Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Probing Gluon Shadowing in Heavy Nuclei through Bayesian Reweighting of J/$\psi$ Photoproduction in Ultra-Peripheral Collisions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bayesian reweighting of coherent J/psi photoproduction data from RHIC and the LHC places the lead gluon suppression factor at about 0.60 at x = 10^-4.

desk verdict A competent but incremental Bayesian reweighting of EPPS21/nCTEQ15 with coherent J/psi UPC data; the central R_g^Pb ~ 0.60 result is plausible under its model, but the paper’s own figures show the simple mapping in Eq. (8) is strained at forward rapidity, and model uncertainties are not propagated. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09063 v1 pith:EV2W6MN7 submitted 2025-02-13 hep-ph hep-ex

Pengzhong Lu , Zebo Tang , Xin Wu , Wangmei Zha This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords gluonshadowingnuclearpartondistributionfunctionsBayesianreweightingcoherentJ/psiphotoproductionultra-peripheralcollisionsEPPS21nCTEQ15
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper aims to turn coherent J/psi photoproduction in ultra-peripheral heavy-ion collisions into a precision probe of gluon distributions inside heavy nuclei. The authors update the EPPS21 and nCTEQ15 nuclear parton distribution functions by Bayesian reweighting, using measured yields from RHIC (Au-Au) and the LHC (Pb-Pb) without relying on neutron-tagging calibrations. Their reweighted set yields a lead gluon modification factor $R_g^{Pb} \approx 0.60$ at $x = 10^{-4}$ and $Q^2 = 2.4$ GeV$^2$, and it sharply reduces the uncertainty band over $10^{-5} < x < 10^{-3}$. Direct gluon constraints in nuclei are scarce, so if the method holds, existing UPC measurements become a quantitative handle on gluon shadowing and a cross-check on neutron-tagging-based extractions.

What carries the argument

The work rests on two ingredients. The first is the impulse-approximation relation of Eq. (8): the coherent photonuclear cross section is the IA cross section multiplied by the square of the nuclear gluon modification factor, $\sigma'(y) = \sigma_{IA}(x_1) R_g^A(x_1)^2 + \sigma_{IA}(x_2) R_g^A(x_2)^2$, with $x_{1,2} = (M_{J/\psi}/\sqrt{s_{NN}}) e^{\pm y}$ encoding the two photon-source contributions. The second is Bayesian reweighting, which converts the Hessian error PDF sets into $N_{rep} = 10^4$ replicas, assigns each replica a weight from a chi-squared likelihood against the UPC data, and recomputes expectation values and variances. That procedure is what turns measured J/psi yields into posterior constraints on $R_g^A$ without a new global fit.

What would settle it

Measure coherent J/psi photoproduction at midrapidity at several collision energies so the two-photon-source ambiguity is absent, and compare the directly extracted lead suppression factor with the reweighted prediction: if the difference exceeds the quoted uncertainty band, the factorization ansatz in Eq. (8) is falsified. A similarly decisive check is to repeat the reweighting while letting the gamma-proton baseline parameters float; a large shift of the central $R_g^{Pb}$ would show the result is an artifact of the fixed baseline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that Bayesian reweighting of EPPS21 and nCTEQ15 with coherent J/psi photoproduction data from RHIC and the LHC produces a well-determined lead gluon suppression factor $R_g^{Pb}(x, Q^2 = 2.4\,\mathrm{GeV}^2) \approx 0.60$ at $x = 10^{-4}$, a large reduction of gluon-density uncertainties over $10^{-5} < x < 10^{-3}$, and reweighted predictions that match the UPC measurements across collision energies. The paper presents this as establishing coherent J/psi photoproduction as a precision tool for gluon nPDF extraction, complementary to ZDC-based neutron tagging. For gold, where data coverage is sparser, the updates are modest and consistent.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the full nuclear effect on coherent J/psi production is the square of the nPDF gluon suppression factor, so that no separate saturation, nuclear absorption, or form-factor energy dependence contributes; if any of those extra effects is sizeable, the extracted lead suppression factor of about 0.60 is biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reweighted EPPS21 and nCTEQ15 nPDFs describe the rapidity-differential coherent J/psi data at 200 GeV, 2.76 TeV, and 5.02 TeV more closely than the default sets, with much narrower uncertainty bands for lead.
  • The same reweighted sets predict a $W_{\gamma N}$-dependent cross section that agrees with neutron-tagging data at intermediate x but deviates at low and high x, which the paper reads as evidence that neutron-tagging-based extractions can be biased in forward rapidity regions.
  • Both nPDF families settle on $R_g^{Pb}(x=10^{-4},Q^2=2.4\,\mathrm{GeV}^2) \approx 0.60$, giving a concrete numeric target for gluon shadowing in lead.
  • The method bypasses the need to model Coulomb dissociation and neutron-emission probabilities, replacing that modeling with a data-driven reweighting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: applying the same reweighting pipeline to coherent Upsilon photoproduction would test whether the extracted suppression pattern persists at a higher hard scale, probing the scale dependence of gluon shadowing.
  • Editorial extension: because the gamma-proton baseline is held fixed, a rerun of the reweighting with C0 and delta varied within their errors would show whether the 0.60 central value is stable or partly set by the baseline normalization.
  • Editorial extension: future midrapidity coherent J/psi measurements at new LHC energies, where the two-source ambiguity is absent, provide a clean test that separates the reweighted-nPDF prediction from the neutron-tagging-based extraction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies Bayesian reweighting to the EPPS21 and nCTEQ15 nuclear parton distribution function sets, using coherent J/ψ photoproduction measurements in Au+Au and Pb+Pb ultra-peripheral collisions. The central claim is that the reweighted gluon modification factor for Pb is R_g^Pb ≈ 0.60 at x = 10^-4 and Q^2 = 2.4 GeV^2, with significantly reduced uncertainties over 10^-5 < x < 10^-3. The authors also argue that their reweighting approach, which avoids neutron tagging, can serve as an independent validation of the ZDC-based impact-parameter control method.

Significance. If the central extraction were robust, the paper would provide a useful complementary route to gluon nPDF constraints, using a perturbatively motivated probe (J/ψ photoproduction) rather than inclusive DIS. The Bayesian reweighting machinery with N_rep = 10^4 is standard, and the compilation of RHIC and LHC UPC data is valuable. However, the significance of the headline R_g^Pb value depends entirely on the validity of Eq. (8), which identifies the whole nuclear suppression with the square of the collinear nPDF ratio. The paper gives no cross-check against models with GPD/skewness or saturation corrections, so the extracted value is better interpreted as an effective suppression than as a direct measurement of nPDF gluon shadowing. The in-sample comparisons with the same data used for reweighting further weaken the validation claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [II.A, Eq. (8)] The central factorization σ'_AA→AAJ/ψ(y) = σ_IA(x1) R_g^A(x1)^2 + σ_IA(x2) R_g^A(x2)^2 assumes that the only nuclear effect on coherent J/ψ photoproduction is the collinear nPDF gluon modification. Exclusive J/ψ production at small t is proportional to the square of the gluon GPD at nonzero skewness, and dipole/saturation models predict a nuclear suppression that depends on dipole size and energy. If skewness or saturation corrections are non-negligible, the reported R_g^Pb ≈ 0.60 is an effective suppression that absorbs these effects rather than the nPDF gluon modification. Since the paper provides no test against a model that includes these effects, this assumption is load-bearing for the central claim and must be either justified with quantitative arguments or reframed as an effective-model extraction.
  2. [III, Eq. (13)] The covariance matrix in the chi-squared definition of Eq. (13) is described only qualitatively: the text says systematic uncertainties within each measurement are fully correlated across rapidity bins, but it does not specify how systematics are combined across experiments, how common normalization or luminosity uncertainties are treated, or how the photon-flux and nuclear-form-factor uncertainties enter. The claimed large reduction in the R_g uncertainties depends directly on this covariance construction, and the paper is not reproducible without an explicit definition of the covariance matrix and a sensitivity study of its choices.
  3. [III, Figs. 2 and 3] The agreement between the reweighted predictions and experimental data is presented as evidence that the method works, but several of the data points compared are the same measurements used in the reweighting (e.g., STAR data for Au and the ALICE/CMS Pb data). For those points the comparison is in-sample and improves by construction, so it cannot validate the method. The only out-of-sample comparison is the neutron-tagged data not included in the fit, but even that comparison shares the same IA photon-flux and gamma-p baseline model assumptions. The paper should clearly separate in-sample fitted points from genuine out-of-sample predictions and soften the claim of independent validation.
  4. [II.A, Eq. (6) and Table I] The gamma-p baseline parameters C0 and delta in Eq. (6) have quoted uncertainties, and the Woods-Saxon parameters in Table I carry experimental uncertainties, yet all are treated as fixed inputs. The reweighted uncertainty bands in Figs. 1-3 therefore propagate only the nPDF replica spread and not the model uncertainties from the gamma-p baseline, photon flux, or nuclear form factor. Since the paper's headline is precision gluon nPDF constraints, the sensitivity of R_g^Pb to these fixed inputs should be quantified or explicitly stated as a limitation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II.A, Eq. (2)] The definition of omega_gamma as (1/2) M_J/psi e^{±y} is introduced without a full explanation of the two-component photon-source convention; this convention becomes crucial in Eq. (8) and should be stated more explicitly.
  2. [Figures 1-2] There are several typographical issues: 'Impluse approximation' appears in Figure 1, and the legend text 'Au, -Au2' in Figure 2 appears corrupted and should be corrected.
  3. [III, Fig. 3] The legend label 'Data' is ambiguous because the figure mixes measurements used in the reweighting, neutron-tagged measurements not used in the fit, and approximate open-circle values; the caption should specify which points enter the reweighting and which are postdictions.
  4. [II.B, Eq. (12)] The exponent (1/2)(n-1) in the weight formula depends on the effective number of data points n, but the text does not state whether n counts all measurements, per-experiment subsets, or an effective chi-squared degrees of freedom; this matters for the width of the weights.
  5. [References] Reference [34] is a general Monte Carlo survey, not the original Bayesian-reweighting method; the authors should cite the original method papers [18-21] for the weight formula or explain the connection more explicitly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Posterior fits are presented as 'reweighted predictions' and as an independent validation of neutron tagging, even though the same datasets were used in the Bayesian reweighting.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III, discussion of Figures 1 and 2]
    "Overall, the reweighted predictions–both EPPS21 (blue) and nCTEQ15 (orange)–closely match the measurements across all rapidities for the three collision energies."

    The reweighting was explicitly performed with these measurements: 'we performed a global Bayesian reweighting using the combined √sNN = 2.76 TeV [37, 38] and √sNN = 5.02 TeV [17, 39–41] datasets, incorporating all available measurements. Similarly, for the Au nucleus, a Bayesian reweighting was performed using the √sNN = 200 GeV datasets [35, 36].' The 'reweighted predictions' in Figures 1 and 2 are posterior expectations computed from Eq. (14) with weights chosen to minimize χ² against exactly those data points. Their agreement with the measurements is therefore a property of the fit, not an independent prediction.

  2. self definitional [Section I, Introduction; Section III, reweighting data selection]
    "providing a complementary method for gluon nPDF extraction while serving as an independent validation of the ZDC-based impact parameter control approach."

    The claimed 'independent validation' compares reweighted nPDF predictions with neutron-tagged measurements from CMS [17], STAR [35, 36], and ALICE [42] in Figures 2 and 3. But those same neutron-tagged datasets are among the 'all available measurements' included in the reweighting. Thus the validation dataset is the same as the constraint dataset; the agreement is built into the posterior by construction and cannot independently validate the neutron-tagging method.

full rationale

The central R_g^Pb ≈ 0.60 result is an honest Bayesian-reweighting output: it is the posterior gluon modification factor conditioned on the UPC data, so calling it an extraction is legitimate. The circularity is in the presentation: agreement of the 'reweighted predictions' with the data used to define the weights is not evidence, and the claim of an 'independent validation' of neutron tagging is contradicted by the inclusion of the neutron-tagged data in the reweighting. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: the γp baseline in Eq. (6) comes from an external empirical parametrization, and EPPS21/nCTEQ15 are independent global nPDF priors. The model assumption in Eq. (8), that all nuclear suppression enters through R_g(x)², is a physics assumption and a correctness risk, not circularity. Because the main 'predictions' and the validation claim reduce to in-sample posterior agreement, the circularity score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the standard coherent photoproduction framework (photon flux, impulse approximation, nPDF modification) plus Bayesian reweighting priors. No new entities are introduced. The main unquantified inputs are the gamma-p baseline parameters and the covariance model, both carried over from prior work.

free parameters (2)
  • C0 = 80.2 nb/GeV^2 (from Eq. 6)
    Empirical normalization of the gamma-p to J/psi cross section from fits to RHIC/LHC proton data; it sets the baseline against which R_g is defined, and its uncertainty is not propagated.
  • delta = 0.40 (from Eq. 6)
    Power-law exponent in the same gamma-p parametrization; the central extracted R_g depends on it through the impulse approximation baseline.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The coherent gamma-A cross section at t=0 equals A^2 times the gamma-p cross section (Impulse Approximation, Eq. 5).
    Assumes incoherent nucleon contributions cancel and that only the coherent sum matters; standard for coherent vector meson production but not exact.
  • domain assumption The nuclear modification of the coherent J/psi cross section is entirely captured by [R_g^A(x)]^2 from nPDFs (Eq. 8).
    Neglects saturation, nuclear absorption, and other final-state effects; this is the load-bearing model assumption.
  • domain assumption Hessian nPDF uncertainties are Gaussian and can be converted to replicas by Eq. (10) with random normal draws.
    Standard conversion, but the true posterior of EPPS21/nCTEQ15 may not be Gaussian.
  • domain assumption Experimental uncertainties are Gaussian with a known covariance; systematic uncertainties within each measurement are fully correlated across rapidity bins.
    This covariance model enters the chi-squared weights in Eq. (13); the covariance matrix is not provided.
  • domain assumption The gamma-p parametrization of Eq. (6) from Ref. [14] is valid over the entire W range used in the reweighting.
    Extrapolating the fit to nuclear targets and to the considered W ranges carries unquantified uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Gluon Shadowing in Heavy Nuclei through Bayesian Reweighting of J/$\psi$ Photoproduction in Ultra-Peripheral Collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EV2W6MN7

@misc{pith2026250209063,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Gluon Shadowing in Heavy Nuclei through Bayesian Reweighting of J/$\psi$ Photoproduction in Ultra-Peripheral Collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EV2W6MN7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09063}
}
abstract

The gluon distribution in nuclei plays a pivotal role in understanding quantum chromodynamics (QCD) under extreme nuclear environments, yet remains poorly constrained compared to quark distributions. Coherent \jpsi photoproduction in ultra-peripheral heavy-ion collisions ($\gamma + A \rightarrow \mathrm{J}/\psi + A$) provides a unique solution to this challenge, serving as a sensitive probe of nuclear gluon densities. In this study, we perform Bayesian reweighting on the EPPS21 and nCTEQ15 sets of nuclear parton distribution functions (nPDF) by incorporating coherent \jpsi photoproduction measurements from both RHIC and LHC. The Bayesian-reweighted gluon modification factors $\mathrm{R_g^{A}}(x, Q^2 = 2.4\ \mathrm{GeV}^2)$ reveal pronounced nuclear shadowing in the Pb nuclei, with $\mathrm{R_g^{\mathrm{Pb}}} \approx 0.60$ at $x = 10^{-4}$, while simultaneously achieving a great reduction of the uncertainties in the density of the gluon across the critical Bjorken-$x$ range $10^{-5} < x < 10^{-3}$ compared to initial predictions of the nPDF. This work establishes coherent \jpsi photoproduction as a precision tool for gluon nPDF extraction, overcoming traditional deep-inelastic scattering limitations through perturbative QCD-calibrated probes. The constrained nPDFs demonstrate improved consistency with the experimental data across collider energies, particularly in the shadowing-dominated regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09063 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The integrated coherent J [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The nuclear gluon suppression factors R [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dulat, T.-J

    S. Dulat, T.-J. Hou, J. Gao, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, C. Schmidt, D. Stump, and C. P. Yuan, New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 93, 033006 (2016), arXiv:1506.07443 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    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. C 75, 204 (2015), arXiv:1412.3989 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Accardi, L

    A. Accardi, L. T. Brady, W. Melnitchouk, J. F. Owens, and N. Sato, Constraints on large- x parton distri- butions from new weak boson production and deep- inelastic scattering data, Phys. Rev. D93, 114017 (2016), arXiv:1602.03154 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Alekhin et al., HERAFitter, Eur

    S. Alekhin et al., HERAFitter, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 304 (2015), arXiv:1410.4412 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Alekhin, J

    S. Alekhin, J. Bl¨ umlein, S. Moch, and R. Placakyte, Par- ton distribution functions, αs, and heavy-quark masses for LHC Run II, Phys. Rev. D 96, 014011 (2017), arXiv:1701.05838 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    R. D. Ball et al. (NNPDF), Parton distributions from high-precision collider data, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 663 (2017), arXiv:1706.00428 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Busza, K

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, Heavy Ion Collisions: The Big Picture, and the Big Questions, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 339 (2018), arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), The ALICE experiment: a journey through QCD, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 813 (2024), arXiv:2211.04384 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Adams et al

    J. Adams et al. (STAR), Experimental and theoretical challenges in the search for the quark gluon plasma: The STAR Collaboration’s critical assessment of the evidence from RHIC collisions, Nucl. Phys. A 757, 102 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0501009

    2005 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Adcox et al

    K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX), Formation of dense partonic matter in relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions at RHIC: Experimental evaluation by the PHENIX collaboration, Nucl. Phys. A 757, 184 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410003

    2005 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J. J. Aubert et al. (European Muon), The ratio of the nucleon structure functions F 2n for iron and deuterium, Phys. Lett. B 123, 275 (1983)

    1983

  4. [12]

    Stavreva, I

    T. Stavreva, I. Schienbein, F. Arleo, K. Kovarik, F. Ol- ness, J. Y. Yu, and J. F. Owens, Probing gluon and heavy-quark nuclear PDFs with gamma + Q production in pA collisions, JHEP 01, 152, arXiv:1012.1178 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    G. Soff, M. Vidovic, M. Greiner, S. M. Schneider, and D. Hilberg, Photon induced processes in ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions, NATO Sci. Ser. B 335, 321 (1994)

    1994

  6. [14]

    Z. Cao, L. Ruan, Z. Tang, Z. Xu, C. Yang, S. Yang, and W. Zha, Photoproduction of J/ ψ in non-single- diffractive p+p collisions, Chin. Phys. C 43, 064103 (2019), arXiv:1810.10685 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Guzey and M

    V. Guzey and M. Zhalov, Exclusive J/ψ production in ultraperipheral collisions at the LHC: constrains on the gluon distributions in the proton and nuclei, JHEP 10, 207, arXiv:1307.4526 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    J. G. Contreras, Gluon shadowing at small x from coher- ent J/ψ photoproduction data at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 96, 015203 (2017), arXiv:1610.03350 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), Probing Small Bjorken- x Nuclear Gluonic Structure via Coherent J/ ψ Pho- toproduction in Ultraperipheral Pb-Pb Collisions at sNN=5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 262301 (2023), arXiv:2303.16984 [nucl-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    W. T. Giele and S. Keller, Implications of hadron collider observables on parton distribution function uncertainties, Phys. Rev. D 58, 094023 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9803393

    1998 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Watt and R

    G. Watt and R. S. Thorne, Study of Monte Carlo ap- proach to experimental uncertainty propagation with MSTW 2008 PDFs, JHEP 08, 052, arXiv:1205.4024 [hep- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    R. D. Ball, V. Bertone, F. Cerutti, L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, A. Guffanti, N. P. Hartland, J. I. Latorre, J. Rojo, and M. Ubiali, Reweighting and Unweighting of Parton Distributions and the LHC W lepton asymme- try data, Nucl. Phys. B 855, 608 (2012), arXiv:1108.1758 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    N. Sato, J. F. Owens, and H. Prosper, Bayesian Reweighting for Global Fits, Phys. Rev. D 89, 114020 (2014), arXiv:1310.1089 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    S. R. Klein and J. Nystrand, Exclusive vector meson pro- duction in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 60, 014903 (1999)

    1999

  15. [23]

    S. R. Klein and J. Nystrand, Photoproduction of quarko- nium in proton-proton and nucleus-nucleus collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 142003 (2004)

    2004

  16. [24]

    Krauss, M

    F. Krauss, M. Greiner, and G. Soff, Photon and gluon in- duced processes in relativistic heavy ion collisions, Prog. 9 Part. Nucl. Phys. 39, 503 (1997)

    1997

  17. [25]

    Barrett and D

    R. Barrett and D. Jackson, Nuclear Sizes and Structure, International series of monographs on physics (Clarendon Press, 1977)

    1977

  18. [26]

    W. Zha, S. R. Klein, R. Ma, L. Ruan, T. Todoroki, Z. Tang, Z. Xu, C. Yang, Q. Yang, and S. Yang, Co- herent J/ψ photoproduction in hadronic heavy-ion colli- sions, Phys. Rev. C 97, 044910 (2018), arXiv:1705.01460 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    K lusek-Gawenda and A

    M. K lusek-Gawenda and A. Szczurek, Photoproduction of j/ψ mesons in peripheral and semicentral heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. C 93, 044912 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Kryshen, M

    E. Kryshen, M. Strikman, and M. Zhalov, Photoproduc- tion of J/ ψ with neutron tagging in ultraperipheral col- lisions of nuclei at RHIC and at the LHC, Phys. Rev. C 108, 024904 (2023), arXiv:2303.12052 [hep-ph]

    2023

  21. [29]

    S. R. Klein, J. Nystrand, J. Seger, Y. Gorbunov, and J. Butterworth, STARlight: A Monte Carlo simula- tion program for ultra-peripheral collisions of relativis- tic ions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 212, 258 (2017), arXiv:1607.03838 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Sal- gado, EPPS21: a global QCD analysis of nuclear PDFs, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 413 (2022), arXiv:2112.12462 [hep- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kovarik et al., nCTEQ15 - Global analysis of nu- clear parton distributions with uncertainties in the CTEQ framework, Phys

    K. Kovarik et al., nCTEQ15 - Global analysis of nu- clear parton distributions with uncertainties in the CTEQ framework, Phys. Rev. D 93, 085037 (2016), arXiv:1509.00792 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht, M. Sch¨ onherr, and G. Watt, LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 132 (2015), arXiv:1412.7420 [hep- ph]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Kusina, F

    A. Kusina, F. Lyonnet, D. B. Clark, E. Godat, T. Jezo, K. Kovarik, F. I. Olness, I. Schienbein, and J. Y. Yu, Vector boson production in pPb and PbPb collisions at the LHC and its impact on nCTEQ15 PDFs, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 488 (2017), arXiv:1610.02925 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Zhang, Modern monte carlo methods for efficient un- certainty quantification and propagation: A survey, Wi- ley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 13, e1539 (2021)

    J. Zhang, Modern monte carlo methods for efficient un- certainty quantification and propagation: A survey, Wi- ley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 13, e1539 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Exclusive J/ψ, ψ(2s), and e+e− pair production in Au+Au ultraperipheral col- lisions at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. C 110, 014911 (2024), arXiv:2311.13632 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M. I. Abdulhamid et al. (STAR), Observation of Strong Nuclear Suppression in Exclusive J/ ψ Photoproduction in Au+Au Ultraperipheral Collisions at RHIC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 052301 (2024), arXiv:2311.13637 [nucl- ex]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Abelev et al

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), Coherent J/ψ photoproduc- tion in ultra-peripheral Pb-Pb collisions at √sN N= 2.76 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 718, 1273 (2013), arXiv:1209.3715 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Coherent J/ψ photopro- duction in ultra-peripheral PbPb collisions at √sN N= 2.76 TeV with the CMS experiment, Phys. Lett. B 772, 489 (2017), arXiv:1605.06966 [nucl-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Coherent J/ψ and ψ′ pho- toproduction at midrapidity in ultra-peripheral Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5 .02 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 712 (2021), arXiv:2101.04577 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Coherent J/ ψ photoproduc- tion at forward rapidity in ultra-peripheral Pb-Pb colli- sions at √sNN = 5 .02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 798, 134926 (2019), arXiv:1904.06272 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Aaij et al.(LHCb), Study of coherent J/ψ production in lead-lead collisions at √sNN = 5 TeV, JHEP 07, 117, arXiv:2107.03223 [hep-ex]

    R. Aaij et al.(LHCb), Study of coherent J/ψ production in lead-lead collisions at √sNN = 5 TeV, JHEP 07, 117, arXiv:2107.03223 [hep-ex]

  34. [42]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Energy dependence of co- herent photonuclear production of J/ ψ mesons in ultra- peripheral Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV, JHEP 10, 119, arXiv:2305.19060 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Study of exclusive photoproduc- tion of charmonium in ultra-peripheral lead-lead colli- sions, JHEP 06, 146, arXiv:2206.08221 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    M. D. Sokoloff, J. C. Anjos, J. A. Appel, S. B. Bracker, T. E. Browder, L. M. Cremaldi, J. R. Elliott, C. O. Es- cobar, P. Estabrooks, M. C. Gibney, G. F. Hartner, P. E. Karchin, B. R. Kumar, M. J. Losty, G. J. Luste, P. M. Mantsch, J. F. Martin, S. McHugh, S. R. Menary, R. J....

    1986

  37. [45]

    Guzey, E

    V. Guzey, E. Kryshen, M. Strikman, and M. Zhalov, Nu- clear suppression from coherent J/ψ photoproduction at the Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Lett. B 816, 136202 (2021), arXiv:2008.10891 [hep-ph]

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.