Observation of exclusive charmonium production and gamma+gamma to mu+mu- in p+pbar collisions at sqrt{s} = 1.96 TeV

CDF Collaboration: T. Aaltonen; et al

REVIEW

Observation of exclusive charmonium production and gamma+gamma to mu+mu- in p+pbar collisions at sqrt{s} = 1.96 TeV

CDF Collaboration: T. Aaltonen, et al

High Energy Physics - Experiment · Submitted 7 Feb 2009 · 29 references

Pith's verdict: A solid, real first observation of exclusive charmonium photoproduction in hadron-hadron collisions; the absolute normalizations and the χc0 assignment carry more model dependence than the headline numbers suggest.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 11, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID0902.1271 (version 4)

Pith IDEZYVXLLO, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationCDF Collaboration: T. Aaltonen, et al. "Observation of exclusive charmonium production and gamma+gamma to mu+mu- in p+pbar collisions at sqrt{s} = 1.96 TeV." arXiv:0902.1271 (2009). https://pith.science/paper/EZYVXLLO

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Bottom line: the first-observation claim is real and well supported, and the paper is worth your time if you care about diffraction or exclusive production. The absolute cross sections are softer than the quoted errors imply, but nothing here threatens the existence claim. This is CDF at its competent best, not a stretch paper. The new physics is genuine: exclusive J/ψ and ψ(2S) photoproduction seen for the first time in hadron-hadron collisions, exclusive χc0 → J/ψ+γ via double pomeron exchange, and the γγ → μ+μ− continuum. The analysis is clean. The mass peaks sit on a continuum whose shape is fixed by the QED spectrum times acceptance, not fitted, and the continuum normalization lands at 2.7 ± 0.5 pb against a 2.18 pb prediction. Backgrounds are itemized with uncertainties. The generators (lpair, starlight, chicmc) are external and not tuned to this dataset, so the circularity worry is low. On the exclusivity efficiency: the reader flags ε_exc = 0.093 as an unconstrained 10.8× factor with no cross-check. That is not quite right. The QED continuum is measured with the same ε_exc and compared to a parameter-free prediction, which pins ε_exc to roughly ±20%. The real complaint is narrower: 'negligible uncertainty' is asserted rather than shown, and the quoted ±0.52 nb J/ψ systematic does not visibly carry that ~20% normalization term. That shifts the absolute numbers, not the observation. The genuinely weaker number is the χc0 cross section. The 65 J/ψ-plus-shower events are assigned to χc0 with χc1 and χc2 assumed negligible and no quantified systematic, the photon is a loose E_T > 80 MeV shower, and the γγ → χc0 alternative is not discussed. The paper does acknowledge the χc1/χc2 assumption, so this is a known soft edge rather than a hidden one, but it deserves a real systematic. The odderon limit subtracts a theoretical 3.0 ± 0.3 nb rather than a measured photoproduction value; the text says so, and the limit is honest about its dependence. Minor: the abstract quotes 75 ± 14 nb for χc0 while the text gives 76 ± 10 ± 10 — worth reconciling. Who should read it: anyone working on exclusive production, forward proton spectrometers, or LHC Higgs-via-DPE estimates, since the χc0 rate is the calibration handle. Recommendation: yes, send it to referees. It is a publishable measurement with a robust core and addressable secondary issues.

Referee report

Significance

If the result holds, it establishes in hadron-hadron collisions a mechanism previously studied only in ep scattering at HERA, and it does so with cross sections and a psi(2S)/J/psi ratio (R = 0.14 +/- 0.05) consistent with the HERA value. The chi_c0 measurement is the more consequential number for the future: it is a direct empirical anchor for the two-gluon-exchange calculational chain used to predict exclusive Higgs production at the LHC, and the paper states that connection explicitly. The paper also has real methodological strengths that deserve credit: the QED continuum is not merely background but an in-situ benchmark with a sub-percent theoretical prediction, and the use of externally validated generators (lpair, starlight, chicmc) rather than fits to this dataset keeps the acceptance correction non-circular. The odderon limit is a falsifiable, quantitative statement that can be tested by other experiments. The event-counting bookkeeping is internally consistent: 286 + 39 + 77 = 402 no-shower events, and 65 + 8 = 73 shower events, matching the text.

Major objections (3)

[Event selection; Table I] The exclusivity efficiency is quoted as epsilon_exc = 0.093 'with negligible uncertainty' and enters every cross section as a factor of about 10.8. The manuscript does not show how this number is bounded, and no corresponding term is visible in the systematic uncertainties of Table I. The one empirical handle the paper has is the QED continuum, which is measured with the same factor and agrees with the parameter-free prediction at 2.7 +/- 0.5 pb versus 2.18 +/- 0.01 pb, i.e. a ratio of 1.24 +/- 0.19. That comparison constrains epsilon_exc at roughly the 20% level, which is larger than the 13% total systematic quoted for the J/psi. The authors should state explicitly how the 'negligible' characterization is justified, whether the QED comparison is being used as the bound, and whether a common normalization term of that size is or is not included in the quoted systematic errors. This does not threaten the existence claim, which rests on the mass peaks and the exclusivity selection, but it does affect the precision claimed for the absolute cross sections.
[chi_c0 selection and cross section] The 65 J/psi-plus-shower events are assigned wholesale to chi_c0, with chi_c1 and chi_c2 'assumed negligible' and no systematic assigned to that assumption, even though the manuscript itself notes that chi_c1 may occur with off-shell gluons and that the M(J/psi + gamma) resolution cannot separate the states. The photon is a loose E_EMT > 80 MeV shower, and the 17 +/- 4% total photon inefficiency (conversion plus dead regions) propagates directly into the 76 nb number. Two additions are needed: a quantified systematic for the spin-assignment assumption, and a discussion of the C = +1 gamma gamma -> chi_c0 channel, which is not mentioned anywhere in the paper despite being an obvious competitor at this photon virtuality. Given that the chi_c0 cross section is the number the paper uses to constrain LHC Higgs predictions, the assumption deserves more than a sentence.
[Odderon limit] The 95% C.L. limit dsigma/dy|y=0 (J/psi, O/IP) < 2.3 nb is quoted without any description of how it is constructed. From the numbers given (measured 3.92 +/- 0.62 +/- 0.52 nb, assumed photoproduction 3.0 +/- 0.3 nb) the result is reproducible as a one-sided Gaussian limit on the difference, 0.92 + 1.64 x 0.81 = 2.25 nb, but the reader should not have to reverse-engineer this. The manuscript should state the procedure, the treatment of the 0.3 nb theory uncertainty (folding it in would widen the limit), and the fact that the limit is on the excess over an assumed photoproduction value rather than on an absolute odderon cross section. It should also note the sensitivity to that assumption: with the 3.4 nb prediction of Ref. [22] the limit would be roughly 1.9 nb.

Minor objections (6)

[Abstract versus Table I] The uncertainty bookkeeping between the abstract and the text is not self-consistent. The abstract quotes 3.92 +/- 0.62 nb, whereas the quadrature sum of the text's 0.25(stat) and 0.52(syst) is 0.58; the abstract value is reproduced only if a 6% luminosity term is added on top. The Table I caption states that 'the cross sections include a 6% luminosity uncertainty', which would make the abstract addition a double count. The same pattern appears for chi_c0 (76 +/- 10 +/- 10 in the text, 75 +/- 14 in the abstract). Please state once, unambiguously, whether the quoted systematic errors include luminosity, and make the abstract and text agree.
[Table I] Several entries need cleaning: 'Fragmention(%)' should read 'Fragmentation(%)'; 'B.sigmaFKR(pb)' uses a notation that is never defined in the caption; and the 'B -> mu+mu-' row is expressed in percent for some classes and as a bare number (0.076 +/- 0.007) for chi_c0, which invites misreading.
[Footnote 1] The rapidity definition is garbled as 'y = -ln E+pzE-pz'. It should be written as y = (1/2) ln[(E + p_z)/(E - p_z)], with the factor of one half and the parentheses restored.
[Figure 2] The fit-parameter box printed inside the figure reports values such as p1 = 0.00 +/- 3.09 and p0 = 4.31 +/- 72.35, which are uninformative and clutter the plot; the caption already states that only normalizations float. Consider removing the box. Also check that the main-panel (10 MeV/c^2) and inset (100 MeV/c^2) binnings are stated consistently with the axis labels.
[Text, photoproduction results] The chi_c0 cross section is given as 76 nb in the text and 75 nb in the abstract; please use one value. Similarly, 'starlight' and 'lpair' are capitalized inconsistently (STARLIGHT/LPAIR are the generator names).
[Event selection] The paper correctly notes that no forward proton detectors were available and that exclusivity relies on the BSC veto. It would help the reader to state explicitly, in the same place, the acceptance for a diffractive dissociation that escapes the 5.4 < |eta| < 5.9 BSC coverage, since the 0.14 +/- 0.02 probability quoted for fragmentation products beyond |eta| > 7.4 is the relevant number and is currently buried in the background paragraph.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

CDF reports the first observation in proton-antiproton collisions of exclusive charmonium production, where the colliding hadrons survive intact and a single J/psi, psi(2S) or chi_c0 appears in the middle of the detector.

The reading

The paper asks whether the clean, two-body-like reactions that produce a single charmonium state in the middle of the detector — with both the proton and antiproton emerging unbroken — actually occur in hadron-hadron collisions, and whether they occur at the rate expected if a photon from one beam scatters off the other proton. The authors select events with exactly two opposite-charge muons in the mass window $[3.0, 4.0]$ GeV/$c^2$ and nothing else in the detector, then fit the mass spectrum with three fixed shapes: a $J/ψ$ peak, a $ψ(2S)$ peak, and a continuum whose shape is predicted by quantum electrodynamics. The peaks are there, and the continuum matches the QED prediction for $γγ → μ^+μ^-$ to within uncertainties, which is what makes the whole event sample believable as genuinely exclusive. Adding one photon candidate to the same selection yields a sample consistent with $χ_{c0} → J/ψ + γ$ produced by two-gluon (pomeron) exchange. The payoff, if the interpretation holds, is that the photon-proton scattering mechanism long studied at electron-proton colliders also operates in hadron-hadron collisions, and that the measured $χ_{c0}$ rate directly constrains how often an exclusive Higgs boson should be produced at the LHC.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the exclusivity requirement: the event must contain two opposite-charge muons with $p_T > 1.4$ GeV/$c$ and $|η| < 0.6$ and no other particle anywhere in the detector, with forward beam-shower counters vetoing proton fragmentation out to $|η| < 7.4$. That single requirement converts a busy hadron collider into a near-elastic-scattering experiment, and the paper's confidence rests on the mass fit that follows: two Gaussians at the known charmonium masses with resolution-determined widths, plus a continuum whose shape is the QED $γγ → μ^+μ^-$ spectrum multiplied by the simulated acceptance and efficiency, with only normalizations floating. Because the continuum shape is predicted rather than fitted, the agreement of the data with it above the $J/ψ$ and outside the $ψ(2S)$ window is an independent check that the sample is what the selection claims. The physics interpretation is carried by the exchange picture: a photon emitted by one hadron scattering off the other gives $γ + p → J/ψ + p$, while two colour-singlet gluons (a pomeron) colliding gives $χ_{c0}$ via $gg → χ_{c0}$, the same two-gluon fusion that in the Higgs case would give $p + H + p$.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The collaboration reports the observation of $p + p̄ → p + X + p̄$ with $X$ a centrally produced $J/ψ$, $ψ(2S)$ or $χ_{c0}$, together with the QED process $γγ → μ^+μ^-$, in $p̄p$ collisions at $√s = 1.96$ TeV using $1.48$ fb$^{-1}$ of CDF II data. The measured cross sections at zero rapidity are $dσ/dy|_{y=0} = 3.92 ± 0.25(stat) ± 0.52(syst)$ nb for the $J/ψ$, $0.53 ± 0.09 ± 0.10$ nb for the $ψ(2S)$, $76 ± 10 ± 10$ nb for the $χ_{c0}$, and a continuum cross section of $2.7 ± 0.3 ± 0.4$ pb for $|η(μ^±)| < 0.6$ and $M_{μμ} ∈ [3.0, 4.0]$ GeV/$c^2$. The $J/ψ$ and $ψ(2S)$ numbers agree with photoproduction predictions and with the HERA measurements at comparable photon-proton energy, and their ratio $R = ψ(2S)/J/ψ = 0.14 ± 0.05$ matches the HERA value. The authors state that exclusive vector-meson production through elastic photoproduction, $γ + p → J/ψ(ψ(2S)) + p$, is observed here for the first time in hadron-hadron collisions. They also convert the agreement between the measured and expected $J/ψ$ rates into a 95% C.L. upper limit of $2.3$ nb on any odderon-exchange contribution to exclusive $J/ψ$ production.

Load-bearing premise

Every cross section in the paper is divided by a single measured number, the exclusivity efficiency $ε_{exc} = 0.093$, quoted with negligible uncertainty and obtained from generic bunch-crossing triggers rather than from a process of known rate; if that number is off, or if the noise and pileup environment of real signal events differs from that of the triggers used to measure it, all quoted cross sections shift together by the same factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Exclusive photoproduction of vector mesons, previously measured only in electron-proton collisions, is confirmed to occur in hadron-hadron collisions at comparable photon-proton energy, so the photon flux of a proton can be treated as a usable beam at a hadron collider.
The observed $χ_{c0}$ rate, produced through two-gluon exchange, validates the two-gluon fusion mechanism that underlies proposed exclusive Higgs production at the LHC and tightens the allowed range for the $p + p → p + H + p$ cross section.
The QED continuum $γγ → μ^+μ^-$ at a measured $2.7$ pb provides a calculable standard candle that can calibrate forward proton spectrometers and luminosity monitors in future exclusive measurements.
The $95\%$ C.L. limit of $2.3$ nb on odderon exchange constrains three-gluon colour-singlet exchange models, which predicted an odderon-to-photon ratio of roughly $0.3$ to $0.6$ in exclusive $J/ψ$ production.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the same selection that produces the charmonium peaks also produces a continuum matching a parameter-free QED prediction, the analysis has an internal calibration of its acceptance and efficiency that does not depend on the simulation of the signal process itself; future exclusive analyses could exploit this more explicitly than the paper does.
The handful of $J/ψ$ events with transverse momentum above $1.4$ GeV/$c$, where the photoproduction simulation predicts none, is the natural place to look for a non-exclusive or odderon component; a forward-proton-tagged measurement at the LHC could separate these event by event rather than statistically.
If the odderon limit holds, the difference between $p̄p$ and $pp$ exclusive charmonium rates should be small, which is a checkable prediction for LHC $pp$ data taken at the same photon-proton energy.
The ratio $ψ(2S)/J/ψ$ agreeing with the electron-proton value suggests that the photon-emitting proton behaves the same way in both collision types, an assumption worth testing directly with tagged protons rather than inferred through simulations.

Original abstract

We have observed the reactions p+pbar --> p+X+pbar, with X being a centrally produced J/psi, psi(2S) or chi_c0, and gamma+gamma --> mu+mu-, in proton- antiproton collisions at sqrt{s} = 1.96 TeV using the Run II Collider Detector at Fermilab. The event signature requires two oppositely charged muons, each with pseudorapidity |eta| < 0.6, with M(mumu) in [3.0,4.0] GeV/c2, and either no other particles, or one additional photon, detected. The J/psi and the psi(2S) are prominent, on a continuum consistent with the QED process gamma+gamma --> mu+mu-. Events with a J/psi and an associated photon candidate are consistent with exclusive chi_c0 production through double pomeron exchange. The exclusive vector meson production is as expected for elastic photo- production, gamma+p --> J/psi(psi(2S)) + p, which is observed here for the first time in hadron-hadron collisions. The cross sections ds/dy(y=0) for p + pbar --> p + X + pbar with X = J/psi, psi(2S) orchi_c0 are 3.92+/-0.62 nb, 0.53+/-0.14 nb, and 75+/-14 nb respectively. The cross section for the continuum, with |eta(mu+/-)| < 0.6 and M(mumu) in [3.0,4.0] GeV/c2, is 2.7+/-0.5 pb, consistent with QED predictions. We put an upper limit on the cross section for odderon exchange in J/psi production: ds/dy(y=0) (J/psi_O/IP) < 2.3 nb at 95% C.L.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 6,807 input tokens, $0.0003 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.91 · states limitation 0.72 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.09 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.70 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v4. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We have observed the reactions p+pbar --> p+X+pbar, with X being a centrally produced J/psi, psi(2S) or chi_c0, and gamma+gamma --> mu+mu-, in proton- antiproton collisions at sqrt{s} = 1.96 TeV using the Run II Collider Detector at Fermilab. The event signature requires two oppositely charged muons, each with pseudorapidity |eta| < 0.6, with M(mumu) in [3.0,4.0] GeV/c2, and either no other particles, or one additional photon, detected. The J/psi and the psi(2S) are prominent, on a continuum consistent with the QED process gamma+gamma --> mu+mu-. Events with a J/psi and an associated photon candidate are consistent with exclusive chi_c0 production through double pomeron exchange. The exclusive vector meson production is as expected for elastic photo- production, gamma+p --> J/psi(psi(2S)) + p, which is observed here for the first time in hadron-hadron collisions. The cross sections ds/dy(y=0) for p + pbar --> p + X + pbar with X = J/psi, psi(2S) orchi_c0 are 3.92+/-0.62 nb, 0.53+/-0.14 nb, and 75+/-14 nb respectively. The cross section for the continuum, with |eta(mu+/-)| < 0.6 and M(mumu) in [3.0,4.0] GeV/c2, is 2.7+/-0.5 pb, consistent with QED predictions. We put an upper limit on the cross section for odderon exchange in J/psi production: ds/dy(y=0) (J/psi_O/IP) < 2.3 nb at 95% C.L.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We have observed the reactions p+pbar --> p+X+pbar, with X being a centrally produced J/psi, psi(2S) or chi_c0, and gamma+gamma --> mu+mu-, in proton- antiproton collisions at sqrt{s} = 1.96 TeV using the Run II Collider Detector at Fermilab.	result 0.73	0.97	0.60	asserted 1.00
s1	The event signature requires two oppositely charged muons, each with pseudorapidity \|eta\| < 0.6, with M(mumu) in [3.0,4.0] GeV/c2, and either no other particles, or one additional photon, detected.	method 0.99	0.84	0.04	asserted 0.96
s2	The J/psi and the psi(2S) are prominent, on a continuum consistent with the QED process gamma+gamma --> mu+mu-.	result 0.70	0.91	0.19	asserted 0.95
s3	Events with a J/psi and an associated photon candidate are consistent with exclusive chi_c0 production through double pomeron exchange.	interpretation 0.87	0.92	0.12	hedged possibility 0.99
s4	The exclusive vector meson production is as expected for elastic photo- production, gamma+p --> J/psi(psi(2S)) + p, which is observed here for the first time in hadron-hadron collisions.	interpretation 0.47	0.89	0.20	asserted 0.98
s5	The cross sections ds/dy(y=0) for p + pbar --> p + X + pbar with X = J/psi, psi(2S) orchi_c0 are 3.92+/-0.62 nb, 0.53+/-0.14 nb, and 75+/-14 nb respectively.	result 1.00	0.97	0.19	asserted 1.00
s6	The cross section for the continuum, with \|eta(mu+/-)\| < 0.6 and M(mumu) in [3.0,4.0] GeV/c2, is 2.7+/-0.5 pb, consistent with QED predictions.	result 1.00	0.96	0.10	asserted 0.72
s7	We put an upper limit on the cross section for odderon exchange in J/psi production: ds/dy(y=0) (J/psi_O/IP) < 2.3 nb at 95% C.L.	result 0.99	0.96	0.12	asserted 0.95

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 0.97.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v4

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: Feynman diagrams for (a)

Showing 2 of the paper's 3 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:0902.1271 by the authors.

References

Works cited (29)

[22]

L.Motyka and G.Watt, Phys. Rev. D 78:014023 (2008)

View on Pith 2008
[1]

A cylindrical coordinate system is used with the z-axis along the proton beam direction; θ is the polar angle and φ is the azimuthal angle. Transverse momentum is pT = |p| sinθ, and transverse energy is ET = E sinθ where E is the energy. Pseudorapidity is η = − ln(tan θ2 ), and for the charmonium states we use longitudinal rapidity y = − ln E+pzE−pz

View on Pith
[2]

See e.g. J.R.Forshaw and D.A.Ross, Quantum Chromo- dynamics and the Pomeron, Cambridge University Press (1997); S.Donnachie et al. , Pomeron Physics and QCD, Cambridge University Press (2002)

View on Pith 1997
[3]

A.Sch¨ afer, L.Mankiewicz and O.Nachtmann, Phys.Lett. B 272, 419 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[4]

V.A.Khoze, A.D.Martin and M.G.Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C 24, 459 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[5]

C.Ewerz, The Odderon in Quantum Chromodynamics, hep-ph/0306137

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[6]

A.Abulencia et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 112001 (2007)

View on Pith 2007
[7]

A.Abulencia et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 242002 (2007)

View on Pith 2007
[8]

V.A.Khoze, A.D.Martin, M.G.Ryskin and W.J.Stirling, Eur. Phys. J. C 38, 475 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[9]

See e.g. H.Jung, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 1, 531 (2008), and refs. therein

View on Pith 2008
[10]

M.G.Albrow et al. , arXiv:0806.0302 [hep-ex], submitted to J. Inst

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[11]

V.A.Khoze, A.D.Martin, M.G.Ryskin and W.J.Stirling, Eur. Phys. J. C 35, 211 (2004); V.A.Khoze, A.D.Martin and M.G.Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C 19, 477 (2001) [Erratum-ibid C20, 599 (2001)], and private communi- cation

View on Pith 2004
[12]

D.Acosta et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 71, 032001 (2005) and refs. therein

View on Pith 2005
[13]

G.Ascoli et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 268, 33 (1988)

View on Pith 1988
[14]

M.Gallinaro et al., IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 52, 879 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[15]

D.Acosta et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 494, 57 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[16]

C.Amsler et al. , Review of Particle Physics, Phys.Lett. B 667, 1 (2008)

View on Pith 2008
[17]

J.A.M.Vermaseren, Nucl. Phys. B 229, 347 (1983); S.P.Baranov et al. , lpair, Proc. Physics at HERA, 1478 (1991)

View on Pith 1983
[18]

F.Abe et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 50, 5518 (1994); ibid. p.5535

View on Pith 1994
[19]

S.Klein and J.Nystrand, starlight, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92:142003 (2004), and private communication

View on Pith 2004
[20]

W.J.Stirling, chicmc, private communication

View on Pith
[21]

geant, CERN Program Library Long Writeup W5013, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 506, 250 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[23]

W.Sch¨ afer and A.Szczurek, Phys. Rev. D 76, 094014 (2007)

View on Pith 2007
[24]

V.P.Goncalves and M.V.T.Machado, Eur. Phys. J. C 40, 519 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[25]

R.S.Pasechnik, A.Szczurek, and O.V.Teryaev, arXiv:0901.4187 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[26]

A.D.Kaidalov, V.A.Khoze, A.D.Martin and M.G.Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C 31, 387 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[27]

F.Yuan, Phys.Lett. B 510, 155 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[28]

A.Bzdak, Phys.Lett. B 619, 288 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[29]

A.Bzdak, L.Motyka, L.Szymanowski and J-R.Cudell, Phys. Rev. D 75:094023 (2007)

View on Pith 2007

Forward citations

Cited by 14 Pith papers

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

Exclusive dimuon production in ultraperipheral Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 5.02$ TeV with ATLAS
nucl-ex 2020-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

ATLAS reports the first differential cross sections for exclusive photon-photon dimuon production in Pb+Pb collisions above 10 GeV, finding 34.1 microbarns total and a 10 to 20 percent excess over STARlight at large p...
Observation of proton-tagged, central (semi)exclusive production of high-mass lepton pairs in pp collisions at 13 TeV with the CMS-TOTEM precision proton spectrometer
hep-ex 2018-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Proton-tagged photon-photon production of muon and electron pairs above 110 GeV is observed at the LHC with 5.1 sigma combined significance, the first such measurement with a detected forward proton.
Exclusive physics at the LHC with SuperChic 2
hep-ph 2015-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

SuperChic 2 adds a fully differential soft survival factor and several new exclusive final states to the public SuperChic Monte Carlo, and compares the resulting predictions to LHCb, CDF and ATLAS measurements.
Measurement of the exclusive $\Upsilon$ production cross-section in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$7 TeV and 8 TeV
hep-ex 2015-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

LHCb measures the exclusive photoproduction cross-section of the Upsilon(1S) to be 9.0 picobarns and sets a 3.4 picobarn upper limit on the Upsilon(3S), probing small-x gluon structure in a new kinematic regime.
Exclusive $J/\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ production in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV
hep-ex 2013-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

LHCb observes exclusive J/psi and psi(2S) production in pp collisions at 7 TeV, measuring cross-sections of 307 and 7.8 pb and a photoproduction energy dependence consistent with HERA.

Show 9 more citing papers

Photoproduction of J/psi and of high mass e+e- in ultra-peripheral Au+Au collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 200 GeV
nucl-ex 2009-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In 2004 Au+Au data at 200 GeV, PHENIX observes 28 e+e- pairs above 2 GeV with zero like-sign background and extracts midrapidity cross sections of 76 microb for J/psi photoproduction and 86 microb/GeV for two-photon d...
Central exclusive production of $J/\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ mesons in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13~$TeV
hep-ex 2018-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

LHCb measures exclusive J/psi and psi(2S) production cross-sections in 13 TeV pp collisions, 435 +/- 18 +/- 11 +/- 17 pb and 11.1 +/- 1.1 +/- 0.3 +/- 0.4 pb, and derives photoproduction cross-sections up to W = 2 TeV ...
Coherent J/psi photoproduction in ultra-peripheral PbPb collisions at sqrt(s[NN]) = 2.76 TeV with the CMS experiment
nucl-ex 2016-05 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

CMS measures coherent J/psi photoproduction in ultra-peripheral PbPb collisions at 2.76 TeV, finding a cross section about three standard deviations below the impulse approximation and consistent with nuclear gluon shadowing.
Updated measurements of exclusive $J/\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ production cross-sections in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV
hep-ex 2014-01 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

LHCb reports exclusive J/psi and psi(2S) cross-sections in pp collisions at 7 TeV, with the psi(2S) differential distribution measured for the first time and both agreeing with NLO QCD and saturation models.
Search for exclusive or semi-exclusive photon pair production and observation of exclusive and semi-exclusive electron pair production in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV
hep-ex 2012-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

CMS sets a 1.18 pb upper limit on exclusive and semi-exclusive diphoton production at 7 TeV and observes 17 exclusive or semi-exclusive dielectron events, consistent with the QED prediction of 16.3.
Exclusive photon-photon production of muon pairs in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV
hep-ex 2011-11 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

CMS measures the exclusive two-photon production of muon pairs in 7 TeV proton-proton collisions at 3.38 picobarns, consistent with the LPAIR prediction at 83% of its central value.
Energy dependence of exclusive $J/\psi$ photoproduction off protons in ultra-peripheral p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV
nucl-ex 2018-09 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

ALICE extracts the photon-proton cross section for exclusive J/psi production over 40 to 550 GeV and finds it follows a power law with exponent delta = 0.70 +/- 0.05, consistent with HERA and earlier LHC results.
Probing Quantum Phenomena through Photoproduction in Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collisions
nucl-ex 2025-04 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

A review of coherent vector meson photoproduction in ultra-peripheral heavy-ion collisions, centered on two-source interference and the claim that the observed spin patterns probe quantum entanglement analogies.
Central Exclusive Particle Production at High Energy Hadron Colliders
hep-ph 2010-06 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The review argues that central exclusive production is now a quantitatively testable channel: perturbative QCD calculations of the Durham type are consistent with CDF dijet, chi_c and photon-pair data, which makes exc...

How later papers used it

59 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 58 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 16 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 24 of the 90 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

1 later paper by other authors is listed below: 1 compared its own results with it.

Compares with it 1 of 6 papers with this label

Showed rapidity distributions for various vector mesons in proton-proton or proton antiproton collisions alongside the recent CDF data from this paper, finding the agreement quite reasonable.

Central exclusive photoproduction at the LHC (2009) · 0.94 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

57 arXiv papers cite this in 85 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 48 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 1 paper

In order to select a sample enriched in $→ℓ^+ℓ^-$ events, a procedure similar to that of the Tevatron and Run 1 LHC analyses [ref] is used.

Observation of proton-tagged, central (semi)exclusive production of high-mass lepton pairs in pp collisions at 13 TeV with the CMS-TOTEM precision proton spectrometer · Central variables · 0.95

Uses its data or values 8 papers

Recently, the signal from the diffractive $χ_c(0^+,1^+,2^+)$ charmonia production in the radiative $J/Ψ+ γ$ decay channel has been measured by the CDF Collaboration [ref] : $dσ/dy|_y=0(pp→pp(J/ψ+γ))≃0.97±0.26$.

Diffractive production of chi(c)(0+,1+,2+) mesons at LHC, Tevatron and RHIC · Introduction · 0.99
The forward differential $γ+p→J/ψ+p$ cross section at $W_γp=19.6 GeV$ and $W_γp=92.4 GeV$ can be extracted from HERA, FNAL and CERN measurements [ref] [ Exclusive $J/ψ$ production has been measured at $y=0$ in ultraperipheral $pp̅$ collisions by the CDF collaboration at Tevatron [ref] .

Evidence for nuclear gluon shadowing from the ALICE measurements of PbPb ultraperipheral exclusive J/{\psi} production · $J/ψ$ photoproduction on Pb in the impulse approximation · 0.99
CDF has observed $p + (χ_c→J/ψ+γ) + p̅$ events, with $σ̣/ỵ |_y=0(χ_c) = 76±10 ±10$ nb, assuming the $χ_c0$ dominates [ref] (CDF could not resolve different $χ_c$ states).

Central Exclusive Particle Production at High Energy Hadron Colliders · Central exclusive production · 0.98

Compares with it 6 papers

The results are [equation] These can be compared with the measured values, $3.92 ±0.25 (stat) ±0.52 (syst)$ nb and $0.53 ±0.09 (stat) ±0.01 (syst)$ nb, for the $J/Ψ$ and $Ψ'$, respectively [ref] .

Photons and Exclusive Processes at Hadron Colliders · Results from the Tevatron · 0.87
Also at $√(s)=1.96$ TeV this parametrization gives the cross section 2.53 nb at midrapidity which is about 30% lower than the CDF result $dσ(y=0)/dy =3.92±0.25(stat)±0.52(syst)$ nb [ref] .

The LHC potential for study of the small x gluon physics in ultraperipheral collisions of 3.5 TeV protons · Introduction · 0.95
We also show the recent CDF data [ref] , the agreement being quite reasonable.

Central exclusive photoproduction at the LHC · Introduction · 0.94

Cites it as support 2 papers

Feasibility of such measurements has recently been demonstrated by CDF Collaboration at energies of Tevatron [ref] .

The LHC potential for study of the small x gluon physics in ultraperipheral collisions of 3.5 TeV protons · Introduction · 0.97
Photon-induced reactions in a hadron-hadron collision were verified experimentally at the Fermilab Tevatron [ref] .

Probe of extra dimensions in gamma q->gamma q at the LHC · Introduction · 0.96

Cites it as background 18 papers

Notable exceptions [ref] , [ref] are the theoretical predictions of the exclusive production in $pp$ collisions at $√(s)=14$ TeV and theoretical and experimental studies in $pp̅$ collisions at energies of Tevatron.

The LHC potential for study of the small x gluon physics in ultraperipheral collisions of 3.5 TeV protons · Introduction · 0.92
Up to now many studies have been carried out for processes photon-photon collisions both theoretical and experimental, which the have been made important contributions in this areas [ref] .

Muon pair production in the process $e^+ +e^- \to e^+ +e^- +\mu^+ + \mu^-$ by the two-photon collisions $\gamma \gamma \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ at high energies. The transverse momentum distributions · Introduction · 0.93
CDF measured exclusive production at mid-rapidities in p$p̅$ collisions at the Tevatron [ref] , while LHCb reported measurements of exclusive and production at forward rapidities in pp collisions at the LHC [ref] .

Energy dependence of exclusive $J/\psi$ photoproduction off protons in ultra-peripheral p-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}$ = 5.02 TeV · Introduction · 0.85

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [22]

L.Motyka and G.Watt, Phys. Rev. D 78:014023 (2008)

View on Pith 2008

[2] [1]

A cylindrical coordinate system is used with the z-axis along the proton beam direction; θ is the polar angle and φ is the azimuthal angle. Transverse momentum is pT = |p| sinθ, and transverse energy is ET = E sinθ where E is the energy. Pseudorapidity is η = − ln(tan θ2 ), and for the charmonium states we use longitudinal rapidity y = − ln E+pzE−pz

View on Pith

[3] [2]

See e.g. J.R.Forshaw and D.A.Ross, Quantum Chromo- dynamics and the Pomeron, Cambridge University Press (1997); S.Donnachie et al. , Pomeron Physics and QCD, Cambridge University Press (2002)

View on Pith 1997

[4] [3]

A.Sch¨ afer, L.Mankiewicz and O.Nachtmann, Phys.Lett. B 272, 419 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[5] [4]

V.A.Khoze, A.D.Martin and M.G.Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C 24, 459 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[6] [5]

C.Ewerz, The Odderon in Quantum Chromodynamics, hep-ph/0306137

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[7] [6]

A.Abulencia et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 112001 (2007)

View on Pith 2007

[8] [7]

A.Abulencia et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 242002 (2007)

View on Pith 2007

[9] [8]

V.A.Khoze, A.D.Martin, M.G.Ryskin and W.J.Stirling, Eur. Phys. J. C 38, 475 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[10] [9]

See e.g. H.Jung, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 1, 531 (2008), and refs. therein

View on Pith 2008

[11] [10]

M.G.Albrow et al. , arXiv:0806.0302 [hep-ex], submitted to J. Inst

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[12] [11]

V.A.Khoze, A.D.Martin, M.G.Ryskin and W.J.Stirling, Eur. Phys. J. C 35, 211 (2004); V.A.Khoze, A.D.Martin and M.G.Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C 19, 477 (2001) [Erratum-ibid C20, 599 (2001)], and private communi- cation

View on Pith 2004

[13] [12]

D.Acosta et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 71, 032001 (2005) and refs. therein

View on Pith 2005

[14] [13]

G.Ascoli et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 268, 33 (1988)

View on Pith 1988

[15] [14]

M.Gallinaro et al., IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 52, 879 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[16] [15]

D.Acosta et al. , Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 494, 57 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[17] [16]

C.Amsler et al. , Review of Particle Physics, Phys.Lett. B 667, 1 (2008)

View on Pith 2008

[18] [17]

J.A.M.Vermaseren, Nucl. Phys. B 229, 347 (1983); S.P.Baranov et al. , lpair, Proc. Physics at HERA, 1478 (1991)

View on Pith 1983

[19] [18]

F.Abe et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 50, 5518 (1994); ibid. p.5535

View on Pith 1994

[20] [19]

S.Klein and J.Nystrand, starlight, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92:142003 (2004), and private communication

View on Pith 2004

[21] [20]

W.J.Stirling, chicmc, private communication

View on Pith

[22] [21]

geant, CERN Program Library Long Writeup W5013, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 506, 250 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[23] [23]

W.Sch¨ afer and A.Szczurek, Phys. Rev. D 76, 094014 (2007)

View on Pith 2007

[24] [24]

V.P.Goncalves and M.V.T.Machado, Eur. Phys. J. C 40, 519 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[25] [25]

R.S.Pasechnik, A.Szczurek, and O.V.Teryaev, arXiv:0901.4187 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[26] [26]

A.D.Kaidalov, V.A.Khoze, A.D.Martin and M.G.Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C 31, 387 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[27] [27]

F.Yuan, Phys.Lett. B 510, 155 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[28] [28]

A.Bzdak, Phys.Lett. B 619, 288 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[29] [29]

A.Bzdak, L.Motyka, L.Szymanowski and J-R.Cudell, Phys. Rev. D 75:094023 (2007)

View on Pith 2007