arxiv: 2605.12123 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex· nucl-ex· nucl-th

Recognition: no theorem link

Photoproduction of J/Psi in peripheral Oxygen-Oxygen collisions

Pedro E. A. da Costa , Andr\'e V. Giannini , Victor P. Gon\c{c}alves , Bruno D. Moreira

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 04:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-th

keywords photoproductionJ/Ψperipheral collisionsoxygen-oxygenLHCheavy-ion collisionsdipole modelphoton flux

0 comments

The pith

Predictions show J/Ψ photoproduction is experimentally feasible in peripheral oxygen-oxygen collisions at the LHC.

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

This paper calculates the photoproduction of J/Ψ in peripheral OO collisions at the LHC under different assumptions about nuclear photon flux, overlap function, and dipole-proton scattering. It presents rapidity distributions and total cross sections that are large enough to be measured. The authors conclude that these lighter-ion results, paired with existing PbPb data, can tighten constraints on how photon-induced processes behave in peripheral heavy-ion collisions. A reader would care because the work tests whether current models of electromagnetic interactions in nuclei hold for systems lighter than lead.

Core claim

We investigate the photoproduction of J/Ψ in peripheral Oxygen-Oxygen collisions at the LHC considering distinct assumptions for the nuclear photon flux, overlap function and dipole-proton scattering amplitude. Predictions for the associated rapidity distributions and total cross-sections are presented. Our results indicate that the experimental study of the photoproduction of J/Ψ in peripheral OO collisions is, in principle, feasible. In addition, they point out that the combination of the results for this final state in OO collisions with those obtained for PbPb collisions will allow us to derive important constraints on the description of photon-induced process at peripheral collisions.

What carries the argument

The modeling framework that combines nuclear photon flux, overlap function, and dipole-proton scattering amplitude to compute rapidity distributions and cross sections for J/Ψ photoproduction.

If this is right

The predicted cross sections are large enough that experimental observation of J/Ψ in peripheral OO collisions is possible.
Data from OO collisions can be combined with PbPb results to derive constraints on photon-induced processes.
Variations in modeling assumptions produce distinguishable differences in rapidity distributions that can be tested.
Peripheral collisions of lighter nuclei provide an independent handle on the same photon flux and scattering mechanisms studied in heavier systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

The same framework could be applied to other light-ion systems to map how photon flux scales with nuclear size.
Future LHC runs dedicated to OO collisions would directly test whether the feasibility claim holds under real detector conditions.
Discrepancies between OO and PbPb data could point to nuclear-structure effects that current overlap-function models miss.

Load-bearing premise

The modeling assumptions for the nuclear photon flux, overlap function, and dipole-proton scattering amplitude are accurate enough to produce reliable predictions for rapidity distributions and total cross sections in peripheral OO collisions.

What would settle it

A precision measurement of the J/Ψ rapidity distribution or total cross section in peripheral OO collisions at the LHC that lies well outside the range spanned by the model variants would falsify the claim that current modeling assumptions are reliable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12123 by Andr\'e V. Giannini, Bruno D. Moreira, Pedro E. A. da Costa, Victor P. Gon\c{c}alves.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2: Transverse - plane view of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3: Predictions for the rapidity distributions associated with th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Predictions for the rapidity distributions associated with th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The photoproduction of $J/\Psi$ in peripheral Oxygen - Oxygen ($OO$) collisions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is investigated considering distinct assumptions for the modeling of the nuclear photon flux, overlap function and dipole - proton scattering amplitude. Predictions for the associated rapidity distributions and total cross - sections are presented. Our results indicate that the experimental study of the photoproduction of $J/\Psi$ in peripheral $OO$ collisions is, in principle, feasible. In addition, they point out that the combination of the results for this final state in $OO$ collisions with those obtained for $PbPb$ collisions will allow us to derive important constraints on the description of photon - induced process at peripheral collisions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper runs existing dipole and photon-flux models on peripheral OO collisions to produce new numerical predictions for J/Ψ rapidity distributions and cross sections.

read the letter

The paper takes the standard dipole-model framework already used for PbPb ultraperipheral collisions and applies it to peripheral OO at LHC energies. It varies the nuclear photon flux, the overlap function, and the dipole-proton amplitude, then shows the resulting rapidity distributions and integrated cross sections. Those specific OO numbers are new and fill a small gap in the existing literature on lighter systems. The calculations appear straightforward and internally consistent from the abstract and the modeling choices described. The authors correctly note that OO data could help test how well the same photon-induced mechanisms work when the nuclear size and overlap change. That is the useful part: it gives concrete numbers that experimental groups can compare against once OO runs happen. The main limitation is that the feasibility statement stays qualitative. The text says the process is “in principle” feasible but does not supply expected event yields, background estimates, or acceptance cuts that would turn the claim into a quantitative prediction. The suggestion that OO plus PbPb results will deliver “important constraints” is also forward-looking rather than demonstrated; it assumes the models will describe both systems equally well, which is not checked against existing data here. No new parameters are introduced and the work does not claim to resolve any open theoretical issue. This is a narrow phenomenological calculation aimed at the ultraperipheral-collisions community. Readers who already follow the PbPb J/Ψ papers will find the OO extension straightforward to use. It is not essential reading outside that niche. The calculations are reproducible enough and the gap is real enough that a serious editor should send it to referees rather than desk-reject it. Referees can check the numerical stability and ask for the missing experimental-context numbers.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the photoproduction of J/Ψ in peripheral oxygen-oxygen collisions at the LHC. It considers distinct modeling assumptions for the nuclear photon flux, overlap function, and dipole-proton scattering amplitude, and presents predictions for the associated rapidity distributions and total cross sections. The authors conclude that experimental studies of this process are feasible in principle and that combining OO results with those from PbPb collisions can provide important constraints on photon-induced processes in peripheral collisions.

Significance. If the central predictions hold under realistic conditions, the work would demonstrate a viable channel for studying photon-nucleus interactions in lighter nuclear systems, offering complementary constraints to heavy-ion data. The explicit variation over multiple modeling choices for flux, overlap, and dipole amplitude is a positive feature that allows readers to assess theoretical spread. However, the overall significance is tempered because the feasibility and constraint claims rest on unanchored model outputs without demonstrated connection to observable LHC rates or existing data.

major comments (2)

[Results section (rapidity distributions and total cross sections)] Results section (rapidity distributions and total cross sections): The statement that the process 'is, in principle, feasible' is not supported by any quantitative comparison of the predicted rates to LHC luminosities, detector acceptances, or estimated backgrounds. Without such anchoring, it remains unclear whether the computed cross sections would yield observable signals.
[Modeling section (nuclear photon flux, overlap function, dipole-proton amplitude)] Modeling section (nuclear photon flux, overlap function, dipole-proton amplitude): Although several distinct assumptions are explored, the paper provides no external validation or comparison against measured photon fluxes or J/Ψ photoproduction data from other systems (e.g., pPb UPC or lighter-ion collisions). This leaves open the possibility that the true values lie outside the sampled range, potentially rendering the predicted rates unobservable and undermining both the feasibility and constraint claims.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract would benefit from specifying the LHC center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair and the rapidity range considered.
[Figures and text] Notation for the overlap function and photon flux could be made more uniform across figures and text to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below and indicate the corresponding revisions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Results section (rapidity distributions and total cross sections): The statement that the process 'is, in principle, feasible' is not supported by any quantitative comparison of the predicted rates to LHC luminosities, detector acceptances, or estimated backgrounds. Without such anchoring, it remains unclear whether the computed cross sections would yield observable signals.

Authors: We agree that the current manuscript lacks explicit numerical anchoring to luminosities and backgrounds, which weakens the feasibility statement. The original emphasis was on the theoretical predictions under varied modeling assumptions. In the revised version we will add a short subsection with order-of-magnitude event-rate estimates that employ the published LHC luminosities for peripheral OO running together with typical J/Ψ reconstruction efficiencies drawn from existing PbPb analyses. This addition will make the feasibility claim quantitative while remaining within the scope of the paper. revision: yes
Referee: Modeling section (nuclear photon flux, overlap function, dipole-proton amplitude): Although several distinct assumptions are explored, the paper provides no external validation or comparison against measured photon fluxes or J/Ψ photoproduction data from other systems (e.g., pPb UPC or lighter-ion collisions). This leaves open the possibility that the true values lie outside the sampled range, potentially rendering the predicted rates unobservable and undermining both the feasibility and constraint claims.

Authors: The photon-flux and dipole-amplitude parametrizations we employ are taken from frameworks that have already been confronted with data in pPb ultraperipheral collisions and PbPb photoproduction. We will revise the modeling section to include explicit references to those prior validations and to state the range of parameters that reproduce existing measurements. Because no OO data yet exist, the paper remains predictive; the added discussion will nevertheless demonstrate that the explored model space is anchored to available experimental constraints rather than chosen arbitrarily. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: predictions generated from external phenomenological models

full rationale

The paper computes rapidity distributions and total cross sections for J/Ψ photoproduction in peripheral OO collisions by varying standard inputs: nuclear photon flux, overlap function, and dipole-proton scattering amplitude. These are treated as independent modeling choices drawn from the literature rather than fitted to the OO observables or redefined in terms of the target predictions. The feasibility statement follows directly from the numerical outputs exceeding plausible detection thresholds under those assumptions; no equation reduces the output to the input by construction, no self-citation chain is load-bearing for the central result, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior author work. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Insufficient information in the abstract to enumerate specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities. The work relies on standard modeling choices for photon flux, nuclear overlap, and dipole scattering that are drawn from prior literature without independent verification here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5448 in / 1189 out tokens · 60121 ms · 2026-05-13T04:57:17.072042+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[1]

36 TeV) for the rapidity ranges covered by a central ( − 2 ≤ yΨ ≤ 2) and a forward (2 ≤ yΨ ≤ 4

02 TeV)/σ J/ψ OO (√ sNN = 5. 36 TeV) for the rapidity ranges covered by a central ( − 2 ≤ yΨ ≤ 2) and a forward (2 ≤ yΨ ≤ 4. 5) detector, respectively. Our results indicate that the ra tio is sensitive to the description of the eﬀective nuclear photon ﬂux, dipole - proton scattering amplitude and overlap functions. Therefore, a future experimental analy s...

work page 2024
[2]

K. Yagi, T. Hatsuda and Y. Miake, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nu cl. Phys. Cosmol. 23, 1-446 (2005)

work page 2005
[3]

Busza, K

W. Busza, K. Rajagopal and W. van der Schee, Ann. Rev. Nucl. P art. Sci. 68, 339-376 (2018) 9

work page 2018
[4]

C. A. Bertulani and G. Baur, Phys. Rep. 163, 299 (1988); F. Krauss, M. Greiner and G. Soﬀ, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 39, 503 (1997); C. A. Bertulani, S. R. Klein and J. Nystrand, Ann. Rev . Nucl. Part. Sci. 55, 271 (2005); V. P. Goncalves and M. V. T. Machado, J. Phys. G 32, 295 (2006); A. J. Baltz et al. , Phys. Rept. 458, 1 (2008); J. G. Contreras and J. ...

work page 1988
[5]

S. R. Klein, J. Nystrand, Phys. Rev. C 60, 014903 (1999)

work page 1999
[6]

V. P. Goncalves and C. A. Bertulani, Phys. Rev. C 65, 054905 (2002)

work page 2002
[7]

Frankfurt, M

L. Frankfurt, M. Strikman and M. Zhalov, Phys. Lett. B 540, 220-226 (2002)

work page 2002
[8]

S. R. Klein and H. Mantysaari, Nature Rev. Phys. 1, no.11, 662-674 (2019)

work page 2019
[9]

J. L. Nagle and W. A. Zajc, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 211-235 (2018)

work page 2018
[10]

Brewer, A

J. Brewer, A. Mazeliauskas and W. van der Schee, [arXiv:2103.019 39 [hep-ph]]

work page
[11]

Nijs and W

G. Nijs and W. van der Schee, Phys. Rev. C 106, no.4, 044903 (2022)

work page 2022
[12]

V. P. Goncalves, B. D. Moreira and L. Santana, Phys. Rev. C 107, no.5, 055205 (2023)

work page 2023
[13]

K. J. Eskola, C. A. Flett, V. Guzey, T. L¨ oyt¨ ainen and H. Pauk kunen, Phys. Rev. C 107, no.4, 044912 (2023) [erratum: Phys. Rev. C 108, no.6, 069901 (2023)]

work page 2023
[14]

Cepila, J

J. Cepila, J. G. Contreras, M. Matas and A. Ridzikova, Phys. Re v. C 113, no.2, 2 (2026)

work page 2026
[15]

Hayrapetyan et al

A. Hayrapetyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, no.16, 162301 (2026)

work page 2026
[16]

Belyaev et al

A. Belyaev et al. [CMS], [arXiv:2602.21325 [nucl-ex]]

work page arXiv
[17]

Adam et al

J. Adam et al. [ALICE], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.22, 222301 (2016)

work page 2016
[18]

Adam et al

J. Adam et al. [STAR], Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, no.13, 132302 (2019)

work page 2019
[19]

Aaij et al

R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. C 105, no.3, L032201 (2022)

work page 2022
[20]

Acharya et al

S. Acharya et al. [ALICE], Phys. Lett. B 846, 137467 (2023)

work page 2023
[21]

Massacrier [ALICE], [arXiv:2407.09707 [nucl-ex]]

L. Massacrier [ALICE], [arXiv:2407.09707 [nucl-ex]]

work page arXiv
[22]

Biz´ e [ALICE], Phys

N. Biz´ e [ALICE], Phys. Proc. UPC 1, 18 (2024)

work page 2024
[23]

K/suppress lusek-Gawenda and A

M. K/suppress lusek-Gawenda and A. Szczurek, Phys. Rev. C93, no.4, 044912 (2016)

work page 2016
[24]

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, no.4, 044910 (2018)

work page 2018
[25]

M. B. Gay Ducati and S. Martins, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.5, 056014 (2017)

work page 2017
[26]

M. B. Gay Ducati and S. Martins, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.11, 116013 (2018)

work page 2018
[27]

W. Shi, W. Zha and B. Chen, Phys. Lett. B 777, 399-405 (2018)

work page 2018
[28]

W. Zha, L. Ruan, Z. Tang, Z. Xu and S. Yang, Phys. Lett. B 789, 238-242 (2019)

work page 2019
[29]

P. E. A. da Costa, A. V. Giannini, V. P. Goncalves and B. D. Moreir a, Phys. Rev. D 112, no.3, 034012 (2025)

work page 2025
[30]

V. M. Budnev, I. F. Ginzburg, G. V. Meledin and V. G. Serbo, Phy s. Rept. 15, 181 (1975)

work page 1975
[31]

C. W. De Jager, H. De Vries and C. De Vries, Atom. Data Nucl. Dat a Tabl. 14, 479 (1974) Erratum: [Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 16, 580 (1975)]. 10

work page 1974
[32]

Gelis, E

F. Gelis, E. Iancu, J. Jalilian-Marian and R. Venugopalan, Ann. Re v. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 463 (2010); H. Weigert, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 55, 461 (2005); J. Jalilian-Marian and Y. V. Kovchegov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 56, 104 (2006); A. Morreale and F. Salazar, Universe 7, no.8, 312 (2021)

work page 2010
[33]

R. J. Glauber, in Lecture in Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1, edited b y W. E. Brittin, L. G. Duham (Interscience, New York, 1959)

work page 1959
[34]

V. N. Gribov, Sov. Phys. JETP 29, 483 (1969); Sov. Phys. JETP 30, 709 (1970)

work page 1969
[35]

A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B 335, 115 (1990)

work page 1990
[36]

Armesto, Eur

N. Armesto, Eur. Phys. J. C 26, 35 (2013)

work page 2013
[37]

Kowalski, L

H. Kowalski, L. Motyka and G. Watt, Phys. Rev. D 74, 074016 (2006)

work page 2006
[38]

Watt and H

G. Watt and H. Kowalski, Phys. Rev. D 78, 014016 (2008)

work page 2008
[39]

Kowalski and D

H. Kowalski and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. D 68, 114005 (2003)

work page 2003
[40]

Kowalski, T

H. Kowalski, T. Lappi and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 022303 (2008)

work page 2008
[41]

A. H. Rezaeian, M. Siddikov, M. Van de Klundert and R. Venugopa lan, Phys. Rev. D 87, 034002 (2013)

work page 2013
[42]

Mantysaari and P

H. Mantysaari and P. Zurita, Phys. Rev. D 98, 036002 (2018) 11 σJ/ψ tot (µb ) ( − 2 ≤ yΨ ≤ 2) 5.36 T eV Dipole - proton model 10%–30% 30%–50% 50%–70% 70%–90% Eﬀective nuclear photon ﬂux: N (0)(ω,b ) bCGC 0.297 (0.291) 0.435 (0.425) 0.400 (0.391) 0.340 (0.333) IP-SAT 0.264 (0.239) 0.387 (0.350) 0.355 (0.321) 0.303 (0.274) IPnon-SAT 0.290 (0.266) 0.425 (0.3...

work page 2018