Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Saturation suppresses exclusive vector meson production, mildly in electron-proton collisions and more strongly at higher color-charge density.

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

2026-08-03 19:41 UTC pith:DLWG7Z2D

load-bearing objection Solid dense-limit extension of the hot-spot CGC program; the qualitative saturation result holds up, but the K=3 attribution rests on the non-relativistic overlap and the data comparison is partly circular. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.22763 v3 pith:DLWG7Z2D submitted 2025-11-27 hep-ph nucl-th

Saturation effects in exclusive vector meson production in DIS

Oscar Garcia-Montero , Yannik Hoffmann , S\"oren Schlichting This is my paper
classification hep-ph nucl-th
keywords deep inelastic scatteringexclusive vector meson productionsaturationColor Glass Condensatedipole picturehot spot modelcoherent and incoherent diffractionJ/psi production
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.

This paper computes coherent and incoherent cross sections for exclusive J/psi and Upsilon production in deep inelastic scattering within the dipole picture, treating the proton as a fluctuating set of localized color-charge hot spots. It compares the full 'dense' Color-Glass-Condensate result, which includes multiple scatterings to all orders, with the 'dilute' leading-twist expansion. The central result is that saturation consistently suppresses the cross sections relative to the dilute limit, but the suppression is mild at electron-proton energies and grows as the color-charge density of the target increases. The paper also finds that saturation cannot explain the known factor-of-three normalization deficit in the incoherent cross section relative to data, locating the problem in the non-relativistic approximation of the vector-meson wave function.

Core claim

The authors establish that in a hot-spot model of the proton, the all-twist (dense) dipole amplitude suppresses both elastic and proton-dissociative vector meson production relative to the leading-twist (dilute) approximation, because the non-positive dipole correlation function G_xy makes the dense dipole cross section 2(1-e^G) systematically smaller than the dilute -2G. The suppression is modest for the HERA-like parameters used here but increases monotonically with the color-charge normalization g^2 mu_0^2, and it is larger for lighter quark masses. Comparing with experimental data, the model reproduces the coherent cross section and the shape of the incoherent one, but requires an overal

What carries the argument

The central object is the dipole correlation function G_xy built from a McLerran-Venugopalan-style Gaussian color-charge distribution concentrated in three hot spots with an infrared-regulated gluon propagator. The dense limit exponentiates this function into the dipole cross section and feeds it into a coupled differential system that yields the dipole-dipole correlator (involving a quadrupole operator); the dilute limit keeps only the first two orders of the expansion. Together with the non-relativistic overlap, which fixes the quark longitudinal momentum at half the photon momentum, these correlators determine the coherent and incoherent cross sections.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is the simplified non-relativistic description of the photon-to-vector-meson transition, which forces the quark and antiquark to share the longitudinal momentum equally; the authors themselves argue that a more accurate wave function is the only remaining way to explain the data's factor-of-three normalization gap.

What would settle it

Measure the ratio of the incoherent to the coherent J/psi production cross section over a range of Q^2, and compare it to a computation with a fully relativistic vector-meson wave function: if the factor-of-three gap persists, the paper's assignment of the mismatch to the non-relativistic approximation is falsified. For the saturation claim, measure the dense/dilute ratio of coherent cross sections in electron-nucleus collisions: it should fall markedly below the electron-proton values, confirming the density-dependent suppression.

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

If this is right

  • In electron-proton collisions at the energies considered, saturation changes exclusive vector meson cross sections by only moderate amounts, so leading-twist analyses remain reliable for shape and geometry studies.
  • At higher color-charge densities—larger center-of-mass energies or nuclear targets—the dense/dilute suppression grows, so saturation should become visible in electron-nucleus or ultra-peripheral heavy-ion collisions.
  • The factor-of-three mismatch between coherent and incoherent normalizations cannot be cured by saturation; the path forward is a relativistic vector-meson wave function, which would also change the absolute normalization of both cross sections.
  • The infrared-regulated, hot-spot-based parametrization gives finite incoherent cross sections for all dipole sizes and impact parameters, avoiding the divergent quadrupole behavior that appears when impact-parameter factorization is imposed.
  • The dense-versus-dilute difference grows for smaller quark masses, making J/psi a more sensitive probe of saturation than Upsilon at fixed kinematics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the relativistic wave function indeed removes the factor-of-three normalization gap, the fitted value of the color-charge parameter may shift, which would change the quantitative dense/dilute ratio reported here.
  • The mild suppression of the mean cross section suggests that the cleanest saturation signal may be the event-by-event variance: the dense model modifies the distribution of amplitudes, so shape fluctuations of the momentum-transfer spectrum could be a more sensitive observable than the average rate.
  • A testable extension is the Q^2 dependence of the dense/dilute ratio: because larger photon virtuality shrinks the dipole, the ratio should approach unity at high Q^2, a prediction that can be checked at an electron-ion collider.
  • The infrared regulator mass acts as a free parameter; varying it should shift the momentum-transfer slope in a predictable way, giving another handle to confront the model with data.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes coherent and incoherent exclusive J/ψ and Υ production in DIS using the dipole picture with a Color Glass Condensate description of the target. The proton is modeled as a collection of N_h Gaussian color-charge hotspots, with color charges averaged in the MV model, and the authors compute both the 'dense' (all-twist, unitarized) and 'dilute' (leading-twist) dipole and dipole-dipole correlators. Coherent and incoherent cross sections are obtained by Monte-Carlo sampling of hotspot configurations and are compared to H1 data. The central claims are that saturation suppresses both cross sections relative to the leading-twist limit, that the suppression is mild in ep collisions at the studied kinematics but increases with color-charge density and with smaller quark masses, and that saturation cannot explain the known K=3 normalization mismatch between the computed and measured incoherent cross sections, implying that the vector-meson wave function must be improved.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are robust, the paper is a useful step: it provides a consistent all-twist computation of exclusive vector-meson cross sections within a hotspot-based MV model, avoids the factorization pathologies of simpler dipole parametrizations, and ships reproducible numerical code with the results. The analytic derivations in Appendix A, the benchmark against the leading-twist results of Ref. [18], and the explicit dense/dilute comparison using the same G_xy are strengths. The sign and the density trend of the suppression are robust because the dense dipole cross section is bounded by the dilute one (Eqs. (19) and (24)). However, the quantitative suppression ratios and the interpretation of the K=3 mismatch rest on the non-relativistic wave-function overlap and on a limited exploration of the model parameter space, which is the main weakness.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV (Conclusions); §III, Fig. 4] The statement that 'saturation effects fail to explain this mismatch, [so] the only remaining possibility is that a more accurate description of the vector meson wave-function is required' is too strong. The analysis varies only g^2 μ_0^2 (Figs. 5–8); the other parameters (r_h, R, N_h, m, A_b, and the overall K factor) are fixed. The incoherent cross section is additionally rescaled by K=3 from Ref. [18], so the relative coherent/incoherent normalization is not a pure prediction of the saturation framework. Since Ref. [43] already shows that relativistic corrections and per-hotspot Q_s fluctuations can alleviate the mismatch, the conclusion should be weakened to 'saturation as implemented here, with the non-relativistic overlap and the chosen parameters, does not remove the K=3 discrepancy.'
  2. [§II.B, Eqs. (8)–(9); §III, Figs. 5–7] The δ(z−1/2) overlap removes the (1/2−z) r·Δ phase from Eq. (6), so the t-dependence is carried entirely by the impact-parameter profile of the proton. Because the dense and dilute dipole cross sections (Eqs. (19) and (24)) have different r-dependence, the dense/dilute suppression ratios in Figs. 5–7 will in general depend on the r-weighting of the overlap. The paper does not test this sensitivity, e.g. by using a finite-width z distribution or by comparing with the relativistic wave function of Ref. [43]. The sign and the qualitative growth of the suppression with g^2 μ_0^2 are robust, but the quantitative claim of 'mild' suppression in ep is conditional on this untested approximation.
  3. [§III, parameter choices and K=3 discussion] The paper argues that the incoherent-data discrepancy 'cannot easily be corrected without affecting the coherent cross section,' but this is demonstrated only for a one-parameter variation of g^2 μ_0^2. The coherent and incoherent cross sections respond differently to changes in r_h, R, N_h, and m through G_xy (Eq. (32)) and its unitarization (Eqs. (19)–(20)), so a correlated parameter scan could in principle change the relative normalization. Without such a scan, the conclusion that saturation cannot explain the K=3 normalization is not fully established; it is a statement about the current parameter point, not a robust model-independent conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (31)] The expression for the coherent radius, R_C = r_h + R^2(N_h−1)/N_h, is dimensionally inconsistent. It should read R_C^2 = r_h^2 + R^2(N_h−1)/N_h, matching Eq. (B1) and the quoted value R_C=0.336 fm.
  2. [Eqs. (2) and (5)] The displayed equations for the incoherent cross section contain garbled placeholder text (e.g. 'Aγ∗p/leftr⫯g⊸tl⫯ne→Vp' and long sequences of '⌟⟨⟨...') that must be cleaned up before publication.
  3. [Fig. 12 caption] The sentence 'The reader can see that the dipole-dipole correlation stays' is incomplete; the figure caption needs to be finished.
  4. [§III, Upsilon normalization] The choice A_b = A_c is an ad hoc assumption. The dense/dilute ratios are insensitive to A_q because it cancels, but the absolute Upsilon cross sections inherit this normalization uncertainty and this should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Figure captions] Several captions render g^2 μ_0^2 incorrectly (e.g. 'g^2 2 0', 'g2 2 0', 'µ2 0'). These should be corrected in the final version.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central dense/dilute suppression is a genuine model output; only the coherent normalization is fitted, so circularity is minor.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III, Results (parameter choice and Fig. 3 discussion); echoed in Conclusions]
    "Therefore, µ0 always enters the cross section as the dimensionless combination g2µ2_0, which, in accordance with previous work [18], was chosen to be g2µ2_0 = 6.574 as the best fit value for comparison with the HERA H1 results [15, 42]."

    The same H1 coherent data that are used to fix g2µ2_0 are later cited as evidence that the model reproduces the coherent J/ψ cross section ('We find good agreement to coherent J/ψ production data from H1'). The overall normalization of the coherent curve is therefore partly guaranteed by the fit, rather than being an independent prediction. The t-dependence is not fully forced by this single parameter, and the dense/dilute ratio uses the same Gxy in both limits, so this does not invalidate the central saturation-suppression result; it only makes the coherent-data validation partially circular.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain is self-contained: MV-model color charges define Gxy; the dense and dilute dipole cross sections and their two-point correlators are obtained from the same Wilson-line formalism (Appendix A); coherent and incoherent amplitudes are computed from the Good-Walker averages with Monte-Carlo sampling of hotspot geometries. The central dense/dilute suppression is therefore a computed model output, not a fitted quantity: both limits are evaluated with identical Gxy and the same event configurations, and the suppression's dependence on g2µ2_0 and quark mass is generated by the all-order vs. leading-twist resummation. The main circularity concern is limited to the comparison with data: g2µ2_0 is fitted to coherent H1 data, so the resulting coherent 'agreement' is not an independent test; the incoherent comparison also imports a prefactor K=3 from the same-group prior work [18], making the statement that saturation 'fails to explain' the K=3 mismatch less sharp than a fully external falsification. However, these issues do not feed back into the computed dense/dilute ratio, which would remain unchanged if a different normalization were chosen. Hence the paper is not significantly circular in its central theoretical result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper uses an established phenomenological framework (CGC + MV model + hot-spot geometry) with parameters inherited from prior fits or fixed by hand. No new fundamental entities, particles, or forces are introduced. The central claim rests on the MV model assumptions, the eikonal approximation, the non-relativistic wave-function overlap, and the fitted value of g^2 mu_0^2.

free parameters (7)
  • g^2 mu_0^2 (color-charge density normalization) = 6.574 (sqrt(43.22))
    Chosen as the best fit value for comparison with HERA H1 coherent J/psi data (Section III). All cross-section normalizations, and thus the absolute suppression magnitude, depend on it.
  • Hotspot transverse size r_h = 0.165 fm
    Taken from previous work [18]; not varied or assigned an uncertainty in this paper, though it sets the transverse size of color fluctuations.
  • Proton effective radius R = 0.358 fm
    Taken from previous work [18]; determines the Gaussian distribution of hotspot positions and the coherent radius.
  • Number of hotspots N_h = 3
    Fixed by hand following prior hot-spot model studies; controls the granularity of geometric fluctuations and the coherent radius R_C.
  • IR regulator mass m = 0.22 GeV
    Introduced in the gluon Green's function (Eq. 17) and chosen at a hadronic scale; the paper shows the vanishing of correlators at large r is insensitive to m, but the slope at intermediate r changes.
  • Bottom-quark wave-function normalization A_b = 0.211 GeV^{3/2} (set equal to A_c)
    No accurate measurement of A_b; the paper uses A_b = A_c for Upsilon cross-section comparisons. This directly affects all Upsilon predictions.
  • K factor for incoherent cross section = 3
    Applied to the incoherent cross section to match the H1 normalization; inherited from Ref. [18] and not derived in this paper. It is a post-hoc normalization correction.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption MV model: Gaussian color-charge correlations with local covariance mu^2(x) delta^(2)(x-y) (Eq. 28)
    The entire calculation of Wilson-line correlators rests on this stochastic model of the target color fields; it is standard in CGC phenomenology.
  • domain assumption Eikonal dipole picture: the quark-antiquark dipole scatters eikonally on classical color fields, with Wilson lines resumming multiple scatterings (Eqs. 13-16)
    Used to derive the dipole cross section and all correlators; valid at small x but an approximation to full QCD.
  • ad hoc to paper Non-relativistic wave-function overlap with delta(z - 1/2) (Eqs. 8-9)
    The photon-to-vector-meson overlap is taken in the strict non-relativistic limit, fixing the quark to carry half the momentum. The paper itself argues this is the likely source of the K=3 discrepancy.
  • domain assumption Factorization of color and geometric fluctuations: the double average <O> = <<O>_c>_h (Eq. 3)
    Assumes color-charge fluctuations and hotspot-position fluctuations are statistically independent; used to define coherent and incoherent cross sections.
  • domain assumption Color neutrality: one-point function <rho^a(x)>_c = 0 (Section II.D)
    Required to guarantee the proton is color neutral on average; standard in MV-model implementations.
  • standard math Dilute limit: expansion of Wilson lines to second order in the color fields (Appendix A)
    The leading-twist (dilute) dipole cross sections are obtained by this controlled perturbative expansion.
  • standard math Dense-limit correlators are obtained by solving coupled differential equations for dipole and quadrupole operators using Fierz identities and Wick's theorem (Appendix A)
    The all-twist results (Eqs. 19-22) follow from this standard CGC calculation; no new physics input beyond the MV model.
  • ad hoc to paper A_b = A_c for the Upsilon wave-function normalization
    There is no accurate leptonic width measurement for the Upsilon used here, so the charm normalization is substituted; this directly impacts the Upsilon cross-section predictions.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25474 in / 12632 out tokens · 107215 ms · 2026-08-03T19:41:00.340153+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate saturation effects in exclusive vector meson production in deep inelastic scattering (DIS), where we model fluctuations within the target protons as localized color-charge hotspots. Based on the Color Glass Condensate (CGC) framework and the dipole picture for vector meson production, we examine the dependencies of coherent and incoherent scattering cross sections on the momentum transfer. We draw conclusions on the effectiveness of our hot spot model and the strength of the suppression of the scattering cross sections caused by saturation effects. We find that saturation has mild effects in the given energy and charge-density ranges, but can also show that suppression becomes more prominent as the color-charge density inside the proton increases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.22763 by Oscar Garcia-Montero, S\"oren Schlichting, Yannik Hoffmann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The process of exclusive vector meson produc￾tion. Displayed are the incoming interaction particles (elec￾tron, which scatters off the virtual photon γ ∗ , with virtuality Q 2 , and the proton) and the outgoing products (the vector meson and the proton p’ or dissociated proton p∗ ). distinguishing between color charge fluctuations and geo￾metric fluctuations of the proton structure, included phe￾nomenologi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of the hotspot proton model, which shows an arbitrary configuration of Nh = 3 hotspots. The hotspots are not confined to the proton and radiate some color charge beyond the size of the proton. The passing dipole with quarks at positions x and y is also drawn. where the 2d δ constrains the distribution in such a man￾ner that the positional average of all hotspots is in the center of the proton,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Coherent cross sections in the dense and dilute limits. Data labeled "Analytical" refers to results from previ￾ous work [17], where the hotspot average was calculated an￾alytically in the dilute limit and no numerical sampling was performed. H1 data is from [15]. The bands correspond to statistical error coming from the MC sampling of geometrical fluctuations in the proton. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |t| [GeV 2 ] 1… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Incoherent cross sections in the dense and dilute limits. Also shown are the color and hotspot fluctuations making up the total cross section. H1 data is from [15] for small-t and [42] for large-t. The standard error is shown as bands. tively. We compare the dilute and dense limits1 for J/ψ production, and validate the chosen parameters against H1 data [15, 42]. In all the results we are presenting in this… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Coherent cross sections for different color-charge amounts g 2µ 2 0. The standard error is shown as bands. The smaller diagram shows the ratio of dense to dilute model scat￾tering cross sections. important to note that the discrepancy between H1 and sampled results for the incoherent cross section cannot easily be corrected without affecting the coherent cross section as well. For example, if one increases… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Color and hotspot fluctuations for different color￾charge amounts g 2µ 2 0. Shown are the color- and hotspot￾fluctuation contributions making up the full incoherent cross section shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Coherent and incoherent cross sections at fixed energy transfer ∣t∣ = 1.0 GeV2 , for a range of different values of g 2µ 2 0, compared to the value fixed for data comparison in this work, (g 2µ 2 0)0 = √ 43.22. The cross sections have been normalized by a factor g 2µ 2 0 to facilitate the comparison be￾tween dense and dilute cases. ables, we computed the diffractive coherent and incoher￾ent cross sections … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Color- and hotspot-fluctuation contributions making up the full incoherent cross section shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Dipole-Dipole correlations in terms of the first dipole size,r for a set of four different outlier dipole configu￾rations (see main text for details). configurations vanish for large values of the first dipole size, r, where the first dipole "misses" the color density profile. It is worth noting that the variation with respect to the regulator does not change the vanishing of the correlator when r → ∞, ev… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Dipole correlation function for different dipoles. The size of the dipole, r = ∣r∣, was arbitrarily chosen to be 1 GeV−1 . tudes in the coherent and incoherent cross sections. All proper numeric calculations before analysis were performed on high-performance computers at the Pader￾born Center for Parallel Computing (PC2) [56]. 2. Hotspot sampling Generating a hotspot configuration consists of first sampli… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 47 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    In the dense limit, interactions between probe and target are assumed to occur all the way along the path through the target, and the inte- gral will not become trivial

    Dipole cross section in the dense limit We again start from the trace over the color average of the dipole correlator. In the dense limit, interactions between probe and target are assumed to occur all the way along the path through the target, and the inte- gral will not become trivial. Instead, we again introduce stochastic variablesξ, but this time car...

  2. [2]

    (8) (Ψ∗ γΨV) L =−2A q √ 2Nc mq eqeQz(1−z)K 0(ε∣r∣)δ(z− 1

  3. [3]

    (9) Here,A q is a normalization constant controlling the total decay width of the respective vector meson to electron- positron pair via [24] Γ(qq→e +e−)=A 2 q 4πe2 qαem m2q ,(10) wheree= √4παem is the electromagnetic coupling con- stant, ande q describes fractional electric charge of the quark. The governing quantity for the width of the wave- function o...

  4. [4]

    Analytical

    V †(b− r 2)].(14) In this trace,V(x)corresponds to a light-like Wilson line operator, which describes the interaction of the passing quark with the target color fields. It is explicitly written as a resummation of an infinite number of insertions of classical color fields: V(x)=P + exp{ig ∫ ∞ −∞ dz+A− a(z+,x)t a}(15) Integration alongz +, which is the lig...

  5. [5]

    The smaller diagram shows the ratio of dense to dilute model scat- tering cross sections

    The standard error is shown as bands. The smaller diagram shows the ratio of dense to dilute model scat- tering cross sections. important to note that the discrepancy between H1 and sampled results for the incoherent cross section cannot easily be corrected without affecting the coherent cross section as well. For example, if one increases the value of th...

  6. [6]

    Dense, color fluc

    This comes as a consequence of color fluctuations dominating the incoherent spectrum every- where outside of the maximum amplitude of the hotspot- 8 10 1 100 101 102 d /dt [nb GeV 2] Color and hotspot fluctuations with different g2 2 0 Dilute, color fluc. Dense, color fluc. Dilute, hotspot fluc. Dense, hotspot fluc. g2 2 0 = 2.0 × (g2 2 0)0 g2 2 0 = 1.0 ×...

  7. [7]

    Shown are the color- and hotspot- fluctuation contributions making up the full incoherent cross section shown in Fig. 7. The standard error is shown as bands. The smaller diagram shows the ratio of dense to dilute model scattering cross sections. fluctuations spectrum. In Fig. 8, we display coherent and incoherent cross- section results against different ...

  8. [8]

    We present the partially normalized cross sec- tion to facilitate the observation of the breaking of this scaling due to the all-twist (dense) result

    Due to the leading-twist approxima- tions in the dilute limit, cross sections depend linearly on (g2µ2 0)2. We present the partially normalized cross sec- tion to facilitate the observation of the breaking of this scaling due to the all-twist (dense) result. As can be readily seen, dense targets display stronger dampening due to multiple scatterings, lead...

  9. [9]

    The smaller diagram shows the ratio of dense to dilute model scat- tering cross sections

    The standard error is shown as bands. The smaller diagram shows the ratio of dense to dilute model scat- tering cross sections. As expected, the discrepancy between the dilute and the dense results increases for larger color- charge densities. ergy transfer but instead peaks at around0.6 GeV2 for the bottom quark case. The bottom dipole forces the system ...

  10. [10]

    The cross sections have been normalized by a factorg2µ2 0 to facilitate the comparison be- tween dense and dilute cases

    [nb GeV 2] Normalized cross sections at single momentum transfer for different g2 2 0 Dilute Dense Coherent Incoherent 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 g2 2 0/(g2 2 0)0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9Dense/Dilute Dense/Dilute |t| = 1.0GeV2 (g2 2 0)0 = 43.22 Figure 8:Coherent and incoherent cross sections at fixed energy transfer∣t∣=1.0 GeV 2, for a range of different values o...

  11. [11]

    (A22) The traces are now expanded as they were in the single- dipole correlator calculation

    Dipole-dipole cross section in the dilute limit Starting from the color average of the dipole-dipole cross section, we find ⟨ dσp,dilute dip d2b (b,r) dσp,dilute dip d2b (b, r)⟩ =4⟨(1− 1 Nc tr[V xV † y])(1− 1 Nc tr[V xV † y])⟩. (A22) The traces are now expanded as they were in the single- dipole correlator calculation. Multiplying the terms and applying t...

  12. [12]

    Dipole-dipole cross section in the dense limit ⟨ dσp dip d2b (b,r) dσp dip d2b (b, r)⟩ =⟨2(1− 1 Nc tr[V xV † y])2(1− 1 Nc tr[V xV † y])⟩ =4⟨1− 1 Nc tr[V xV † y]− 1 Nc tr[V xV † y] + 1 N 2c tr[V xV † y]tr[V xV † y]⟩.(A24) Analogous to the calculation in the dilute limit, only the dipole-dipole correlator is unknown. Using the same as- sumptions and propert...

  13. [13]

    Second dipole with a fixed size¯r=r H located at the center of the gaussian profile,¯b=0

  14. [14]

    Second dipole with a fixed size¯r=2rH located at the center of the gaussian profile,¯b=0

  15. [15]

    Second dipole with a fixed size¯r=rH located op- posite to the first dipole,¯b=(0,−2r H)

  16. [16]

    Namely, ¯b=(0,−r H)

    Second dipole with a fixed size¯r=rH located op- posite to the first dipole, with a net imbalance. Namely, ¯b=(0,−r H). The reader can see that the dipole-dipole correlation stays In the limit of factorization of the impact param- eter dependence, the incoming dipoles see the target ef- fectively as an infinite nucleus with color density given at the impa...

  17. [17]

    Dipole correlation functionG The color fieldA− a was previously (Eq. (15)) defined as A− a(z+,x)= ∫ d2zG(x−z)ρ a(z+,z),(A34) whereG(x−z)is the Green’s function G(x−z)= ∫ d2k (2π)2 eik(x−z) k2+m 2 .(A35) 14 In the calculation of the dipole and dipole-dipole corre- lators, we defined the dipole correlation function as Gxy =λ xy− 1 2 λxx− 1 2 λyy (A36) and i...

  18. [18]

    The size of the dipole,r=∣r∣, was arbitrarily chosen to be 1 GeV−1

    Numerical integration Numeric integrators [40] were used to solve the four- and eight-dimensional integrals required for the ampli- 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 |b| [GeV 1] 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 Gxy Dipole correlation function Gxy for a set of dipole configurations = 0/8 = 1/8 = 2/8 = 3/8 = 4/8 b1 = 0 b2 = |b| |r| = 1GeV 1 r1 = |r|cos( ) r2 = |r|sin( ...

  19. [19]

    coherent radius

    Hotspot sampling Generating a hotspot configuration consists of first samplingN h independentpositionsintransverse2dspace according to the spatial density distribution of the pro- ton (see Eq. (26)). Then, the spatial average of these po- sitions is calculated and subtracted from each position, which aligns the center of mass with the desired center of th...

  20. [20]

    Energy transfer orientation average Averaging over the polar angleϕ∆ of∆as dσ dt = ∫ dϕ∆ 2π dσ d(−∆2) (B2) yields the desired, direction independent cross section. For the the color fluctuations this can be done semi- analytically: ∫ dϕ∆ 2π (⟨∣A(e)∣2⟩c−∣⟨A(e)⟩c∣ 2 )= ∫ dϕ∆ 2π 1 16π2 ∫ d2rd 2r ∫ d2bd 2b(Ψ ∗ γΨV)(Q 2,r) (Ψ∗ γΨV)(Q 2, r) ×e−i(b−b)∆ ⎛ ⎜ ⎝ ⟨ d...

  21. [21]

    Klasen and H

    M. Klasen and H. Paukkunen, Nuclear PDFs After the First Decade of LHC Data, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 74, 49 (2024), arXiv:2311.00450 [hep-ph]. 16

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, P. Motylinski, and R. S. Thorne, Parton distributions in the LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 204 (2015), arXiv:1412.3989 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    R. D. Ballet al.(NNPDF), Parton distributions from high-precision collider data, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 663 (2017), arXiv:1706.00428 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    Bzdak, B

    A. Bzdak, B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Initial state geometry and the role of hydrodynamics in proton-proton, proton-nucleus and deuteron-nucleus col- lisions, Phys. Rev. C87, 064906 (2013), arXiv:1304.3403 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  25. [25]

    Schenke and R

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  26. [26]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    J. L. Albacete, H. Petersen, and A. Soto-Ontoso, Corre- lated wounded hot spots in proton-proton interactions, Phys. Rev. C95, 064909 (2017), arXiv:1612.06274 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Mäntysaari, B

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    Schlichting and B

    S. Schlichting and B. Schenke, The shape of the pro- ton at high energies, Phys. Lett. B739, 313 (2014), arXiv:1407.8458 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [30]

    Garcia-Montero and S

    O. Garcia-Montero and S. Schlichting, Effective theories for nuclei at high energies, Eur. Phys. J. A61, 54 (2025), arXiv:2502.09721 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Kleinet al., New opportunities at the photon energy frontier (2020), arXiv:2009.03838 [hep-ph]

    S. Kleinet al., New opportunities at the photon energy frontier (2020), arXiv:2009.03838 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  33. [33]

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

    1960

  34. [34]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and E. Levin,Quantum Chromodynam- ics at High Energy, Vol. 33 (Oxford University Press, 2013)

    2013

  35. [35]

    Alexaet al.(H1), Elastic and Proton-Dissociative Photoproduction of J/psi Mesons at HERA, Eur

    C. Alexaet al.(H1), Elastic and Proton-Dissociative Photoproduction of J/psi Mesons at HERA, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2466 (2013), arXiv:1304.5162 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    Gelis, E

    F. Gelis, E. Iancu, J. Jalilian-Marian, and R. Venu- gopalan, The Color Glass Condensate, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60, 463 (2010), arXiv:1002.0333 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  37. [37]

    Demirci, T

    S. Demirci, T. Lappi, and S. Schlichting, Hot spots and gluon field fluctuations as causes of eccentricity in small systems, Phys. Rev. D103, 094025 (2021), arXiv:2101.03791 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    S.Demirci, T.Lappi,andS.Schlichting,Protonhotspots and exclusive vector meson production, Phys. Rev. D 106, 074025 (2022), arXiv:2206.05207 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Eremin and S

    S. Eremin and S. Voloshin, Nucleon participants or quark participants?, Phys. Rev. C67, 064905 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0302071

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  40. [40]

    S. S. Adleret al.(PHENIX), Transverse-energy distri- butions at midrapidity in p+p , d+Au , and Au+Au collisions at √sN N =62.4˘200GeV and implications for particle-production models, Phys. Rev. C89, 044905 (2014), arXiv:1312.6676 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  41. [41]

    Mäntysaari and B

    H. Mäntysaari and B. Schenke, Evidence of strong pro- ton shape fluctuations from incoherent diffraction, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 052301 (2016), arXiv:1603.04349 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    Kowalski, L

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  43. [43]

    Mäntysaari, Review of proton and nuclear shape fluc- tuations at high energy, Rept

    H. Mäntysaari, Review of proton and nuclear shape fluc- tuations at high energy, Rept. Prog. Phys.83, 082201 (2020), arXiv:2001.10705 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Lappi, H

    T. Lappi, H. Mäntysaari, and J. Penttala, Relativistic corrections to the vector meson light front wave function, Phys. Rev. D102, 054020 (2020), arXiv:2006.02830 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  46. [46]

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

    arXiv 1994

  47. [47]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  48. [48]

    Kovner, L

    A. Kovner, L. D. McLerran, and H. Weigert, Gluon pro- duction at high transverse momentum in the McLerran- Venugopalan model of nuclear structure functions, Phys. Rev. D52, 3809 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9505320

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  49. [49]

    Gelis and A

    F. Gelis and A. Peshier, Probing colored glass via q anti-q photoproduction, Nucl. Phys. A697, 879 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0107142

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  50. [50]

    Lappi and S

    T. Lappi and S. Schlichting, Linearly polarized gluons and axial charge fluctuations in the Glasma, Phys. Rev. D97, 034034 (2018), arXiv:1708.08625 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    Deganutti, C

    F. Deganutti, C. Royon, and S. Schlichting, Forward dijet production at the LHC within an impact pa- rameter dependent TMD approach, JHEP01, 159, arXiv:2311.01965 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  52. [52]

    K. J. Golec-Biernat and M. Wusthoff, Saturation in diffractive deep inelastic scattering, Phys. Rev. D60, 114023 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9903358

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  53. [53]

    A. H. Rezaeian, M. Siddikov, M. Van de Klundert, and R. Venugopalan, IP-Sat: Impact-Parameter dependent Saturation model revised, PoSDIS2013, 060 (2013), arXiv:1307.0165 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  54. [54]

    Kowalski and D

    H. Kowalski and D. Teaney, An Impact parameter dipole saturation model, Phys. Rev. D68, 114005 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0304189

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  55. [55]

    J. P. Blaizot, F. Gelis, and R. Venugopalan, High-energy pA collisions in the color glass condensate approach

  56. [56]

    Quark production, Nucl. Phys. A743, 57 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402257

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  57. [57]

    Dominguez, C

    F. Dominguez, C. Marquet, B.-W. Xiao, and F. Yuan, Universality of Unintegrated Gluon Distributions at smallx,Phys.Rev.D83,105005(2011),arXiv:1101.0715 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  58. [58]

    Lappi, B

    T. Lappi, B. Schenke, S. Schlichting, and R. Venu- gopalan, Tracing the origin of azimuthal gluon corre- lations in the color glass condensate, JHEP01, 061, arXiv:1509.03499 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [59]

    J. L. Albacete, H. Petersen, and A. Soto-Ontoso, Gluonic hot spots and spatial correlations inside the proton, Nucl. Phys. A967, 924 (2017). 17

    2017

  60. [60]

    K. J. Golec-Biernat and M. Wusthoff, Saturation effects in deep inelastic scattering at low Q**2 and its impli- cations on diffraction, Phys. Rev. D59, 014017 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9807513

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  61. [61]

    S. G. Johnson, Multi-dimensional adaptive integration in C: The Cubature package,https://github.com/ stevengj/cubature(2005)

    2005

  62. [62]

    Hoffman, An exclusive vector production code in the dipole/cgc picture, https://github.com/yhoffmann/EIC- Dipper (2025), last accessed 26/11/2025

    Y. Hoffman, An exclusive vector production code in the dipole/cgc picture, https://github.com/yhoffmann/EIC- Dipper (2025), last accessed 26/11/2025

    2025

  63. [63]

    Aktaset al.(H1), Diffractive photoproduction ofJ/ψ mesons with large momentum transfer at HERA, Phys

    A. Aktaset al.(H1), Diffractive photoproduction ofJ/ψ mesons with large momentum transfer at HERA, Phys. Lett. B568, 205 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0306013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  64. [64]

    Mäntysaari and A

    H. Mäntysaari and A. D. Le, ExclusiveJ/ψproduction off a dilute proton within a refined hotspot description (2025), arXiv:2509.07480 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Toll and T

    T. Toll and T. Ullrich, Exclusive diffractive processes in electron-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C87, 024913 (2013), arXiv:1211.3048 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  66. [66]

    Accardiet al., Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all, Eur

    A. Accardiet al., Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 268 (2016), arXiv:1212.1701 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    C. C. Nishi, Simple derivation of general Fierz-like identities, Am. J. Phys.73, 1160 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0412245

    arXiv 2005

  68. [68]

    Mäntysaari, J

    H. Mäntysaari, J. Penttala, F. Salazar, and B. Schenke, Finite-size effects on small-x evolution and saturation in proton and nuclear targets, Phys. Rev. D111, 054033 (2025), arXiv:2411.13533 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Ducloué, T

    B. Ducloué, T. Lappi, and H. Mäntysaari, ForwardJ/ψ production in proton-nucleus collisions at high energy, Phys. Rev. D91, 114005 (2015), arXiv:1503.02789 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  70. [70]

    Mäntysaari, F

    H. Mäntysaari, F. Salazar, and B. Schenke, Nuclear geometry at high energy from exclusive vector me- son production, Phys. Rev. D106, 074019 (2022), arXiv:2207.03712 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  71. [71]

    Benić, D

    S. Benić, D. Horvatić, A. Kaushik, and E. A. Vivoda, Exclusiveηc production from small-x evolved Odderon at an electron-ion collider, Phys. Rev. D108, 074005 (2023), arXiv:2306.10626 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Benić and E

    S. Benić and E. A. Vivoda, Single spin asymmetry in forwardpAcollisionsfromthePomeron-odderoninterfer- ence, Phys. Rev. D111, 094027 (2025), arXiv:2501.12847 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Dumitru and L

    A. Dumitru and L. D. McLerran, How protons shatter colored glass, Nucl. Phys. A700, 492 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0105268

    arXiv 2002

  74. [74]

    H. J. Drescher and Y. Nara, Effects of fluctuations on the initial eccentricity from the Color Glass Condensate in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C75, 034905 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0611017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  75. [75]

    Garcia-Montero, H

    O. Garcia-Montero, H. Elfner, and S. Schlichting, McDIPPER: A novel saturation-based 3+1D initial-state model for heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C109, 044916 (2024), arXiv:2308.11713 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Garcia-Montero, S

    O. Garcia-Montero, S. Schlichting, and J. Zhu, Effects of subnucleonic fluctuations on the longitudinal structure of heavy-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. D111, 076029 (2025), arXiv:2501.14872 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Baueret al., Noctua 2 Supercomputer, Journal of large-scale research facilities9, 10.17815/jlsrf-8-187 (2024)

    C. Baueret al., Noctua 2 Supercomputer, Journal of large-scale research facilities9, 10.17815/jlsrf-8-187 (2024)

    doi:10.17815/jlsrf-8-187 2024