. 10) preliminary results from 2025
• Independent theoretical analysis verifying experimental observations

Theoretical Foundation

• Parton energy loss models (ref. 18)
• Glauber Monte Carlo method (refs. 16, 17)

Advantages of This Work Compared to Related Studies

1. Timeliness: First analysis of latest 2025 O-O data
2. Systematicity: Multi-dimensional verification (4 different physical quantities)
3. Model Independence: Emphasis on using RᴺAA
4. Theoretical Insight: Clear explanation of the physical mechanism behind energy scaling disappearance

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Core Finding: π⁰ suppression in O-O collisions at √sNN=5.36 TeV completely follows the systematic patterns of heavy-ion collisions (Cu-Cu, Au-Au, Xe-Xe, Pb-Pb).
2. Multiple Verifications:
   • ⟨Nbin⟩/⟨dNch/dη⟩/⟨dNch/dη⟩pp vs ⟨Npart⟩: Scaling holds
   • RAA vs ⟨Npart⟩: Consistent with Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb
   • RAA vs ⟨dNch/dη⟩: Energy-independent scaling
   • RᴺAA vs ⟨dNch/dη⟩: Model-independent verification
3. Physical Explanation:
   • Geometric effects manifested through ⟨Npart⟩
   • Dynamical effects (temperature) manifested through ⟨dNch/dη⟩
   • Energy loss mechanism ∆E/E ∝ TᵃLᵇ is supported
4. Impact of Alpha Cluster Structure: Despite the special alpha particle cluster structure of oxygen nuclei, average RAA shows no systematic deviations, indicating that average effects are insensitive to microscopic nuclear structure.

Limitations

1. Data Precision Constraints

• O-O data are preliminary results, final results may be adjusted
• Larger error bands, particularly ⟨Nbin⟩ estimates (Figure 1)
• Only integrated 0-100% centrality used, no centrality dependence analysis

2. Observable Constraints

• Focus on average RAA, without analyzing:
  • pT differential behavior
  • Particle species dependence (only π⁰)
  • Azimuthal angle dependence (in-plane/out-of-plane)
• PHENIX observations of azimuthal dependence mentioned but not deeply discussed

3. Limitations of Theoretical Explanation

• Energy loss formula ∆E/E ∝ TᵃLᵇ is phenomenological
• No quantitative calculations of microscopic mechanisms (gluon radiation, collisional energy loss)
• Assumption L² ∝ S⊥ is simplified; actual path length distribution is more complex

4. Systematic Effects

• No discussion of possible cold nuclear matter (CNM) contributions
• Initial state effects (color glass condensate) not considered
• Alpha cluster structure may have effects in specific observables

5. Applicability Range

• Only verified at LHC energies
• Predictive power for RHIC energies O-O collisions (if measured in future) unknown
• Whether lighter systems (C-C, N-N) follow the same patterns remains to be verified

Future Directions

Directions Explicitly Proposed in the Paper

"The expected results from detailed data analysis of the information collected in light heavy ion collisions at LHC will show to which extent the previously established systematics in heavy ion collisions and pp at LHC energies are also followed in the case of light heavy ion collisions."

Specific Research Prospects

1. More Detailed O-O Analysis:
   • Centrality-differential RAA
   • Fine structure of pT dependence
   • Different particle species (K, p, heavy flavor)
   • Azimuthal angle dependence (v2, v3)
2. Other Light Nuclear Systems:
   • C-C collisions (A=12)
   • N-N collisions (A=14)
   • Systematic scan of system sizes
3. Special Structure Effects:
   • Imprints of alpha cluster structure in specific observables
   • Comparison with spherical nuclei (e.g., Ca-Ca)
4. Theoretical Model Improvements:
   • Complete calculations including initial state effects
   • Hydrodynamic simulations of O-O collisions
   • Microscopic descriptions via transport models
5. Comparison with pp High Multiplicity:
   • RAA in pp collisions at the same ⟨dNch/dη⟩
   • Understanding why pp does not show suppression (question from ref. 1)

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Scientific Value

• Fills Critical Gap: O-O data is an important link in system size scanning, connecting pp and heavy ions
• Universality Verification: Confirms existing theoretical framework in new systems, enhancing reliability of QGP physics
• Methodological Contribution: Emphasizes model independence of RᴺAA, providing a template for future analyses

2. Analysis Rigor

• Multi-dimensional Cross-validation: Consistency checks across 4 independent physical quantities
• Comprehensive Historical Data: Covers multiple systems and energies at RHIC and LHC
• Error Assessment: Clearly identifies main uncertainty sources (⟨Nbin⟩)

3. Physical Insights

• Energy Scaling Explanation: Clearly elucidates why ⟨dNch/dη⟩ eliminates energy dependence (temperature effect)
• Geometry vs Dynamics: Distinguishes physical meaning of ⟨Npart⟩ (geometry) and ⟨dNch/dη⟩ (dynamics)
• Theory Connection: Links phenomenological observations to parton energy loss theory

4. Writing Clarity

• Compact structure with clear logic
• Information-rich figures clearly displaying systematics
• Suitable for rapid communication in Letter format

Weaknesses

1. Limited Analysis Depth

• Letter Format Constraints: Lacks detailed data analysis procedures
• No New Theory: Primarily data verification without proposing new physics mechanisms
• Missing Quantitative Predictions: No specific RAA value predictions with error estimates

2. Insufficient Experimental Details

• Preliminary Data: Based on conference reports rather than formal publications
• Inadequate Systematic Error Discussion: Experimental systematic errors not thoroughly analyzed
• Single Comparison Method: Only graphical comparison, no quantitative fitting or χ² tests

3. Limitations of Theoretical Explanation

• Strong Phenomenological Character: Energy loss formula parameters a, b not specified
• Missing Microscopic Mechanisms: No discussion of relative contributions from gluon radiation and collisional energy loss
• Initial State Effects Neglected: Color glass condensate and other initial state effects not considered

4. Insufficient Discussion Depth

• Alpha Cluster Structure: Only mentioned as possibly having peculiar behavior, not elaborated
• Missing pp Comparison: Does not revisit why pp does not show suppression
• Vague Future Experiment Suggestions: Only general mention of "detailed analysis"

5. Data Presentation Issues

• Figure Resolution: O-O data points (yellow squares/boxes) may not be sufficiently prominent in overlay plots
• Missing Numerical Values: Specific RAA values not provided in text, only in figures
• Unclear Error Bars: Error representation in some figures (e.g., Figure 2) not sufficiently clear

Impact Assessment

Contribution to the Field

• Short-term Impact (High):
  • Provides theoretical verification for ALICE/CMS O-O data
  • Supports existing QGP theoretical framework
  • Guides directions for subsequent detailed analyses
• Long-term Impact (Moderate):
  • Cited as a data point in systematic studies
  • Methodology (RᴺAA) may be more widely adopted
  • Does not present paradigm-shifting new insights

Practical Value

• Experimental Guidance: Provides reference for future light nuclear collision experiment design
• Theory Constraints: Provides new constraints for QGP models
• Educational Value: Demonstrates good practices in systematic study methodology

Reproducibility

• Data Accessibility: Depends on publicly available ALICE/CMS data, but O-O data are preliminary
• Method Transparency: Glauber MC parameters clearly referenced, but specific implementation details not provided
• Code/Tools: No analysis code or tools provided
• Reproducibility Rating: Moderate (Reproducible in principle, but requires waiting for official data release)

Applicable Scenarios

Direct Applications

1. Heavy-Ion Physics Experiment Analysis:
   • Theoretical reference for LHC Run 3 and subsequent O-O data analysis
   • Predictive baseline for other light nuclear systems (C-C, N-N)
2. QGP Theory Model Verification:
   • Constraints for hydrodynamic models
   • Benchmark tests for transport models
3. Systematic Studies:
   • System size dependence research
   • Energy scaling law exploration

Potential Extensions

1. Small System Collective Phenomena:
   • Comparison with pp and p-Pb high-multiplicity events
   • Understanding collective behavior origins
2. Cold Nuclear Matter Effects:
   • Separating hot medium and cold nuclear matter contributions
   • Study through p-O control measurements
3. Cosmic Ray Physics:
   • Analogy with high-energy cosmic ray atmospheric nuclear collisions
   • Calibration of extensive air shower models

Inapplicable Scenarios

• Low-Energy Heavy-Ion Collisions: Systematics established at LHC/RHIC top energies; extrapolation to FAIR/NICA energies requires caution
• Ultra-Peripheral Collisions: Extremely low multiplicity events may deviate from systematics
• Specific Particle Production: Systematics focus on inclusive observables; may not apply to specific particles (e.g., Λc)

Key References

1. M. Petrovici et al., Phys.Rev.C 103, 034903 (2021) - Foundational systematic study for this work
2. M. Petrovici et al., Phys.Rev.C 98, 024904 (2018) - Geometric scaling Score⊥ study
3. C. Loizides et al., Phys.Rev.C 97, 054910 (2010) - Standard Glauert MC implementation
4. C. Loizides, arXiv:2507.05853v2 (2025) - Glauber parameters for O-O collisions
5. J. Xu et al., JHEP 08, 063 (2014) - Parton energy loss theory
6. ALICE Collaboration - Pb-Pb systematic data (multiple Phys.Rev.C and Phys.Lett.B papers)

Summary

This paper is a timely, solid, but relatively conservative experimental verification work. Its core value lies in:

1. First incorporation of O-O collision data into the heavy-ion systematic framework
2. Multi-dimensional verification of QGP physics universality
3. Establishing foundation for future light nuclear collision research

Main limitations stem from Letter format constraints, with limited analysis depth and theoretical innovation—more "confirmation" than "discovery." However, at the current timing when O-O data have just been released, such work has important reference value for both experimental and theoretical communities. Subsequent detailed analyses based on final data are expected to provide deeper physical insights.