Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The paper claims that the earlier failure of the dilute-limit hotspot model for exclusive J/ψ photoproduction was missing event-by-event fluctuations and relativistic corrections, not the dilute approximation itself.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 22:07 UTC pith:LWE4QGSO

load-bearing objection A real step forward for dilute-limit hotspot phenomenology, but the statistical support for the headline ranking of Q_s vs N_h fluctuations is weaker than the abstract suggests. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2509.07480 v1 pith:LWE4QGSO submitted 2025-09-09 hep-ph

Exclusive J/psi production off a dilute proton within a refined hotspot description

Heikki M\"antysaari (1 , 2) , Anh Dung Le (1 , 2) ((1) Department of Physics , University of Jyv\"askyl\"a , Finland , (2) Helsinki Institute of Physics , Finland) This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords exclusive J/psi productiondipole modelhot spot modelsaturation scale fluctuationsincoherent diffractioncoherent diffractionBayesian parameter estimationNRQCD relativistic corrections
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that the earlier failure of the dilute-limit hotspot model for exclusive J/ψ photoproduction was missing event-by-event fluctuations and relativistic corrections, not the dilute approximation itself. Adding log-normal fluctuations in each hot spot's saturation scale, zero-truncated Poisson fluctuations in the number of hot spots, and the first relativistic correction to the J/ψ light-cone wave function brings the model into good agreement with electron-proton scattering data. A Bayesian fit shows that saturation-scale fluctuations have a larger effect than hot-spot number fluctuations, and the relativistic correction controls the power-law tail of the incoherent cross section at large momentum transfer. The central results are the semi-analytical cross-section formulas, Eqs. (23) and (37), together with the fitted parameter posteriors.

Core claim

In the dilute regime of a proton modeled as Gaussian color-charge hot spots, exclusive J/ψ production can be computed analytically at leading nontrivial order in the color charge density. The paper's discovery is that the previously poor description of HERA data was due to omitted fluctuation sources and the non-relativistic treatment, not to the dilute approximation itself. Including saturation-scale fluctuations of width σ_s ≈ 0.6, fluctuations in the number of hot spots, and relativistic corrections (coefficients A ≈ 0.213 GeV^{3/2}, B ≈ −0.0157 GeV^{7/2}) reduces the reduced chi-squared from 4.14 (non-relativistic, no fluctuations) to 0.45 for the full model. Saturation-scale fluctuation

What carries the argument

The central object is the dilute-limit dipole–proton cross section built from McLerran–Venugopalan Gaussian color charges concentrated in N_h hot spots, averaged over hot-spot positions, log-normal saturation-scale fluctuations (width σ_s), and zero-truncated Poisson fluctuations in N_h. The coherent cross section is Eq. (23); the total diffractive (coherent plus incoherent) cross section is Eq. (37). The relativistic-corrected J/ψ light-cone wave function enters through coefficients A and B in the wave-function overlaps, and the key t-dependence factor F(Λ) = ⟨1/N_h⟩ encodes the center-of-mass constraint on hot-spot positions.

Load-bearing premise

The model truncates the J/ψ–photon wave-function overlap to zero for dipole sizes beyond r_m ≈ 0.6 fm to remove a node, and the paper gives no independent justification for this radius; since the dilute-limit dipole cross section does not saturate at large dipole size, the normalization and t-dependence of both coherent and incoherent cross sections depend on this cut.

What would settle it

Measure the incoherent J/ψ photoproduction cross section dσ/dt at Q² ≈ 0.1 GeV² and W ≈ 78 GeV with high statistics at 3.5 < |t| < 8 GeV². The model predicts a transition from exponential to a ln(|t|)/t² power-law tail at |t| ≳ 3.5 GeV², with the tail normalization set by σ_s ≈ 0.6; observing a pure exponential fall or a substantially different normalization there would rule out the relativistic-correction-plus-Qs-fluctuation picture.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • With both fluctuation sources and the relativistic correction, the model reaches χ²/dof = 0.45 on the H1 J/ψ photoproduction data, making the dilute-limit hotspot picture quantitatively viable.
  • Saturation-scale fluctuations are the dominant new ingredient: they leave the coherent cross section untouched and boost the incoherent cross section by a |t|-dependent factor that at intermediate |t| is approximately e^{σ_s²}.
  • Hot-spot number fluctuations have a modest effect (a factor ~1.0–1.4 at |t| ~ 1/r_H²), so the mean hot-spot count is poorly constrained by current data and strongly correlated with σ_s.
  • The first relativistic correction is required to produce the exponential-to-power-law transition of the incoherent spectrum at |t| ≳ 3.5 GeV², and it suppresses the coherent cross section more than the incoherent one.
  • The previously claimed ~2.5 normalization mismatch for the incoherent channel is attributed to manual parameter choice rather than to missing physics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the fits survive, the model's parameter posteriors give a ready-made prior for exclusive J/ψ predictions at other Q² and W, but the paper fits only one kinematics bin, so extrapolation is untested.
  • The dominance of σ_s over ⟨N_h⟩ suggests that incoherent diffraction at HERA effectively measures the variance of the local saturation scale; a dedicated extraction of σ_s from other observables, such as multiplicity fluctuations, could provide a cross-check.
  • The r_m ≈ 0.6 fm cutoff is a scale where the dilute-limit calculation is most vulnerable; large-|t| data could either support it or force a saturation-aware treatment of large dipoles.
  • The contrast with the earlier factor-2.5 argument implies that other 'missing normalization' puzzles in hotspot models may be artifacts of manual parameter fixing, which is testable by refitting those models with Bayesian methods.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper revisits exclusive J/ψ production in the QCD dipole model, working in a dilute-limit hot-spot description of the proton. It adds two ingredients that were absent in the earlier calculation of Ref. [27]: event-by-event fluctuations in the number of hot spots N_h and in the local saturation scale Q_s, and it includes the first relativistic correction to the J/ψ light-cone wave function. Closed-form expressions are derived for the coherent cross section (Eq. (23)) and the coherent+incoherent cross section (Eq. (37)), and a Bayesian analysis is performed against H1 2006–2007 photoproduction data. The central advertised results are that these additions significantly improve the agreement with HERA data, that saturation-scale fluctuations are more important than number-of-hot-spot fluctuations, and that the relativistic correction is important for the observed power-law behavior of the incoherent cross section at large |t|.

Significance. If the advertised statements were fully supported, this would be a useful step: it provides semi-analytic, computationally efficient expressions for coherent and incoherent J/ψ production with several sources of event-by-event fluctuations, and it applies Bayesian inference to a hot-spot model, making posterior distributions available as supplementary material. The derivation has a clear logical structure and the comparison with the independent H1 1996–2000 large-|t| data is a genuinely non-circular check. However, the statistical and interpretational basis for the main claims is currently unreliable. The key reduced-χ² values are computed with a Gaussian-process-emulator model covariance (Eq. (46)); the quoted full-fit χ²/dof = 0.45 (Table IV) indicates that the assigned total covariance is about twice the squared residuals, so the 'significantly improved agreement' claim is not established. In addition, the paper's own Tables I–IV contradict the claimed ranking of Q_s versus N_h fluctuations, and the cutoff r_m~0.6 fm in the wave-function overlap (Section II C) is not scanned despite the authors' own statement that its effect is larger than in previous IPsat studies. The analytic

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (46); Table IV] The headline fit quality is not reliable as reported. The likelihood in Eq. (46) includes a model-covariance matrix from trained Gaussian-process emulators, and the full relativistic fit reaches χ²/dof = 0.45. A reduced χ² well below unity means that the assigned total covariance is, on average, roughly twice the squared residuals; this is evidence that the GPE model uncertainty is overestimated or that the emulator is over-smoothed, not that the model is in excellent agreement. Please report χ²/dof computed with the experimental covariance only, and validate the GPE covariance (e.g., leave-one-out tests or direct model evaluations at the MAP point) before claiming 'significantly improved agreement' in the abstract.
  2. [Sec. V, Tables I–IV; Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion state that saturation-scale fluctuations are more important than number-of-hot-spot fluctuations, but the tables in the paper do not support this. For the relativistic fits, the reduced χ² values are: no fluctuation 1.63 (Table I), Q_s only 1.24 (Table II), N_h only 1.04 (Table III), both 0.45 (Table IV). By this metric the N_h-only scheme is at least as good as the Q_s-only scheme. Moreover, in the full scheme of Table IV, N_h is essentially unconstrained (MAP 5.585^{+3.915}_{-1.164}) and the text states it is strongly correlated with σ_s; the two fluctuation sources are not separately identifiable from the fitted H1 data. The ranking claim should be removed or replaced with a model-comparison statistic that accounts for parameter degeneracy and model covariance.
  3. [Sec. II C, paragraph after Eq. (12); Eqs. (25), (26), (41), (42)] The cutoff r_m~0.6 fm is a load-bearing input. The overlaps (11) are set to zero for |r|>r_m, and every subsequent integral over the dipole size is truncated at this radius. The authors explicitly note that the effect of the cutoff is more significant in the dilute-limit dipole cross section than in the IPsat case because the dilute cross section does not saturate at large |r|. Yet r_m is not included in the Bayesian parameter set and no robustness scan is presented. Because the normalization and t-dependence of both coherent and incoherent cross sections depend on this choice, the fitted parameters and all quoted χ² values carry an unquantified systematic uncertainty. Please provide a scan over r_m (e.g., 0.5–0.7 fm) and discuss its effect on the posterior and on the conclusions.
  4. [Sec. V, first paragraph after Table I; Abstract] There is an internal inconsistency in the attribution of the large-|t| power-law behavior. The abstract credits the first relativistic correction as 'important, especially in order to describe the observed power-law behavior,' but the text immediately after presenting the relativistic fit says: 'However, this effect actually comes from the magnitude of r_H.' The paper should clarify that the correction does not directly generate the power-law tail; it changes the inferred r_H and thereby moves the exponential-to-power-law transition into the measured |t| range. As written, the abstract overstates the role of the relativistic correction.
  5. [Sec. IV and Figs. 3, 6, 8, 10] The only non-circular validation appears to be the H1 1996–2000 large-|t| data, which are shown in the figures but are not included in the fits. No quantitative agreement measure is reported for this independent subset. Since this is the main evidence that the model is not merely calibrating to the training data, please quote a χ² or a similar goodness-of-fit statistic for the H1 1996–2000 data alone, with the experimental covariance only.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II B, discussion after Eq. (17)] The cross-reference 'see discussion in Section III' appears to be a typo; the normalization of Q_s fluctuations is discussed in Section II B, not III.
  2. [Eq. (47)] The notation 'σ_i,(k=1,...,n)' contains a typo; it should read 'σ_i (i=1,...,n)'.
  3. [Sec. IV, GPE description] The Gaussian-process emulator is described only briefly. Provide the kernel choice, hyperparameter handling, training-set size, and the emulator validation procedure; otherwise the model covariance matrix entering Eq. (46) cannot be assessed by the reader.
  4. [Eq. (37) and surrounding text] The notation 'dσci/dt' for the contributions to the total diffractive cross section is not defined; please introduce it explicitly before Eq. (37).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: model parameters are genuinely fitted and the reported agreement is a calibration check, not an out-of-sample prediction; the analytic cross sections and large-|t| comparison have independent content.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The parameters (g*mu0, m^2, R_p, r_H, N_h, sigma_s) are free inputs constrained by a Bayesian fit to the H1 2006-2007 coherent and incoherent dsigma/dt data (Sec. IV). The reported chi^2 values are therefore goodness-of-fit diagnostics for calibration, not predictions of quantities outside the fitted dataset, and the paper does not label them as out-of-sample predictions. The coherent and incoherent cross sections, Eqs. (23) and (37), are derived analytically from the dipole amplitude Eq. (1) and the stated model assumptions (Gaussian color charges, log-normal Q_s fluctuations, Poisson N_h fluctuation, NRQCD wave function with first relativistic correction). The relativistic wave-function coefficients A and B are taken from Ref. [63], which extracts them from independent charmonium decay-width analyses; although one author overlaps with the present paper, this is external input, not a self-referential constraint from the HERA J/psi data being fitted. The large-|t| power-law comparison is partly independent: it is confronted with the H1 1996-2000 data [68], not used in the fit, and the ln|t|/t^2 form is an analytic consequence of the color-charge correlators rather than a fitted function. The r_m ~ 0.6 fm cutoff is an acknowledged modeling assumption with a stated larger effect in the dilute limit (Sec. II C), but it is a systematic uncertainty, not a circular step. Concerns about the abstract's ranking of Q_s versus N_h fluctuations (the paper's own Tables II and III give chi2/dof = 1.24 and 1.04, respectively) and about chi2/dof = 0.45 arising from GPE model covariance are statistical or correctness issues, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model relies on seven hand-set or fitted parameters (g mu0, m^2, R_p, r_H, N_h_bar, sigma_s, r_m) and five modeling assumptions (MV correlators, dilute expansion, fixed kinematics, Poisson/log-normal fluctuation distributions, node cutoff). The physics content beyond the prior literature is the combination of these ingredients into a new semi-analytic calculation; no new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • g mu0 = MAP values: 4.037 (Table I R), 2.857 (Table I NR), 4.517 (Table II R), 4.116 (Table III R), 4.306 (Table IV R)
    Average color charge density in a hot spot, controls the overall normalization of the cross-sections.
  • m^2 (IR regulator) = 0.037 GeV^2 (Table I R), 0.107 (Table II R), 0.045 (Table III R), 0.069 (Table IV R)
    Infrared regulator in the gluon propagator (Eq. 16), controls the long-range tail of the color field and the t-shape.
  • R_p = 2.366 GeV^-1 (Table I R), 2.108 (Table II R), 2.458 (Table III R), 2.048 (Table IV R)
    Effective proton size in the Gaussian hot-spot position distribution (Eq. 8), sets the coherent t-slope.
  • r_H = 0.699 GeV^-1 (Table I R), near 0 in non-relativistic fits, 0.627 (Table II R), 0.595 (Table III R), 0.578 (Table IV R)
    Hot spot radius in the color charge density (Eq. 5), sets the scale where the incoherent spectrum transitions from exponential to power-law.
  • N_h_bar (mean number of hot spots) = 1.760 (Table I R), 5.098 (Table II R), 2.925 (Table III R), 5.585 (Table IV R), but the paper states it is poorly constr
    Mean of the zero-truncated Poisson distribution (Eq. 9), controls the relative weight of single-versus-double-hot-spot contributions.
  • sigma_s = 0.595 (Table II R), 0.571 (Table IV R)
    Width of the log-normal saturation-scale fluctuations (Eq. 6), enhances the incoherent cross-section by up to exp(sigma_s^2).
  • r_m (wave-function node cutoff) = 0.6 fm, fixed by hand
    The J/psi wave-function overlap is set to zero for |r|>r_m to remove the node (Section II C). The paper admits the cutoff has a larger effect here than in prior saturated calculations.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption MV-model Gaussian color charge correlators with local delta functions (Eq. 7)
    The dilute CGC average assumes Gaussian statistics for color charge densities and no transverse correlations beyond the local delta function; used in Eqs. (17) and (32).
  • domain assumption Dilute limit: expansion to lowest non-trivial order in the color field (order rho^2 for coherent, rho^4 for incoherent)
    The Wilson-line correlators are expanded and only leading terms are kept; the paper assumes this remains valid at the |t| values studied.
  • domain assumption No energy evolution: parameters fit at fixed Q^2=0.1 GeV^2 and W=78 GeV
    Section II B: 'we fit the model to data at fixed values of Q^2 and W, allowing the momentum transfer t to vary within a limited range. In this kinematics, the energy dependence can be considered negligible.'
  • ad hoc to paper Zero-truncated Poisson distribution for N_h (Eq. 9) and log-normal distribution for Q_s (Eq. 6)
    These functional forms are chosen by hand following earlier hotspot-model literature; no derivation from QCD is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Node-free J/psi overlap: set overlap to zero for |r|>r_m
    Section II C: the overlap is truncated at r_m about 0.6 fm because it would otherwise change sign; the paper notes this cutoff is more significant than in Ref. [63].
  • domain assumption Relativistic wave-function coefficients A and B from NRQCD LDMEs (Eq. 12)
    A and B are taken from the NRQCD extraction of Ref. [63], which uses decay-width data; treated as fixed inputs.
  • domain assumption Charm quark mass m_c = 1.4 GeV
    Fixed as in Ref. [63], consistent with the NRQCD matrix element extraction.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24523 in / 15560 out tokens · 150671 ms · 2026-08-04T22:07:59.836892+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exclusive $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ production off a dilute proton within a refined hotspot description." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LWE4QGSO

@misc{pith2026250907480,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exclusive $\mathrmJ/\psi$ production off a dilute proton within a refined hotspot description},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LWE4QGSO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07480}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We revisit the calculation of exclusive $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ production in electron-proton scattering within the QCD dipole model, employing a refined description of the proton in terms of gluonic hot spots in the dilute regime. In contrast to earlier studies, we incorporate key missing elements: the event-by-event fluctuations in both the number of hot spots and their local saturation scales, as well as the first relativistic corrections to the $\mathrm{J}/\psi$ wave function. We perform a Bayesian analysis to constrain the model parameters using HERA data. These enhancements significantly improve the agreement with HERA data. Saturation scale fluctuations are found to be more important than fluctuations in the number of hot spots. Including the first relativistic correction is found to be important, especially in order to describe the observed power-law behavior in the incoherent cross section at large $t$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07480 by 2), 2) ((1) Department of Physics, (2) Helsinki Institute of Physics, Anh Dung Le (1, Finland, Finland), Heikki M\"antysaari (1, University of Jyv\"askyl\"a.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Saturation effects in exclusive vector meson production in DIS

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0

    A dense-limit CGC hotspot calculation shows saturation mildly suppresses exclusive vector meson cross sections in ep, with suppression growing at higher color-charge density.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 15 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    C 2 F Ω(x,y,z 1,z 1)Ω(x′,y ′,z 2,z 2) + CF 2Nc Ω(x,y,z 1,z 2)Ω(x′,y ′,z 1,z 2) + CF 2Nc Ω(x,y,z 1,z 2)Ω(x′,y ′,z 2,z 1) # ×

    To correct for this effect and ensure that the average Q2 s remains unchanged, we scale the values ofQ 2 s gener- ated from this distribution by the inverse of this factor. This normalization procedure accounts for the appear- ance of the compensating factore −σ2 s /2 in Eq. (5). The color charge densityρ a(x) at a transverse posi- tionxfluctuates on an e...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Further- more, the coherent cross section is subleading in this regime, so we can ignore the coherent-over- incoherent ratioR

    At large|t| ≫1/r 2 H , color charge fluctuations, as described by the theCterms, dominate. Further- more, the coherent cross section is subleading in this regime, so we can ignore the coherent-over- incoherent ratioR. In this case,R DC1 +R C1 ≈ RC1 , 1 = P RX ≈R C1 +R C2 andR C1 ∼R C2. Therefore, 1<Φ σs ≈1 + (e σ2 s −1)R C1 < eσ2 s . In other words, in th...

    work page

  3. [3]

    This means that theQ s fluctua- tions increase the incoherent cross section approx- imatively by a factor ofe σ2 s

    At intermediate|t| ∼1/r2 H where the hot spot fluc- tuations (DCterms) dominate and the coherent contribution is still significantly smaller than the incoherent one,R DC1 ≃1 and Φ σs ≈1 + (e σ2 s − 1)RDC1 ≃e σ2 s . This means that theQ s fluctua- tions increase the incoherent cross section approx- imatively by a factor ofe σ2 s

    work page

  4. [4]

    However, in this range, the coherent contri- bution becomes important, and the coherent-over- incoherent ratioR ∼10 [42]

    Finally, at small|t| ≪1/r 2 H , the color charge fluctuations again dominate over hot spot fluctu- ations. However, in this range, the coherent contri- bution becomes important, and the coherent-over- incoherent ratioR ∼10 [42]. In this case, the en- hancement Φs depends strongly onRandN h. For R/Nh >1, the enhancement can be significant, with Φσs > eσ2 s...

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    A. J. Baltzet. al.,The Physics of Ultraperipheral Collisions at the LHC,Phys. Rept.458(2008) 1 [arXiv:0706.3356 [nucl-ex]]. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    S. Kleinet. al.,New opportunities at the photon energy frontier,arXiv:2009.03838 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Accardiet

    A. Accardiet. al.,Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all, Eur. Phys. J. A52(2016) no. 9 268 [arXiv:1212.1701 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Multi-quark matrix elements in the proton and three gluon exchange for exclusive $\eta_c$ production in photon-proton diffractive scattering

    A. Dumitru and T. Stebel,Multiquark matrix elements in the proton and three gluon exchange for exclusiveη c production in photon-proton diffractive scattering,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) no. 9 094038 [arXiv:1903.07660 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Sub-femtometer scale color charge fluctuations in a proton made of three quarks and a gluon

    A. Dumitru and R. Paatelainen,Sub-femtometer scale color charge fluctuations in a proton made of three quarks and a gluon,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) no. 3 034026 [arXiv:2010.11245 [hep-ph]]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 059901 (2023)]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Color charge correlations in the proton at NLO: beyond geometry based intuition

    A. Dumitru, H. M¨ antysaari and R. Paatelainen,Color charge correlations in the proton at NLO: Beyond geometry based intuition,Phys. Lett. B820(2021) 136560 [arXiv:2103.11682 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov,Deep inelastic e p scattering in perturbation theory,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.15 (1972) 438

    work page 1972

  12. [12]

    L. N. Lipatov,The parton model and perturbation theory,Yad. Fiz.20(1974) 181

    work page 1974

  13. [13]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi,Asymptotic Freedom in Parton Language,Nucl. Phys. B126(1977) 298

    1977

  14. [14]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer,Calculation of the Structure Functions for Deep Inelastic Scattering ande +e− Annihilation by Perturbation Theory in Quantum Chromodynamics., Sov. Phys. JETP46(1977) 641

    work page 1977

  15. [15]

    L. N. Lipatov,Reggeization of the Vector Meson and the Vacuum Singularity in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.23(1976) 338

    work page 1976

  16. [16]

    E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov and V. S. Fadin,Multi - Reggeon Processes in the Yang-Mills Theory,Sov. Phys. JETP44(1976) 443

    work page 1976

  17. [17]

    E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov and V. S. Fadin,The Pomeranchuk Singularity in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,Sov. Phys. JETP45(1977) 199

    1977

  18. [18]

    I. I. Balitsky and L. N. Lipatov,The Pomeranchuk Singularity in Quantum Chromodynamics,Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.28(1978) 822

    1978

  19. [19]

    J. L. Albacete and A. Soto-Ontoso,Hot spots and the hollowness of proton–proton interactions at high energies,Phys. Lett. B770(2017) 149 [arXiv:1605.09176 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    J. L. Albacete, H. Petersen and A. Soto-Ontoso, Symmetric cumulants as a probe of the proton substructure at LHC energies,Phys. Lett. B778(2018) 128 [arXiv:1707.05592 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    M¨ antysaari and B

    H. M¨ antysaari and B. Schenke,Evidence of strong proton shape fluctuations from incoherent diffraction, Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) no. 5 052301 [arXiv:1603.04349 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    M¨ antysaari and B

    H. M¨ antysaari and B. Schenke,Revealing proton shape fluctuations with incoherent diffraction at high energy, Phys. Rev. D94(2016) no. 3 034042 [arXiv:1607.01711 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    M¨ antysaari and B

    H. M¨ antysaari and B. Schenke,Probing subnucleon scale fluctuations in ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions,Phys. Lett. B772(2017) 832 [arXiv:1703.09256 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    Cepila, J

    J. Cepila, J. G. Contreras and J. D. Tapia Takaki, Energy dependence of dissociativeJ/ψphotoproduction as a signature of gluon saturation at the LHC,Phys. Lett. B766(2017) 186 [arXiv:1608.07559 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Cepila, J

    J. Cepila, J. G. Contreras and M. Krelina,Coherent and incoherentJ/ψphotonuclear production in an energy-dependent hot-spot model,Phys. Rev. C97 (2018) no. 2 024901 [arXiv:1711.01855 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    M¨ antysaari and B

    H. M¨ antysaari and B. Schenke,Confronting impact parameter dependent JIMWLK evolution with HERA data,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) no. 3 034013 [arXiv:1806.06783 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [27]

    M. C. Traini and J.-P. Blaizot,Diffractive incoherent vector meson production off protons: a quark model approach to gluon fluctuation effects,Eur. Phys. J. C 79(2019) no. 4 327 [arXiv:1804.06110 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Investigating the structure of gluon fluctuations in the proton with incoherent diffraction at HERA

    A. Kumar and T. Toll,Investigating the structure of gluon fluctuations in the proton with incoherent diffraction at HERA,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) no. 9 837 [arXiv:2106.12855 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Energy dependence of the proton geometry in exclusive vector meson production

    A. Kumar and T. Toll,Energy dependence of the proton geometry in exclusive vector meson production,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) no. 11 114011 [arXiv:2202.06631 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Hot spots and gluon field fluctuations as causes of eccentricity in small systems

    S. Demirci, T. Lappi and S. Schlichting,Hot spots and gluon field fluctuations as causes of eccentricity in small systems,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) no. 9 094025 [arXiv:2101.03791 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Demirci, T

    S. Demirci, T. Lappi and S. Schlichting,Proton hot spots and exclusive vector meson production,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) no. 7 074025 [arXiv:2206.05207 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    M¨ antysaari, B

    H. M¨ antysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen and W. Zhao, Bayesian inference of the fluctuating proton shape, Phys. Lett. B833(2022) 137348 [arXiv:2202.01998 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Schenke and R

    B. Schenke and R. Venugopalan,Eccentric protons? Sensitivity of flow to system size and shape in p+p, p+Pb and Pb+Pb collisions,Phys. Rev. Lett.113 (2014) 102301 [arXiv:1405.3605 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  34. [34]

    M¨ antysaari, B

    H. M¨ antysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen and P. Tribedy, Imprints of fluctuating proton shapes on flow in proton-lead collisions at the LHC,Phys. Lett. B772 (2017) 681 [arXiv:1705.03177 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  35. [35]

    J. S. Moreland, J. E. Bernhard and S. A. Bass, Bayesian calibration of a hybrid nuclear collision model using p-Pb and Pb-Pb data at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider,Phys. Rev. C101 (2020) no. 2 024911 [arXiv:1808.02106 [nucl-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    M¨ antysaari,Review of proton and nuclear shape fluctuations at high energy,Rept

    H. M¨ antysaari,Review of proton and nuclear shape fluctuations at high energy,Rept. Prog. Phys.83 (2020) no. 8 082201 [arXiv:2001.10705 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Iancu and R

    E. Iancu and R. Venugopalan,The Color glass condensate and high-energy scattering in QCD, pp. 249–3363. 3, 2003.arXiv:hep-ph/0303204. In Quark-gluon plasma 4(eds. R.C. Hwa and X.-N. Wang)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  38. [38]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  39. [39]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  40. [40]

    L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan,Green ’s functions in the color field of a large nucleus,Phys. Rev. D50 18 (1994) 2225 [arXiv:hep-ph/9402335]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  41. [41]

    BFKL evolution and the growth with energy of exclusive J/Psi and Upsilon photo-production cross-sections

    I. Bautista, A. Fernandez Tellez and M. Hentschinski, BFKL evolution and the growth with energy of exclusive J/ψandΥphotoproduction cross sections,Phys. Rev. D 94(2016) no. 5 054002 [arXiv:1607.05203 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    Gluon Saturation Effects in Exclusive Heavy Vector Meson Photoproduction

    J. Penttala and C. Royon,Gluon saturation effects in exclusive heavy vector meson photoproduction,Phys. Lett. B864(2025) 139394 [arXiv:2411.14815 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    J. E. Parkkila, A. Onnerstad, S. F. Taghavi, C. Mordasini, A. Bilandzic, M. Virta and D. J. Kim, New constraints for QCD matter from improved Bayesian parameter estimation in heavy-ion collisions at LHC,Phys. Lett. B835(2022) 137485 [arXiv:2111.08145 [hep-ph]]. [40]JETSCAPEcollaboration, D. Everettet. al., Multisystem Bayesian constraints on the transport...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Casuga, M

    C. Casuga, M. Karhunen and H. M¨ antysaari,Inferring the initial condition for the Balitsky-Kovchegov equation,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no. 5 054018 [arXiv:2311.10491 [hep-ph]]. [42]H1collaboration, C. Alexaet. al.,Elastic and Proton-Dissociative Photoproduction of J/psi Mesons at HERA,Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013) no. 6 2466 [arXiv:1304.5162 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Kowalski, L

    H. Kowalski, L. Motyka and G. Watt,Exclusive diffractive processes at HERA within the dipole picture, Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 074016 [arXiv:hep-ph/0606272]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  46. [46]

    Hatta, B.-W

    Y. Hatta, B.-W. Xiao and F. Yuan,Gluon Tomography from Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering at Small-x, Phys. Rev. D95(2017) no. 11 114026 [arXiv:1703.02085 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    M. L. Good and W. D. Walker,Diffraction disssociation of beam particles,Phys. Rev.120(1960) 1857

    1960

  48. [48]

    H. I. Miettinen and J. Pumplin,Diffraction Scattering and the Parton Structure of Hadrons,Phys. Rev. D18 (1978) 1696

    1978

  49. [49]

    Caldwell and H

    A. Caldwell and H. Kowalski,Investigating the gluonic structure of nuclei viaJ/ψscattering,Phys. Rev. C81 (2010) 025203 [arXiv:0909.1254]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  50. [50]

    S. R. Klein,Challenges to the Good-Walker paradigm in coherent and incoherent photoproduction,Phys. Rev. C 107(2023) no. 5 055203 [arXiv:2301.01408 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    McLerran and P

    L. McLerran and P. Tribedy,Intrinsic Fluctuations of the Proton Saturation Momentum Scale in High Multiplicity p+p Collisions,Nucl. Phys. A945(2016) 216 [arXiv:1508.03292 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  52. [52]

    Bzdak and K

    A. Bzdak and K. Dusling,Probing proton fluctuations with asymmetric rapidity correlations,Phys. Rev. C93 (2016) no. 3 031901 [arXiv:1511.03620 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    Jalilian-Marian, A

    J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, L. D. McLerran and H. Weigert,The Intrinsic glue distribution at very small x,Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 5414 [arXiv:hep-ph/9606337]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  54. [54]

    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. D 59(1998) 014014 [arXiv:hep-ph/9706377]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  55. [55]

    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 [arXiv:hep-ph/9701284]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  56. [56]

    Iancu, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  57. [57]

    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 [arXiv:hep-ph/0109115]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  58. [58]

    Iancu, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  59. [59]

    Saturation and Universality in QCD at small x

    E. Iancu and L. D. McLerran,Saturation and universality in QCD at small x,Phys. Lett. B510 (2001) 145 [arXiv:hep-ph/0103032]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  60. [60]

    Balitsky,Operator expansion for high-energy scattering,Nucl

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  61. [61]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  62. [62]

    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 [arXiv:hep-ph/9705477]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  63. [63]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and E. Levin,Quantum Chromodynamics at High Energy. Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology. Cambridge University Press, 2012

    work page 2012

  64. [64]

    Scattering from an external field in quantum chromodynamics at high energies: from foundations to interdisciplinary connections

    A.-K. Angelopoulou, A. D. Le and S. Munier 11, 2023. arXiv:2311.14796 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    Lappi, H

    T. Lappi, H. M¨ antysaari and J. Penttala,Relativistic corrections to the vector meson light front wave function,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) no. 5 054020 [arXiv:2006.02830 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    C. K. Williams and C. E. Rasmussen,Gaussian processes for machine learning, vol. 2. MIT press Cambridge, MA, 2006

    work page 2006

  67. [67]

    Goodman and J

    J. Goodman and J. Weare,Ensemble samplers with affine invariance,Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science5(2010) no. 1 65

    2010

  68. [68]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman,emcee: The MCMC Hammer,Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific125 (2013) no. 925 306 [arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  69. [69]

    G. T. Bodwin, H. S. Chung, D. Kang, J. Lee and C. Yu, Improved determination of color-singlet nonrelativistic QCD matrix elements for S-wave charmonium,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 094017 [arXiv:0710.0994 [hep-ph]]. [68]H1collaboration, A. Aktaset. al.,Diffractive photoproduction ofJ/ψmesons with large momentum transfer at HERA,Phys. Lett. B568(2003) 205 [arXiv:h...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008