Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Improvement for Color Glass Condensate factorization: single hadron production in pA collisions at next-to-leading order

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a rapidity regulator that makes next-to-leading-order CGC factorization systematic, produces the kinematic constraint automatically, and resolves the negative-cross-section problem.

desk verdict Promising rapidity regulator, but Eq. (4) as printed does not produce the claimed 1/eta pole, so the central NLO formula is unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02370 v2 pith:5SZZTUDD submitted 2019-09-05 nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex

Hao-Yu Liu , Yan-Qing Ma , Kuang-Ta Chao This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-exhep-phnucl-ex
keywords ColorGlassCondensaterapiditydivergenceregularizationnext-to-leadingordersinglehadronproductionproton-nucleuscollisionskinematicconstraintnegativityproblemfactorizationscaledependence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Single hadron production in proton-nucleus collisions has resisted a next-to-leading-order (NLO) description within Color Glass Condensate (CGC) factorization: earlier NLO calculations went negative at high transverse momentum, and fixes required a kinematical constraint inserted by hand. This paper proposes a systematic rapidity regulator—raise each light-cone energy denominator to the power $1+\eta$ and multiply by $(X_f p_A^-)^\eta$—so that rapidity divergences are well defined and can be subtracted minimally. With this regulator, the NLO cross section acquires an additional finite term plus an $I_{BK}$ term, and the dependence on the factorization scale $X_f$ cancels order by order through the BK evolution equation (the renormalization-group equation for the color dipole amplitude). The kinematical constraint appears automatically with a different value than earlier works, the negative-rate problem is avoided by a physical choice of $X_f$, and estimated scale uncertainty drops from 30–50% at LO to below 10–20% at NLO.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the rapidity regulator of Eq. (3): replace a light-cone energy denominator $1/(k_h^-+k_g^--k_p^{\prime-})$ by $(X_f p_A^-)^\eta/(k_h^-+k_g^--k_p^{\prime-})^{1+\eta}$. Upon expanding with $(1-\xi)^{-1+\eta}=\delta(1-\xi)/\eta+1/(1-\xi)_+ + O(\eta)$, the $1/\eta$ pole is minimally subtracted and absorbed into the CGC-averaged multipole correlators (color dipoles and higher operators), while the finite part inherits a cutoff-like restriction on the minus momentum of the emitted gluon. This single modification defines the renormalization scheme, makes the calculation tractable in Feynman diagrams, and is what turns the ad hoc kinematic constraint into a derived consequence.

What would settle it

Evaluate the same one-loop quark-to-quark channel with an independent rapidity regulator (for example an exponential regulator or a sharp cutoff on $k_g^-$) and subtract the BK counterterm; if the resulting finite cross section differs from Eq. (5) by terms of order $\alpha_s$ rather than $\alpha_s^2$, the claimed scheme independence fails. A cheaper test is to repeat the integrals with a different routing of loop momentum in the virtual diagrams, since the paper asserts independence but does not demonstrate it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Eq. (5) is the correct NLO differential cross section for single hadron production in proton-nucleus collisions in CGC factorization, with dimensional regularization combined with the new rapidity regulator. The formula contains an additional term and an $I_{BK}$ term that are absent from the original NLO calculation; the $I_{BK}$ term is what makes the $X_f$ dependence cancel order by order against BK evolution. The regulator automatically produces a constraint of the form $k_g^- < X_f p_A^-$ in the rapidity-divergent region, the physical statement that only gluons with lifetime shorter than the factorization scale are dynamical. Because the finite terms differ from the hand-imposed kinematic constraints of earlier papers, the resulting NLO cross section stays positive to $p_{h\perp}=19$ GeV and has greatly reduced scale sensitivity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the modified light-cone energy denominator of Eq. (3), together with minimal subtraction of the $1/\eta$ pole, defines a physically faithful and scheme-independent rapidity regularization; if finite terms depend on the regulator or on momentum routing, the claimed NLO formula is not uniquely determined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Varying $X_f$ through $\kappa \bar X$ with $\kappa\in[0.5,2]$ becomes a valid way to estimate missing higher-order uncertainty; the paper finds 10–20% at NLO versus 30–50% at LO.
  • The negative cross-section problem at high $p_{h\perp}$ is resolved by a physical factorization-scale choice, with positivity maintained up to $p_{h\perp}=19$ GeV in the quark channel.
  • The kinematic constraint is no longer external input: it is a consequence of the regulator, with the specific form $k_g^-<X_f p_A^-$ rather than the fixed cutoffs used earlier.
  • The same regulator should apply to other channels and higher orders, making systematic CGC precision calculations possible.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the regulator acts on energy denominators and not on a particular final state, it should transfer to other CGC observables with rapidity divergences—dijets, heavy flavor, exclusive diffraction—although the paper only analyzes single hadron production.
  • A definitive check of scheme independence would be a numerical comparison of Eq. (5) against an independent regulator implementation of the same process; the paper states but does not show this.
  • If the finite terms are regulator-independent, the approach could support a complete NLO global fit of dipole initial conditions; the paper notes the LO-based initial condition biases the current comparison with data but does not perform such a fit.
  • The automatic constraint gives $X_f$ a physical role as the lifetime cutoff separating slow dynamical gluons from fast background fields; this interpretation could guide choices of $X_f$ from kinematics rather than purely by scale variation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new rapidity regulator for Color Glass Condensate (CGC) factorization, obtained by raising each light-cone energy denominator to the power 1+eta and multiplying by (Xf p_A^-)^eta. The authors apply this regulator to single inclusive hadron production in proton-nucleus collisions and state a next-to-leading-order (NLO) cross section, Eq. (5), that contains an additional IBK term and an additional finite term. They argue that the kinematic constraint introduced by hand in previous works emerges automatically, that the factorization-scale (Xf) dependence is cancelled order by order through the BK equation, that NLO results remain positive up to p_h⊥ = 19 GeV, and that the theoretical scale uncertainty is reduced from about 30-50% at LO to 10-20% at NLO. Appendix A introduces an ad hoc subtraction of O(p_h⊥^{-2}) contamination caused by imperfect normalization of the dipole amplitude, with an additional parameter Q, and Table I demonstrates that the dependence on Q and Xmax is small.

Significance. If the central formula Eq. (5) is correct, this would be a substantial step: a systematic rapidity regulator for CGC factorization, an automatic kinematic constraint, control of the factorization-scale dependence, and a resolution of the long-standing negativity problem in forward hadron production at NLO. The paper also makes a falsifiable prediction for the scale-uncertainty improvement. However, the significance is conditional because the derivation of Eq. (5) is not shown, the regulator expansion in Eq. (4) is internally inconsistent as printed, and the numerical implementation in Appendix A involves a subtraction that is not derived from the regulator. The paper's central claims therefore cannot currently be traced to the stated formalism.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) is not algebraically consistent with the regulator defined in Eq. (3). With the definitions after Eq. (3), the light-cone energy denominator D = k_h^- + k_g^- - k_p'^- behaves near ξ→1 as D ≈ k_g⊥^2/[2k_p^+(1-ξ)], so it contains a pole in (1-ξ), not a factor (1-ξ). The right-hand side of Eq. (4), taken literally, is (1-ξ)/D [δ(1-ξ)/η (...) + 1/(1-ξ)_+]. Acting on a test function, the delta term vanishes because (1-ξ)δ(1-ξ)=0, and the plus-distribution term gives ∫ dξ φ(ξ)/D(ξ), because (1-ξ)/(1-ξ)_+ = 1 as a distribution. Thus the printed Eq. (4) is simply equal to 1/D, independent of η, and no 1/η rapidity pole is generated. The claimed expansion of Eq. (3) is therefore not established, and the derivation of Eq. (5), which rests on this expansion, is in question. Please correct the expansion or provide a full derivation of Eq. (5).
  2. [Section III, Eq. (5)] The NLO cross section in Eq. (5) is stated without derivation. The text moves directly from the regulator of Eq. (3) to the final formula, including the IBK and JBK terms and the 'last line' claimed to be new. Given the subtlety of combining UV, collinear, soft, and rapidity divergences, and given the inconsistency in Eq. (4), the reader cannot verify that the coefficients, the ξ-dependence, and the scale-dependence of Eq. (5) follow from the stated regulator. A derivation for the quark-to-quark channel, at least for the rapidity-divergent pieces, is needed; alternatively, a precise reference to a longer exposition must be provided.
  3. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A1)-(A3) and Table I] The numerical treatment modifies the kernel IrBK to IQ_rBK by subtracting O(p_h⊥^{-2}) contributions, justified by the imperfect normalization of the dipole amplitude. This is an ad hoc numerical prescription rather than a consequence of the rapidity regulator. Table I shows that the Q and Xmax dependence is small, but the subtraction is not derived, and the comparison to ATLAS data in Fig. 2 uses this modified kernel. The claim that the positivity and scale-uncertainty results follow from the NLO formula of Eq. (5) would be strengthened by a demonstration that the subtraction does not remove any physical NLO contribution, or by an estimate of the systematic uncertainty it introduces.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III, after Eq. (4)] The sentence 'As the 1−ξ factor before the brackets will eventually cancel with other factors' is unclear and, in light of the issue with Eq. (4), needs to be rewritten with explicit algebra.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (2)] The notation FF(k⊥;Xf) is used for the momentum-space dipole amplitude, but the Fourier-transform convention and the normalization condition are introduced only later, in Appendix A. These should be stated where the quantity is first defined.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (5)] The symbol \bar X is used in Eq. (5) but is defined only in the following paragraph. Please define it immediately before or with the equation.
  4. [Abstract and Section V] There is a spelling error: 'straight forward' should be 'straightforward'. The same phrase appears in the Abstract and in Section V.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The 'automatic' kinematic constraint is the regulator's own Xf cutoff reappearing, but the NLO cross section is a genuine perturbative expansion; no fitted prediction or self-citation chain.

  1. self definitional [Section III, paragraph following Eq. (4) (and Abstract)]
    "After this procedure, the effect of the modification of energy denominator in Eq. (3) is similar to introduce a cut-off k−g +k−h −k′−p < Xfp−A, which becomes k−g/p−A < Xf in the rapidity divergent region ξ → 1. Similar effect can also be found for all other real emission diagrams, as well as loop diagrams. Therefore, with our rapidity regularization, dynamic gluons are constrained to have ‘−’ momentum fraction smaller than the factorization scale Xf;"

    The regulator in Eq. (3) is defined with the factor (Xf p_A^-)^η, so the cutoff scale Xf is an input of the regularization scheme. The quoted passage then identifies the effect of this modification as a cutoff k_g^-/p_A^- < Xf, and the Abstract presents the kinematic constraint as coming out automatically. This is the regulator's own scale reappearing after minimal subtraction, not an independent derivation; the different value (Xf instead of p_A^- or X0 p_A^-) is a property of the chosen scheme, not a predicted outcome. The claim is therefore self-definitional. However, Eq. (5) remains a genuine perturbative expression with external PDFs/FFs and BK evolution, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The central NLO formula, Eq. (5), is not a fit: PDFs (MSTW) and FFs (DSS) are external, and the dipole amplitude FF(k⊥;Xf) is obtained by solving the rcBK equation with parameters from Ref. [59]. The comparison with ATLAS uses the same prefactor as Ref. [38] and no parameter is adjusted to the displayed data. The main circular element is the headline claim that the kinematic constraint comes out automatically; as detailed in the step above, that constraint is introduced by the regulator's own scale. The rest of Eq. (5) has independent content, so the paper is only partially circular. Separately, a derivation gap should be flagged even though it is not circularity: Eq. (4) as printed is not algebraically equivalent to Eq. (3). Expanding (1−ξ)^{-1+η} and multiplying by (1−ξ)/D yields a different object than D^{-1-η}, and the δ(1−ξ) term is multiplied by (1−ξ), so it vanishes under integration; no 1/η pole is exhibited in the printed expansion. Eq. (5) is asserted with 'we get' and its derivation is not shown. Appendix A subtracts p_h⊥^{-2} terms using the exact normalization condition ∫ d^2k⊥ FF(k⊥;Xf)=1 to remove numerical artifacts; that is a numerical enforcement of an exact property rather than a fit, but it should be kept in mind when assessing the positivity claim. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation introduces one new scheme parameter (the regulator and its subtraction) and hand-chosen cutoffs Xmax and Q for numerical normalization-violation subtraction. The axioms are standard CGC factorization plus the paper-specific validity of the new rapidity regulator. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • kappa (scale variation) = varied 0.5 to 2; central value 1
    O(1) parameter defining the factorization scale Xf = kappa * Xbar; not fitted to data, but the uncertainty estimate and positivity claim depend on the allowed kappa range.
  • Xmax = 0.01
    Introduced to prevent factorization scale Xf from becoming too large as xi approaches 1; chosen by hand in Section IV and Appendix A; paper shows the dependence is small.
  • Q = 2 GeV
    Additional scale in the modified integral I^Q_rBK (Eq. A3) used to subtract spurious p_h^{-2} contributions caused by violation of dipole normalization; chosen to be O(Qs); Table I shows insensitivity for Q near 2 GeV.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The CGC effective theory separates gluons by light-cone time: large-x gluons are static sources and small-x gluons are perturbative, with separation defined by the factorization scale Xf.
    Foundation of CGC factorization; invoked in the Introduction and used to define the regulator in Eq. (3).
  • ad hoc to paper The new rapidity regulator (shifting light-cone energy denominators to power 1+eta) constitutes a valid regularization, i.e., it is independent of momentum shifts and the 1/eta poles can be absorbed into renormalized multipole correlators.
    This is the paper's central methodological postulate; the validity is asserted in Section III, not proven. If invalid, the NLO result is scheme-dependent.
  • domain assumption The momentum-space dipole amplitude FF(k_perp; Xf) satisfies the BK equation with running coupling (rcBK) and the initial condition fitted to DIS data at LO.
    Used in the numerical analysis; the initial condition is from Ref. [59] and is based on LO fits, which the paper admits is inconsistent with the NLO result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Improvement for Color Glass Condensate factorization: single hadron production in pA collisions at next-to-leading order." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5SZZTUDD

@misc{pith2026190902370,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Improvement for Color Glass Condensate factorization: single hadron production in pA collisions at next-to-leading order},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5SZZTUDD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02370}
}
read the original abstract

High order calculation at semi-hard scale is very important, but a satisfactory calculation framework is still missing. We propose a systematic method to regularize rapidity divergences in the CGC factorization, which makes higher order calculation rigorous and straight forward. By applying this method to single hadron production in pA collision, we find the kinematic constraint effect introduced by hand in previous works comes out automatically, but with different values. The difference is crucial for our next-to-leading order (NLO) result to have a smaller theoretical uncertainty comparing with LO result, which makes high order calculation in CGC factorization to be useful. As a byproduct, the negativity problem found in literature can also be overcome in our framework by a proper choosing of factorization scale.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02370 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of the differential cross sections between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Feynman diagrams at the LO and the NLO for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Predicted distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Simultaneous Color Glass Condensate fit to deep inelastic scattering and forward hadron production at HERA, RHIC, and the LHC

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A simultaneous LO CGC/BK fit to HERA DIS and RHIC/LHC forward hadron production reaches χ²/dof≈1, with complementary constraints and RHIC K-factors roughly twice those at the LHC.

  2. Energy-Energy Correlator for jet production in $pp$ and $pA$ collisions

    hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A TMD-inspired non-perturbative model plus leading-logarithm perturbative evolution describes the full angular energy-energy correlator in pp and pA jet production and attributes the observed pA suppression to medium-...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    (B2) In Eq

    Result of g →g channel The NLO result of the g→g channel is dσg→g d2ph⊥dyh = ∫ 1 τ dz z2Dh/g(z){xpG(xp)[FA(kh⊥;Xf)− 2αsNc π2 ln ( ¯X Xf ) IggBK (kh⊥,Xf)− 2αsNc π2 JggBK (kh⊥,Xf)] + αsNc π2 { ∫ 1 τ z dξxp ξ G(xp ξ )2[ ξ (1−ξ)+ + 1−ξ ξ +ξ(1−ξ)][IrggBK (kh⊥,Xf,ξ )] + 2π ∫ 1 0 dξxpG(xp)[ ξ (1−ξ)+ + 1 2ξ(1−ξ)]IvggBK (kh⊥,Xf,ξ ) + ∫ 1 τ z dξxp ξ G(xp ξ )π[ ξ (1...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Result of q →g channel The q→g channel gives dσq→g d2ph⊥dyh =αsNc 4π2 ∫ 1 τ dz z2Dh/g(z) ∫ 1 τ z dξxp ξ f(xp ξ ){Pgq(ξ)[πFA(kh⊥;Xf) lnk2 h⊥ µ2 + π ξ2FF (kh⊥ ξ ;Xf) ln k2 h⊥ ξ2µ2 ] +Pgq(ξ) ∫ d2k1⊥[FA(k1⊥;Xf) 1 (k1⊥−kh⊥)2−FA(kh⊥;Xf) k2 h⊥ 2k2 1⊥(k1⊥−kh⊥)2 ] +Pgq(ξ) ∫ d2k1⊥[FF (k1⊥;Xf) 1 (ξk1⊥−kh⊥)2− 1 ξ4FF (kh⊥ ξ ;Xf) k2 h⊥ 2k2 1⊥(k1⊥− kh⊥ ξ )2 ] − 2Pgq(ξ) ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Result of g →q channel The g→q channel gives dσg→q d2ph⊥dyh =αsTR 2π2 ∫ 1 τ dz z2Dh/q(z) ∫ 1 τ z dξxp ξ G(xp ξ ){Pqg(ξ)[πFF (kh⊥;Xf) lnk2 h⊥ µ2 + π ξ2FA(kh⊥ ξ ;Xf) ln k2 h⊥ ξ2µ2 ] +Pqg(ξ) ∫ d2k1⊥[FF (k1⊥;Xf) 1 (k1⊥−kh⊥)2−FF (kh⊥;Xf) k2 h⊥ 2k2 1⊥(k1⊥−kh⊥)2 ] +Pqg(ξ) ∫ d2k1⊥[FA(k1⊥;Xf) 1 (ξk1⊥−kh⊥)2− 1 ξ4FA(kh⊥ ξ ;Xf) k2 h⊥ 2k2 1⊥(k1⊥− kh⊥ ξ )2 ] − 2Pqg(ξ) ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    I. I. Balitsky and L. N. Lipatov, The Pomeranchuk Singularity in Quantum Chromodynamics , Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 28 (1978) 822–829 [ InSPIRE]. [Yad. Fiz.28,1597(1978)]

    work page 1978

  5. [5]

    L. N. Lipatov, Reggeization of the Vector Meson and the Vacuum Singularity in Nonabelian Gauge Theories , Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 23 (1976) 338–345 [ InSPIRE]. [Yad. Fiz.23,642(1976)]

    work page 1976

  6. [6]

    E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov, and V. S. Fadin, Multi - Reggeon Processes in the Yang-Mills Theory , Sov. Phys. JETP 44 (1976) 443–450 [ InSPIRE]. [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.71,840(1976)]

    work page 1976

  7. [7]

    V. S. Fadin, E. A. Kuraev, and L. N. Lipatov, On the Pomeranchuk Singularity in Asymptotically Free Theories, Phys. Lett. B60 (1975) 50–52 [ InSPIRE]

    work page 1975

  8. [8]

    Gribov, E

    L. Gribov, E. Levin, and M. Ryskin, Semihard Processes in QCD, Phys.Rept. 100 (1983) 1–150 [ InSPIRE]

    work page 1983

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    A. H. Mueller and J. Qiu, Gluon Recombination and Shadowing at Small Values of x , Nucl.Phys. B268 (1986) 427 [ InSPIRE]

    1986

  2. [10]

    Iancu, A

    E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, and L. McLerran, The Color glass condensate: An Introduction , in QCD perspectives on hot and dense matter. Proceedings, NATO Advanced Study Institute, Summer School, Cargese, France, August 6-18, 2001 , pp. 73–145. 2002 [ hep-ph/0202270] [InSPIRE]

    2001 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Iancu and R

    E. Iancu and R. Venugopalan, The Color glass condensate and high-energy scattering in QCD , in In *Hwa, R.C. (ed.) et al.: Quark gluon plasma* 249-3363 . 2003 [hep-ph/0303204] [InSPIRE]

    2003 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gelis, E

    F. Gelis, E. Iancu, J. Jalilian-Marian, and R. Venugopalan, The Color Glass Condensate , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 463–489 [arXiv:1002.0333] [InSPIRE]

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and E. Levin, Quantum chromodynamics at high energy , vol. 33. Cambridge University Press, 2012 [ InSPIRE]. http://www. cambridge.org/de/knowledge/isbn/item6803159

    2012

  6. [14]

    Jalilian-Marian, A

    J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov, and H. Weigert, The BFKL equation from the Wilson renormalization group, Nucl. Phys. B504 (1997) 415–431 [hep-ph/9701284] [InSPIRE]

    1997 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Jalilian-Marian, A

    J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov, and H. Weigert, The Wilson renormalization group for low x physics: Towards the high density regime , Phys. Rev. D59 (1998) 014014 [ hep-ph/9706377] [InSPIRE]

    1998 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kovner, J

    A. Kovner, J. G. Milhano, and H. Weigert, Relating different approaches to nonlinear QCD evolution at finite gluon density , Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 114005 [hep-ph/0004014] [InSPIRE]

    2000 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Iancu, A

    E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, and L. D. McLerran, Nonlinear gluon evolution in the color glass condensate. 1. , Nucl. Phys. A692 (2001) 583–645 [ hep-ph/0011241] [InSPIRE]

    2001 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Iancu, A

    E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, and L. D. McLerran, The Renormalization group equation for the color glass condensate, Phys. Lett. B510 (2001) 133–144 [hep-ph/0102009] [InSPIRE]

    2001 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ferreiro, E

    E. Ferreiro, E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, and L. McLerran, Nonlinear gluon evolution in the color glass condensate. 2., Nucl. Phys. A703 (2002) 489–538 [ hep-ph/0109115] [InSPIRE]

    2002 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Balitsky, Operator expansion for high-energy scattering, Nucl

    I. Balitsky, Operator expansion for high-energy scattering, Nucl. Phys. B463 (1996) 99–160 [hep-ph/9509348] [InSPIRE]

    1996 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Y. V. Kovchegov, Small x F(2) structure function of a nucleus including multiple pomeron exchanges , Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 034008 [ hep-ph/9901281] [InSPIRE]

    1999 arXiv

  14. [22]

    L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Computing quark and gluon distribution functions for very large nuclei , Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 2233–2241 [ hep-ph/9309289] [InSPIRE]

    1994 arXiv

  15. [23]

    L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Gluon distribution functions for very large nuclei at small transverse 9 momentum, Phys.Rev. D49 (1994) 3352–3355 [hep-ph/9311205] [InSPIRE]

    1994 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Dumitru and J

    A. Dumitru and J. Jalilian-Marian, Forward quark jets from protons shattering the colored glass , Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 022301 [ hep-ph/0204028] [InSPIRE]

    2002 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Dumitru, A

    A. Dumitru, A. Hayashigaki, and J. Jalilian-Marian, The Color glass condensate and hadron production in the forward region, Nucl. Phys. A765 (2006) 464–482 [hep-ph/0506308] [InSPIRE]

    2006 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and A. H. Mueller, Gluon production in current nucleus and nucleon - nucleus collisions in a quasiclassical approximation, Nucl. Phys. B529 (1998) 451–479 [hep-ph/9802440] [InSPIRE]

    1998 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and K. Tuchin, Inclusive gluon production in DIS at high parton density , Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 074026 [ hep-ph/0111362] [InSPIRE]

    2002 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J. L. Albacete, N. Armesto, A. Kovner, C. A. Salgado, and U. A. Wiedemann, Energy dependence of the Cronin effect from nonlinear QCD evolution , Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 082001 [ hep-ph/0307179] [InSPIRE]

    2004 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Kharzeev, Y

    D. Kharzeev, Y. V. Kovchegov, and K. Tuchin, Cronin effect and high p(T) suppression in pA collisions , Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 094013 [ hep-ph/0307037] [InSPIRE]

    2003 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Iancu, K

    E. Iancu, K. Itakura, and D. N. Triantafyllopoulos, Cronin effect and high p-perpendicular suppression in the nuclear gluon distribution at small x , Nucl. Phys. A742 (2004) 182–252 [ hep-ph/0403103] [InSPIRE]

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. P. Blaizot, F. Gelis, and R. Venugopalan, High-energy pA collisions in the color glass condensate approach. 1. Gluon production and the Cronin effect , Nucl. Phys. A743 (2004) 13–56 [ hep-ph/0402256] [InSPIRE]

    2004 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J. P. Blaizot, F. Gelis, and R. Venugopalan, High-energy pA collisions in the color glass condensate approach. 2. Quark production, Nucl. Phys. A743 (2004) 57–91 [ hep-ph/0402257] [InSPIRE]

    2004 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. L. Albacete and C. Marquet, Single Inclusive Hadron Production at RHIC and the LHC from the Color Glass Condensate, Phys. Lett. B687 (2010) 174–179 [arXiv:1001.1378] [InSPIRE]

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Tribedy and R

    P. Tribedy and R. Venugopalan, QCD saturation at the LHC: Comparisons of models to p + p and A + A data and predictions for p + Pb collisions , Phys. Lett. B710 (2012) 125–133 [ arXiv:1112.2445] [InSPIRE]. [Erratum: Phys. Lett.B718,1154(2013)]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Lappi and H

    T. Lappi and H. Mntysaari, Single inclusive particle production at high energy from HERA data to proton-nucleus collisions, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 114020 [arXiv:1309.6963] [InSPIRE]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    G. A. Chirilli, B.-W. Xiao, and F. Yuan, One-loop Factorization for Inclusive Hadron Production in pA Collisions in the Saturation Formalism , Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 122301 [ arXiv:1112.1061] [InSPIRE]

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    G. A. Chirilli, B.-W. Xiao, and F. Yuan, Inclusive Hadron Productions in pA Collisions , Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 054005 [ arXiv:1203.6139] [InSPIRE]

    2012 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A. M. Stasto, B.-W. Xiao, and D. Zaslavsky, Towards the Test of Saturation Physics Beyond Leading Logarithm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 012302 [arXiv:1307.4057] [InSPIRE]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Z.-B. Kang, I. Vitev, and H. Xing, Next-to-leading order forward hadron production in the small- x regime: rapidity factorization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 062002 [arXiv:1403.5221] [InSPIRE]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Altinoluk, N

    T. Altinoluk, N. Armesto, G. Beuf, A. Kovner, and M. Lublinsky, Single-inclusive particle production in proton-nucleus collisions at next-to-leading order in the hybrid formalism, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 094016 [arXiv:1411.2869] [InSPIRE]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Watanabe, B.-W

    K. Watanabe, B.-W. Xiao, F. Yuan, and D. Zaslavsky, Implementing the exact kinematical constraint in the saturation formalism, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 034026 [arXiv:1505.05183] [InSPIRE]

    2015 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Duclou, T

    B. Duclou, T. Lappi, and Y. Zhu, Single inclusive forward hadron production at next-to-leading order , Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 114016 [ arXiv:1604.00225] [InSPIRE]

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Iancu, A

    E. Iancu, A. H. Mueller, and D. N. Triantafyllopoulos, CGC factorization for forward particle production in proton-nucleus collisions at next-to-leading order , [arXiv:1608.05293] [InSPIRE]

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    S. J. Brodsky, H.-C. Pauli, and S. S. Pinsky, Quantum chromodynamics and other field theories on the light cone, Phys. Rept. 301 (1998) 299–486 [ hep-ph/9705477] [InSPIRE]

    1998 arXiv

  37. [45]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Exclusive Processes in Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D22 (1980) 2157 [ InSPIRE]

    1980

  38. [46]

    J. D. Bjorken, J. B. Kogut, and D. E. Soper, Quantum Electrodynamics at Infinite Momentum: Scattering from an External Field , Phys. Rev. D3 (1971) 1382 [InSPIRE]

    1971

  39. [47]

    J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Back-To-Back Jets in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B193 (1981) 381 [ InSPIRE]. [Erratum: Nucl. Phys.B213,545(1983)]

    1981

  40. [48]

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman, Transverse Momentum Distribution in Drell-Yan Pair and W and Z Boson Production , Nucl. Phys. B250 (1985) 199–224 [ InSPIRE]

    1985

  41. [49]

    Becher and M

    T. Becher and M. Neubert, Drell-Yan Production at Small qT , Transverse Parton Distributions and the Collinear Anomaly, Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011) 1665 [arXiv:1007.4005] [InSPIRE]

    2011 arXiv

  42. [50]

    J.-y. Chiu, A. Jain, D. Neill, and I. Z. Rothstein, The Rapidity Renormalization Group, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 151601 [ arXiv:1104.0881] [InSPIRE]

    2012 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Ji, J.-p

    X.-d. Ji, J.-p. Ma, and F. Yuan, QCD factorization for semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering at low transverse momentum, Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 034005 [hep-ph/0404183] [InSPIRE]

    2005 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Collins, Foundations of perturbative QCD , Camb

    J. Collins, Foundations of perturbative QCD , Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 32 (2011) 1–624 [InSPIRE]

    2011

  45. [53]

    Becher and G

    T. Becher and G. Bell, Analytic Regularization in Soft-Collinear Effective Theory, Phys. Lett. B713 (2012) 41–46 [ arXiv:1112.3907] [InSPIRE]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    M. G. Echevarria, A. Idilbi, A. Schfer, and I. Scimemi, Model-Independent Evolution of Transverse Momentum Dependent Distribution Functions (TMDs) at NNLL , Eur. Phys. J. C73 (2013) 2636 [ arXiv:1208.1281] [InSPIRE]

    2013 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Y. Li, D. Neill, and H. X. Zhu, An Exponential Regulator for Rapidity Divergences, Submitted to: Phys. Rev. D (2016) [arXiv:1604.00392] [InSPIRE]

    2016 arXiv

  48. [56]

    A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt, Parton distributions for the LHC , Eur. Phys. J. C63 (2009) 189–285 [ arXiv:0901.0002] [InSPIRE]

    2009 arXiv

  49. [57]

    de Florian, R

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, and M. Stratmann, Global analysis of fragmentation functions for pions and kaons and their uncertainties , Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 114010 10 [hep-ph/0703242] [InSPIRE]

    2007 arXiv

  50. [58]

    de Florian, R

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, and M. Stratmann, Global analysis of fragmentation functions for protons and charged hadrons, Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 074033 [arXiv:0707.1506] [InSPIRE]

    2007 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and H. Weigert, Quark loop contribution to BFKL evolution: Running coupling and leading-N(f) NLO intercept , Nucl. Phys. A789 (2007) 260–284 [hep-ph/0612071] [InSPIRE]

    2007 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and H. Weigert, Triumvirate of Running Couplings in Small-x Evolution , Nucl. Phys. A784 (2007) 188–226 [ hep-ph/0609090] [InSPIRE]

    2007 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Balitsky, Quark contribution to the small-x evolution of color dipole, Phys

    I. Balitsky, Quark contribution to the small-x evolution of color dipole, Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 014001 [hep-ph/0609105] [InSPIRE]

    2007 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Fujii and K

    H. Fujii and K. Watanabe, Heavy quark pair production in high energy pA collisions: Quarkonium , Nucl. Phys. A915 (2013) 1–23 [ arXiv:1304.2221] [InSPIRE]

    2013 arXiv

  55. [63]

    A TLAS, G. Aad et al., Transverse momentum, rapidity, and centrality dependence of inclusive charged-particle production in √sN N = 5.02 TeVp + Pb collisions measured by the ATLAS experiment , Phys. Lett. B763 (2016) 313–336 [ arXiv:1605.06436] [InSPIRE]

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.