Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 91 references

Charmonia Production in Hot QCD Matter and Electromagnetic Fields

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Coherent photons could lift J/ψ production tenfold at the lowest momenta.

desk verdict Incremental but useful update on photoproduction in peripheral Pb-Pb; the missing survival factor for coherent production is a load-bearing flaw that likely inflates the low-pT peak. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12169 v1 pith:3I3WDZY4 submitted 2024-11-19 nucl-th hep-ph

Shuhan Zheng , Jiamin Liu , Shiqi Zheng , Jiaxing Zhao , Baoyi Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-ph PACS 25.75.-q
keywords charmoniumJ/psiphotoproductionequivalentphotonapproximationcoherentnuclearmodificationfactorheavy-ioncollisionsquark-gluonplasmaperipheral
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

At the very lowest transverse momentum, the paper argues, J/ψ production in peripheral heavy-ion collisions is not dominated by the quark-gluon plasma at all. Coherent photoproduction—a photon from one intact nucleus converting into a J/ψ on the other—adds a yield that overwhelms the small hadronic background for $p_T<0.1$ GeV/c, pushing the nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ to about 10 in 70–90% peripheral Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV. The calculation combines an equivalent-photon description of coherent and incoherent photoproduction with a transport model for hadroproduction, and it reproduces measured charmonium modification factors and ultra-peripheral cross-sections. If correct, the low-$p_T$ charmonium yield in peripheral collisions is a probe of the electromagnetic field, not of QGP suppression.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coherent photoproduction term inside the inclusive $R_{AA}$ definition, built from the equivalent photon approximation: the photon flux from a Woods-Saxon charge distribution, the intact-nucleus electromagnetic form factor $F(t)$ that concentrates coherent yields at $p_T\lesssim 1/R_A$, and the Glauber-model photon-nucleus cross-section. The hadronic part is a Boltzmann transport equation with gluon-dissociation and recombination rates, initialized from pp data with Cronin and shadowing corrections. The photoproduction piece carries the new low-$p_T$ signature, while the transport piece controls the baseline that the photoproduction must exceed.

What would settle it

A measurement of the inclusive J/ψ $R_{AA}$ in 70–90% Pb-Pb collisions at 5.02 TeV, in the bin $p_T<0.1$ GeV/c with forward rapidity, would settle the claim: a value near 1 instead of near 10 would show the coherent-photoproduction dominance is overestimated. A cleaner test is tagging the photoproduction component experimentally, for example with forward-neutron or exclusivity selections, in the same centrality and momentum window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is that the inclusive $R_{AA}$ of J/ψ in the 70–90% centrality bin is expected to rise far above unity at $p_T<0.1$ GeV/c, reaching values around 10, because the coherent photoproduction term $N^{\rm photo}_{AA}$ enters the numerator of $R_{AA}$ while the hadronic baseline is tiny at these momenta. The same framework also accounts for the measured $R_{AA}$ at higher $p_T$ and for the UPC cross-sections at 5.02 TeV and 200 GeV. The claim implies that a large low-$p_T$ excess of charmonium in peripheral collisions is a coherent electromagnetic effect, not a signature of regeneration or plasma transparency.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on the intact nucleus producing coherent photons with the same form factor during a hadronic event, with no breakup suppression, and on treating the whole 70–90% centrality bin with one averaged photon density.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the most peripheral centrality bins, low-$p_T$ inclusive $R_{AA}$ data should show a strong rise rather than a suppression; the rise steepens as the hadronic baseline shrinks.
  • At $p_T\gtrsim 0.2$ GeV/c, photoproduction fades and $R_{AA}$ returns to the hadroproduction-dominated value, so the enhancement is confined to a narrow momentum window.
  • The oscillations of the nuclear form factor leave small wiggles in the predicted $p_T$ distribution of photoproduced J/ψ and hence in low-$p_T$ $R_{AA}$.
  • In ultra-peripheral collisions the same coherent mechanism produces the measured J/ψ cross-sections, and the peripheral enhancement is the continuation of that mechanism into events with a hadronic interaction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted spike is confirmed, low-$p_T$ charmonium in peripheral collisions becomes a way to image the nuclear charge form factor in events that also produce a plasma, extending the UPC technique to a new regime.
  • The paper's use of one fixed impact parameter for the whole 70–90% bin could be tested by subdividing the centrality bin: the enhancement should grow as events become more peripheral.
  • Photoproduced charmonium carries no elliptic flow from the plasma, so in peripheral collisions the measured $v_2$ of inclusive J/ψ at very low $p_T$ should be diluted by the photoproduction fraction; this is a testable, unintended consequence.
  • The same mechanism should apply to other vector mesons such as $\Upsilon$, with the larger mass shifting the coherent peak and its $R_{AA}$ signature.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a combined transport-model and equivalent-photon-approximation (EPA) calculation of inclusive J/psi production in Pb-Pb collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 5.02 TeV. The hadroproduction component (primordial production, regeneration, and non-prompt B-decay feed-down) is evolved with a Boltzmann transport model, while coherent and incoherent photoproduction are added using EPA with photon fluxes from the nuclear charge distribution. The photoproduction ingredients are calibrated to HERA gamma-p data and to UPC cross-sections at 5.02 TeV Pb-Pb and 200 GeV Au-Au. The central new prediction is that in the 70-90% centrality bin the inclusive R_AA rises to values around 10 for p_T below 0.1 GeV/c (Fig. 6), driven by coherent photoproduction, and the paper compares the resulting R_AA with ALICE data in six rapidity bins.

Significance. The prediction of R_AA much larger than 1 at extremely low p_T in peripheral Pb-Pb collisions is concrete and falsifiable, and the photoproduction component is anchored to HERA and UPC data rather than fitted to the peripheral R_AA itself. This is a genuine strength: the enhancement is not a postdictive fit. If it survives a proper treatment of nuclear breakup and impact-parameter averaging, it would demonstrate that strong electromagnetic fields leave an observable imprint in hadronically selected events. The inclusion of all production channels (prompt, regeneration, non-prompt, coherent and incoherent photoproduction) makes the calculation a useful benchmark for future experimental analyses with very low p_T reach.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (6), (11), (16)] The coherent photoproduction term that drives the p_T below 0.1 GeV/c peak in Fig. 6 is computed with the intact-nucleus form factor F(t) from Eq. (6) and no survival factor for hadronic breakup. In the 70-90% centrality bin the events contain inelastic nucleon-nucleon collisions, so the target nucleus is generally not in its ground state; the coherent amplitude should be suppressed by a probability roughly of the form exp[-sigma_NN T_AA(b)] or an equivalent Glauber survival factor. Section IV states that cold nuclear matter effects are not incorporated in photoproduction, but it does not quantify the resulting uncertainty. Since the coherent term sets both the magnitude and the p_T shape of the predicted enhancement, this omission is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (11); Section V, Eq. (23)] The photon flux in Eq. (11) is evaluated at a single representative impact parameter for each centrality bin and then used in Eq. (16), while the denominator of Eq. (23) involves N_coll averaged over the same centrality bin. The 70-90% bin is wide in b, and both n(omega|b) and T_AA(b) vary strongly with b. The authors should show that a Glauber-weighted average over the centrality bin, rather than a fixed-b evaluation, does not change the low-p_T enhancement. As written, the numerator and denominator of R_AA are not evaluated with a common, consistent b-averaging procedure.
  3. [Section IV, last paragraph] The paper asserts that hot-medium modifications of photoproduced charmonium are minimal because only a small fraction of photoproduced J/psi resides in the QGP, but no numerical estimate is given. Photoproduced J/psi at very low p_T are slow and, for those produced in the overlap region, would experience the same dissociating medium as hadroproduced J/psi. Because Fig. 6 is presented as explaining the ALICE data, the size of this effect should be estimated explicitly rather than assumed negligible.
  4. [Section V, Fig. 6] The comparison with ALICE data is shown as a continuous curve that peaks below p_T = 0.1 GeV/c, while the data are binned with finite p_T bin widths. The manuscript does not state the experimental binning or show the model integrated over those bins. Without a bin-integrated comparison, the claim that the calculations align well with the experimental data is not directly supported by the figure, and the apparent height of the predicted peak may not be testable in the current data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3] The lower panel axis label reads the differential UPC cross-section in units of microbarns, but the plotted Au-Au values appear to be in millibarns; please check and harmonize the units in the figure and caption.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (3)] The photon energy is denoted by both w and omega in the same derivation; unify the notation for clarity.
  3. [Section IV] The statement that the shadowing factor for J/psi and c-cbar is taken as 0.8 and 1.0 should specify how the 0.8-1.0 band in Fig. 6 is applied to the primordial, regeneration, and non-prompt components, and whether the c-cbar shadowing only affects regeneration.
  4. [Section V, after Eq. (23)] The statement that R_AA approaches infinity in UPC because the denominator approaches zero is conceptually imprecise, since R_AA is not defined for N_coll = 0; rephrase this point in terms of cross-sections or event classes.
  5. [Section II, Eq. (16)] The same averaged photon density n_gamma(omega|b) is used for coherent and incoherent photoproduction; for incoherent production a convolution of the local photon flux with the nucleon density would be more natural, and the approximation should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; coherent-photoproduction R_AA peak is a forward EPA calculation with only minor, non-load-bearing same-author inputs.

full rationale

The derivation of the central prediction is forward and not fitted to the ALICE R_AA data: Eqs. (4)-(16) combine the EPA photon flux (Eq. 3), Woods-Saxon form factor (Eqs. 1-2), GVDM/Glauber cross-sections (Eqs. 6-9), and the HERA-fitted gamma-p amplitude (Eq. 10); the pp baseline in Eq. (23) is fitted to external ALICE pp spectra (Eq. 21, Fig. 1). The coherent peak at pT < 0.1 GeV/c follows from the Fourier width 1/R_A of F(t), not from any parameter tuned to the R_AA being explained. The only same-author inputs are the shadowing factor 0.8-1.0 from Ref. [73] and the bottom-quark quench factor Q=0.9 from Ref. [69]; both act on hadronic/non-prompt terms, which at pT < 0.1 are suppressed (fB ~ 0.04) and are bracketed as a band in Fig. 6, so they are not load-bearing. The stated limitation in Sec. IV, 'The effects of cold nuclear matter are also not incorporated in photoproduction,' is a physics shortcoming that could affect the coherence survival, but it is an assumption, not a circular reduction. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the quantity it predicts, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Hence no significant circularity; at most minor same-author inputs give score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard EPA, GVDM/Glauber, transport, hydrodynamics, and Langevin machinery. The free parameters are mostly calibrated to external data (HERA, ALICE pp, multiplicity) or inherited from previous fits by the same group. No new particles, fields, or conserved quantities are introduced. The most load-bearing modeling choices are the intact-nucleus coherent form factor in hadronic events and the neglect of hot-medium effects on photoproduction.

free parameters (14)
  • Coherent photoproduction correction C = 0.3
    Introduced in Eq. (7); from refs. [53,58], where it is tuned to UPC vector-meson data.
  • HERA gamma-p J/psi normalization X = 0.00406 microbarn (Pb-Pb), 0.0015 microbarn (Au-Au)
    Eq. (10); from HERA parametrization [59], adjusted by nucleus in ref. [44].
  • HERA gamma-p J/psi energy power epsilon = 0.65 (Pb-Pb), 0.68 (Au-Au)
    Eq. (10); controls the W_gamma-p energy dependence of the photon-proton cross-section.
  • Vector meson coupling f_V^2 = 10.4 * 4*pi
    GVDM input in Eqs. (7) and (9), taken from ref. [57].
  • Exponential slope b_V = 4.0 GeV^-2
    Eq. (10) and inelastic J/psi-proton cross-section in Eq. (14).
  • Proton radius for HCS form factor = 1 fm
    Eq. (15), chosen as the proton radius for the incoherent photoproduction pT shape.
  • pp J/psi pT shape parameters = n=3.5, <pT^2>_{y=0}=10.6 (GeV/c)^2
    Eq. (21) fitted to ALICE pp data in Fig. 1; sets the hadroproduction baseline.
  • pp J/psi rapidity shape parameters = A=5.43 microbarn, B=12.4
    Eq. (22) fitted to ALICE pp data in Fig. 2.
  • Non-prompt fraction coefficients = fB = 0.04 + 0.023 pT/(GeV/c)
    Fitted to pp data from refs. [77,78]; used in the R_AA numerator and denominator.
  • Charm pair to J/psi cross-section ratio = 220
    Section IV; taken from pp data via ref. [73] to set the regeneration source.
  • Cronin parameter a_gN = 0.15 GeV^2/fm
    Ref. [31]; modifies the initial <pT^2> in nuclear collisions.
  • Initial QGP temperatures = T0=510 MeV central, 450 MeV forward at tau0=0.6 fm/c
    Section III; estimated from charged-hadron multiplicity via refs. [29,70,72].
  • Shadowing factors = J/psi 0.8, c-cbar 1.0 in forward Pb-Pb
    Section IV; from EPS09 [80] and used as the band 0.8-1.0 in Fig. 6.
  • Bottom-quark quenching factor Q = 0.9 for 70-90% centrality
    Section V; extracted from a Langevin model [69], modifies the non-prompt contribution.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption The Equivalent Photon Approximation gives the quasi-real photon flux in Eq. (3) and remains valid in peripheral hadronic collisions.
    Section II uses Eq. (3) as the photon source and extends it to fixed impact parameter b in Eq. (11).
  • ad hoc to paper Coherent photoproduction in hadronic peripheral collisions uses the intact-nucleus form factor F(t), with no survival factor for nuclear break-up.
    Eqs. (6) and (16) apply the UPC-style coherent cross-section to 70-90% centrality events without discussing hadronic destruction of coherence.
  • domain assumption The photon-nucleus cross-section factorizes into a photon-proton cross-section and a nuclear form factor or Glauber suppression.
    Eqs. (6)-(9) and (12)-(14) encode this factorization, standard in the cited literature.
  • domain assumption The Boltzmann transport equation (17) with gluodissociation and detailed-balance recombination describes charmonium evolution in the QGP.
    Section III adopts this framework from refs. [13,63].
  • domain assumption Charm quarks instantaneously thermalize at tau0=0.6 fm/c.
    Section III states this simplification explicitly and notes it may underestimate mid-pT regeneration.
  • domain assumption The 2+1D ideal hydrodynamic model with the specified equation of state gives the temperature profiles.
    Section III references refs. [70,71] for the hydrodynamics; viscosity is neglected.
  • domain assumption The bottom-quark energy loss is described by a Langevin model with Q=0.9 in 70-90% centrality.
    Section V takes the quenching factor from ref. [69].
  • domain assumption Cold nuclear matter shadowing is taken from EPS09 and represented by factors 0.8 and 1.0.
    Section IV uses ref. [80] and cites ref. [73] for the specific values.
  • ad hoc to paper Hot medium effects on photoproduced charmonium are negligible.
    Section IV states that only a small fraction of photoproduced charmonium lies in the QGP, so hot-medium modification is neglected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Charmonia Production in Hot QCD Matter and Electromagnetic Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3I3WDZY4

@misc{pith2026241112169,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Charmonia Production in Hot QCD Matter and Electromagnetic Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3I3WDZY4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12169}
}
abstract

Both hot QCD matter and extremely strong electromagnetic fields are generated in relativistic heavy-ion collisions. We employ the transport model and the equivalent photon approximation (EPA) to study charmonium hadroproduction and photoproduction in nucleus-nucleus collisions, respectively. In photoproduction, quasi-real photons may interact with the whole nucleus or individual nucleons, which is called the coherent and incoherent processes, respectively. The typical momentum of charmonium produced in two processes is located in $p_T\lesssim 1/R_A$ and $p_T\lesssim 1/R_N$, where $R_A$ and $R_N$ are the radii of nucleus and the nucleon. Both kinds of photoproduction and also hadroproduction are considered to calculate charmonium production in different transverse momentum bins, rapidity bins, and collision centralities, incorporating modifications from hot QCD matter and initial cold nuclear matter effects. Our calculations explain experimental data about charmonium nuclear modification factors and the production cross-section in ultra-peripheral collisions. Charmonium nuclear modification is far above the unit at extremely low $p_T$ ($p_T < 0.1$ GeV/c) in peripheral collisions with centrality 70-90\%, attributed to coherent photoproduction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12169 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Differential cross-section of inclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Form factor for the nucleus Pb as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The rapidity differential cross section of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Inclusive nuclear modification factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [52]

    W. Shi, W. Zha, and B. Chen, Phys. Lett. B 777, 399 (2018), arXiv:1710.00332 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [89]

    Zhao and R

    X. Zhao and R. Rapp, Nucl. Phys. A 859, 114 (2011), arXiv:1102.2194 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2011

  3. [1]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 102 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009

    arXiv 2005

  4. [2]

    Adcox et al

    K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 184 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003

    arXiv 2005

  5. [3]

    Bazavov et al., Phys

    A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D 85, 054503 (2012), arXiv:1111.1710 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2012

  6. [4]

    Ollitrault, Phys

    J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. D 46, 229 (1992)

    1992

  7. [5]

    Sch¨ afer and D

    T. Sch¨ afer and D. Teaney, Rept. Prog. Phys.72, 126001 (2009), arXiv:0904.3107 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  8. [6]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 132301 (2010), arXiv:0804.4168 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2010

Show all 91 references
  1. [7]

    Heinz and R

    U. Heinz and R. Snellings, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 123 (2013), arXiv:1301.2826 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Huang, M

    X.-G. Huang, M. Huang, D. H. Rischke, and A. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. D 81, 045015 (2010), arXiv:0910.3633 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Qin and X.-N

    G.-Y. Qin and X.-N. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24, 1530014 (2015), arXiv:1511.00790 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Zhang, E

    B.-W. Zhang, E. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 072301 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0309040

    2004 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Matsui and H

    T. Matsui and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B 178, 416 (1986)

    1986

  6. [12]

    H. Satz, J. Phys. G 32, R25 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0512217

    2006

  7. [13]

    X. Du, M. He, and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C 96, 054901 (2017), arXiv:1706.08670 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [14]

    L. Yan, P. Zhuang, and N. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 232301 (2006), arXiv:nucl-th/0608010

    2006 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Y. Liu, B. Chen, N. Xu, and P. Zhuang, Phys. Lett. B 697, 32 (2011), arXiv:1009.2585 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [16]

    B. Chen, M. Hu, H. Zhang, and J. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 802, 135271 (2020), arXiv:1910.08275 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE), JHEP 03, 081 (2016), arXiv:1509.06888 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), JHEP 10, 174 (2018), arXiv:1804.09083 [nucl-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Andronic, P

    A. Andronic, P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, and J. Stachel, Phys. Lett. B 571, 36 (2003), arXiv:nucl- th/0303036

    2003

  14. [20]

    Greco, C

    V. Greco, C. M. Ko, and R. Rapp, Phys. Lett. B 595, 202 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0312100

    2004 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Zhao and B

    J. Zhao and B. Chen, Phys. Lett. B 776, 17 (2018), arXiv:1705.04558 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Chen and J

    B. Chen and J. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 772, 819 (2017), arXiv:1704.05622 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Blaizot and M

    J.-P. Blaizot and M. A. Escobedo, Phys. Rev. D 98, 074007 (2018), arXiv:1803.07996 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Beraudo, J

    A. Beraudo, J. P. Blaizot, and C. Ratti, Nucl. Phys. A 806, 312 (2008), arXiv:0712.4394 [nucl-th]

    2008 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Zhao et al., Phys

    J. Zhao et al., Phys. Rev. C 109, 054912 (2024), arXiv:2311.10621 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [26]

    M. He, R. J. Fries, and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 112301 (2013), arXiv:1204.4442 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Cao, G.-Y

    S. Cao, G.-Y. Qin, and S. A. Bass, Phys. Rev. C 88, 044907 (2013), arXiv:1308.0617 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Du and R

    X. Du and R. Rapp, Nucl. Phys. A 943, 147 (2015), arXiv:1504.00670 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Chen, Chin

    B. Chen, Chin. Phys. C 43, 124101 (2019), arXiv:1811.11393 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [30]

    C. Pan, S. Zheng, M. Yang, Z. Liu, and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 108, 034903 (2023), arXiv:2303.12262 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [31]

    K. Zhou, N. Xu, Z. Xu, and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. C 89, 054911 (2014), arXiv:1401.5845 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Deng and X.-G

    W.-T. Deng and X.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 85, 044907 (2012), arXiv:1201.5108 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Fukushima, D

    K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev, and H. J. Warringa, Phys. Rev. D 78, 074033 (2008), arXiv:0808.3382 [hep- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  28. [34]

    S. Shi, Y. Jiang, E. Lilleskov, and J. Liao, Annals Phys. 394, 50 (2018), arXiv:1711.02496 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [35]

    S. Shi, H. Zhang, D. Hou, and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 242301 (2020), arXiv:1910.14010 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Jiang, X.-G

    Y. Jiang, X.-G. Huang, and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. D 92, 071501 (2015), arXiv:1504.03201 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [37]

    Huang, J

    X.-G. Huang, J. Liao, Q. Wang, and X.-L. Xia, Lect. Notes Phys. 987, 281 (2021), arXiv:2010.08937 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Jian-Hua, H

    G. Jian-Hua, H. Xu-Guang, L. Zuo-Tang, W. Qun, and W. Xin-Nian, Acta Phys. Sin. 72, 072501 (2023)

    2023

  33. [39]

    Sheng, F

    X.-L. Sheng, F. Becattini, X.-G. Huang, and Z.-H. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2407.12130 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Z. Liu, Y. Bai, S. Zheng, A. Huang, and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 110, 034910 (2024), arXiv:2404.02032 [nucl-th]

    2024

  35. [41]

    Liang and X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 102301 (2005), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 96, 039901 (2006)], arXiv:nucl-th/0410079

    2005 arXiv

  36. [42]

    X. Guo, S. Shi, N. Xu, Z. Xu, and P. Zhuang, Phys. Lett. B 751, 215 (2015), arXiv:1502.04407 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Klein and P

    S. Klein and P. Steinberg, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70, 323 (2020), arXiv:2005.01872 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Klein and J

    S. Klein and J. Nystrand, Phys. Rev. C 60, 014903 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9902259

    1999 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 222301 (2016), arXiv:1509.08802 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Cepila, J

    J. Cepila, J. G. Contreras, and M. Krelina, Phys. Rev. C 97, 024901 (2018), arXiv:1711.01855 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [47]

    W. Zha, J. D. Brandenburg, Z. Tang, and Z. Xu, Phys. Lett. B 800, 135089 (2020), arXiv:1812.02820 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [48]

    G. Li, K. Zhou, and B. Chen, Commun. Theor. Phys. 72, 025301 (2020), arXiv:1806.06750 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [49]

    J. Luo, X. Li, Z. Tang, X. Wu, and W. Zha, Phys. Rev. C 108, 054906 (2023), arXiv:2308.03070 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Fermi, Z

    E. Fermi, Z. Phys. 29, 315 (1924)

    1924

  45. [51]

    C. F. von Weizsacker, Z. Phys. 88, 612 (1934)

    1934

  46. [53]

    W. Zha, S. R. Klein, R. Ma, L. Ruan, T. Todoroki, Z. Tang, Z. Xu, C. Yang, Q. Yang, and S. Yang, Phys. Rev. C 97, 044910 (2018), arXiv:1705.01460 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Krauss, M

    F. Krauss, M. Greiner, and G. Soff, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 39, 503 (1997)

    1997

  48. [55]

    S. R. Klein and J. Nystrand, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 142003 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311164. 9

    2004 arXiv

  49. [56]

    K lusek-Gawenda and A

    M. K lusek-Gawenda and A. Szczurek, Phys. Rev. C 93, 044912 (2016), arXiv:1509.03173 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Pautz and G

    A. Pautz and G. Shaw, Phys. Rev. C 57, 2648 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9710235

    1998 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Hufner and B

    J. Hufner and B. Z. Kopeliovich, Phys. Lett. B 426, 154 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9712297

    1998 arXiv

  52. [59]

    J. A. Crittenden, Exclusive Production of Neutral Vec- tor Mesons at the Electron-Proton Collider HERA (SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1997)

    1997

  53. [60]

    Z. Liu, Z. Tang, X. Wu, and W. Zha, Phys. Rev. C 109, 034909 (2024), arXiv:2310.15503 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Guzey, E

    V. Guzey, E. Kryshen, and M. Zhalov, Phys. Rev. C 102, 015208 (2020), arXiv:2002.09683 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [62]

    B. Chen, Y. Liu, K. Zhou, and P. Zhuang, Phys. Lett. B 726, 725 (2013), arXiv:1306.5032 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Zhu, P.-f

    X.-l. Zhu, P.-f. Zhuang, and N. Xu, Phys. Lett. B 607, 107 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0411093

    2005 arXiv

  57. [64]

    M. E. Peskin, Nucl. Phys. B 156, 365 (1979)

    1979

  58. [65]

    Bhanot and M

    G. Bhanot and M. E. Peskin, Nucl. Phys. B 156, 391 (1979)

    1979

  59. [66]

    M. He, B. Wu, and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 162301 (2022), arXiv:2111.13528 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Chen, Phys

    B. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 95, 034908 (2017), arXiv:1608.02173 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Du and R

    X. Du and R. Rapp, Phys. Lett. B 834, 137414 (2022), arXiv:2207.00065 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  62. [69]

    M. Yang, S. Zheng, B. Tong, J. Zhao, W. Ouyang, K. Zhou, and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 107, 054917 (2023), arXiv:2302.06179 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [70]

    C. Shen, Z. Qiu, H. Song, J. Bernhard, S. Bass, and U. Heinz, Comput. Phys. Commun. 199, 61 (2016), arXiv:1409.8164 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  64. [71]

    P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2020, 083C01 (2020)

    2020

  65. [72]

    Zhao, H.-j

    W. Zhao, H.-j. Xu, and H. Song, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 645 (2017), arXiv:1703.10792 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Given that experi- ments have measured the J/ψ differential cross section in the forward rapidity bin 2 .5 < y <4, we integrate Eq

    represents the maximum rapidity of J/ψ with zero transverse momen- tum, and mψ is the mass of J/ψ. Given that experi- ments have measured the J/ψ differential cross section in the forward rapidity bin 2 .5 < y <4, we integrate Eq. (21) over this forward rapidity bin to extract...

  67. [74]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 766, 212 (2017), arXiv:1606.08197 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Chen, Phys

    B. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 93, 054905 (2016), arXiv:1510.07466 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 392 (2017), arXiv:1702.00557 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  70. [77]

    J. W. Cronin, H. J. Frisch, M. J. Shochet, J. P. Boymond, R. Mermod, P. A. Piroue, and R. L. Sumner (E100), Phys. Rev. D 11, 3105 (1975)

    1975

  71. [78]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1575 (2011), arXiv:1011.4193 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  72. [79]

    Acosta et al

    D. Acosta et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. D 71, 032001 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0412071

    2005 arXiv

  73. [80]

    K. J. Eskola, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, JHEP 04, 065 (2009), arXiv:0902.4154 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  74. [81]

    A. H. Mueller and J.-w. Qiu, Nucl. Phys. B 268, 427 (1986)

    1986

  75. [82]

    E. G. Ferreiro, Phys. Lett. B 749, 98 (2015), arXiv:1411.0549 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  76. [83]

    B. B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), JHEP 02, 073 (2014), arXiv:1308.6726 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  77. [84]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 072301 (2012), arXiv:1202.1383 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  78. [85]

    B. Chen, T. Guo, Y. Liu, and P. Zhuang, Phys. Lett. B 765, 323 (2017), arXiv:1607.07927 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Afanasiev et al

    S. Afanasiev et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Lett. B 679, 321 (2009), arXiv:0903.2041 [nucl-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  80. [87]

    Pozdniakov and Y

    V. Pozdniakov and Y. Vertogradova (ALICE), PoSEPS- HEP2017, 186 (2017), arXiv:1710.03417 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  81. [88]

    Shatat (ALICE), EPJ Web Conf

    A. Shatat (ALICE), EPJ Web Conf. 296, 07005 (2024), arXiv:2402.12469 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  82. [91]

    R. Guo, Y. Li, and B. Chen, Entropy 25, 1563 (2023), arXiv:2311.02335 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  83. [208]

    C = 0 .3 is a correction factor [53, 58]

    Therefore, ρN (r) = 208 ρnorm(r) as specified in Eq.(1). C = 0 .3 is a correction factor [53, 58]. The photon-proton differential cross-section is parametrized with HERA data [59], dσ(γp → J/ψp) dt |t=0 = bvXW ϵ γp × 1 − ( mJ/ψ + mp Wγp )2 , (10) 3 where bV = 4 .0 GeV−2, X = 0...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.