pith. sign in

arxiv: 2310.06965 · v2 · pith:AKWCRP5Mnew · submitted 2023-10-10 · ✦ hep-ph

Coherent photoproduction of light vector mesons off nuclear targets in the dipole picture

Cheryl Henkels , Emmanuel G. de Oliveira , Roman Pasechnik , Haimon Trebien This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 06:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords coherent photoproductionvector mesonscolor dipolegluon shadowingnuclear targetsholographic wave functionsrho photoproductionPb-Pb collisions
0
0 comments X

The pith

An effective suppression factor of 0.85 accounts for gluon shadowing and reproduces data on coherent rho photoproduction off lead nuclei.

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

The authors apply the color dipole approach to coherent photoproduction of light vector mesons in lead-lead collisions. They supplement the Glauber-Gribov formalism with an effective suppression factor R_G set to 0.85 at the scale of the rho meson mass squared over four. This value is chosen to match deep inelastic scattering data on the structure function F2 and measurements of rho meson photoproduction. With this adjustment the model describes the data well. The same factor is then used together with holographic wave functions to predict photoproduction observables for the excited rho, as well as ground and excited states of omega and phi mesons.

Core claim

In the color dipole picture, the coherent photoproduction of light vector mesons off nuclear targets is described by the Glauber-Gribov formalism with an added effective suppression factor R_G = 0.85 at the scale M_ρ²/4 = 0.15 GeV² that incorporates gluon shadowing effects; this choice reproduces the E665 F2 data and ALICE rho photoproduction data, and permits predictions for ρ(2S), ω(1S,2S) and φ(1S,2S) using holographic meson wave functions.

What carries the argument

The effective suppression factor R_G that reduces the gluon density to model nuclear shadowing corrections in the dipole approach.

If this is right

  • The adjusted model provides a good description of the available experimental data points for rho meson photoproduction.
  • Predictions are generated for coherent photoproduction cross sections and other observables of ρ(2S), ω(1S,2S), and φ(1S,2S) mesons.
  • The holographic vector meson wave functions are employed for these predictions.
  • The suppression factor is assumed transferable across these different mesons at the fitted scale.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future measurements of excited state production could test whether the suppression factor remains constant across different meson masses and wave functions.
  • The approach may be extended to other nuclear targets or higher energies if the universality holds.
  • Discrepancies in predictions could indicate the need for meson-specific shadowing corrections.

Load-bearing premise

The suppression factor fitted to rho meson data at one specific scale applies without modification to other vector mesons and their radial excitations.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the coherent photoproduction cross section for the φ(2S) meson off lead nuclei that differs substantially from the value predicted with R_G = 0.85 would challenge the assumption of a universal suppression factor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2310.06965 by Cheryl Henkels, Emmanuel G. de Oliveira, Haimon Trebien, Roman Pasechnik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A schematic illustration of the amplitude for the coherent vector ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The differential cross section for coherent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Photoproduction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Predictions for the differential cross section of coherent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Predictions for the differential cross section of coherent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Predictions for the ratio between the excited-state and the ground-state differential cross [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the coherent photoproduction of light vector mesons in Pb-Pb collisions in the framework of color dipole approach. We employ the Glauber--Gribov formalism supplemented by an effective suppression factor $R_G$ accounting for the gluon shadowing correction. We adjust the latter to reproduce the deep inelastic structure function $F_2$ (E665) and $\rho$ meson photoproduction (ALICE) data. We achieve a good description of the available data points with $R_G = 0.85$ at scale $M_\rho^2/4 = 0.15$ GeV$^2$. In addition, employing this suppression factor, we present predictions for coherent $\rho(2S)$, $\omega(1S,2S)$ and $\phi(1S,2S)$ photoproduction observables using the holographic vector meson wave functions.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper studies coherent photoproduction of light vector mesons (ρ, ω, φ and their radial excitations) off nuclear targets in Pb-Pb collisions within the color dipole framework. It employs the Glauber-Gribov formalism augmented by a single effective suppression factor R_G to account for gluon shadowing, fits R_G = 0.85 to E665 F_2 data and ALICE ρ(1S) photoproduction data at the scale M_ρ²/4 = 0.15 GeV², and then uses this fixed value together with holographic vector-meson wave functions to generate predictions for the other channels.

Significance. If the universality assumption holds, the work supplies concrete, falsifiable predictions for several additional observables that can be confronted with forthcoming LHC data. The consistent use of holographic wave functions for both ground and excited states is a methodological strength that allows direct comparison across radial excitations. The overall significance remains modest because the central predictions rest on an untested extrapolation of a single fitted parameter.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and model-description paragraph] The abstract and the paragraph describing the fit state that R_G is adjusted to reproduce the ALICE ρ photoproduction data and is then applied unchanged to ρ(2S), ω(1S,2S) and φ(1S,2S). This procedure makes the predictions for the other mesons dependent on the very data used to determine R_G; the manuscript provides no independent cross-check or meson-specific correction that would justify transferring the factor across different dipole sizes and radial quantum numbers.
  2. [Formalism section] In the Glauber-Gribov implementation (the expression for the dipole-nucleus amplitude), the suppression factor R_G multiplies the gluon density uniformly. No test is shown of whether this factor remains constant when the typical dipole size changes from the ρ(1S) ground state to the larger ρ(2S) or φ states, nor is any scale dependence explored beyond the single fitted point M_ρ²/4.
minor comments (1)
  1. The kinematic range (W, |t|, Q²) over which the predictions are presented should be stated explicitly in the abstract and figure captions for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and the constructive comments. We address the two major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and model-description paragraph] The abstract and the paragraph describing the fit state that R_G is adjusted to reproduce the ALICE ρ photoproduction data and is then applied unchanged to ρ(2S), ω(1S,2S) and φ(1S,2S). This procedure makes the predictions for the other mesons dependent on the very data used to determine R_G; the manuscript provides no independent cross-check or meson-specific correction that would justify transferring the factor across different dipole sizes and radial quantum numbers.

    Authors: The fit of R_G is performed simultaneously to E665 F_2 data and ALICE ρ(1S) photoproduction data at the fixed scale M_ρ²/4. The resulting value is then used for the other channels under the assumption that the gluon-shadowing correction is universal at this scale within the dipole framework. The holographic wave functions already encode the meson-specific information (including different radial excitations and dipole-size sensitivities) via the photon-meson overlap integrals; no additional meson-dependent correction to R_G itself is introduced. We acknowledge that this leaves the predictions for excited states dependent on the ρ(1S) data and that an independent cross-check is not provided in the present work. We will revise the abstract and the model-description paragraph to state the universality assumption more explicitly. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Formalism section] In the Glauber-Gribov implementation (the expression for the dipole-nucleus amplitude), the suppression factor R_G multiplies the gluon density uniformly. No test is shown of whether this factor remains constant when the typical dipole size changes from the ρ(1S) ground state to the larger ρ(2S) or φ states, nor is any scale dependence explored beyond the single fitted point M_ρ²/4.

    Authors: R_G is introduced as a constant multiplicative factor applied uniformly to the gluon density in the dipole-nucleus amplitude, consistent with the effective treatment of shadowing in the Glauber-Gribov formalism at the chosen scale. No explicit dipole-size or scale dependence is built into R_G, and no additional numerical tests of its constancy across different dipole sizes were performed. This is a deliberate simplification of the model. We agree that the lack of such tests is a limitation and will add a short paragraph in the formalism section discussing the assumption and its range of applicability. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Fitted R_G to rho/F2 data applied as universal suppression for other meson predictions

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "We adjust the latter to reproduce the deep inelastic structure function F_2 (E665) and ρ meson photoproduction (ALICE) data. We achieve a good description of the available data points with R_G = 0.85 at scale M_ρ²/4 = 0.15 GeV². In addition, employing this suppression factor, we present predictions for coherent ρ(2S), ω(1S,2S) and φ(1S,2S) photoproduction observables using the holographic vector meson wave functions."

    R_G is tuned to match the rho photoproduction and F2 datasets; the same numerical value is then inserted unchanged into the Glauber-Gribov calculation for the other mesons. The resulting 'predictions' are therefore statistically forced by the input fit rather than testing an independent gluon-shadowing mechanism.

full rationale

The paper explicitly fits the single effective parameter R_G to E665 F2 and ALICE rho(1S) data at a fixed scale, then employs exactly that fitted value to generate predictions for rho(2S), omega, and phi states. This matches the 'fitted input called prediction' pattern: the output observables for the other mesons are not independent derivations but direct applications of the input-tuned suppression factor under an untested universality assumption. No self-citation chains, self-definitional equations, or ansatz smuggling are present in the provided text. The central claim therefore contains partial circularity because the 'predictions' reduce to the fitted input by construction rather than emerging from first-principles gluon shadowing that is shown to be meson-independent.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on one fitted parameter and three standard but unproven modeling assumptions of the dipole framework.

free parameters (1)
  • R_G = 0.85
    Effective gluon-shadowing suppression factor adjusted to match E665 F2 and ALICE rho photoproduction data at the scale M_ρ²/4 = 0.15 GeV²
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Color dipole approach correctly describes coherent photoproduction off nuclei
    Employed as the primary theoretical framework
  • domain assumption Glauber-Gribov formalism supplemented by a constant suppression factor captures nuclear gluon shadowing
    Used to incorporate nuclear effects
  • domain assumption Holographic vector-meson wave functions are suitable for the excited states under consideration
    Invoked for the numerical predictions

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5693 in / 1508 out tokens · 28872 ms · 2026-05-24T06:03:32.230928+00:00 · methodology

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

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · 30 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    renormalizing

    It provided a good description not only of ρ and ω data but also of the available ϕ data, so we use the same κ parameter in this present work. In order to build Ψ V from ψ given in Eq. (2.6), the vector meson polarization and quark helicity dependent structure of the same form as that for the photon γ → q¯q LF wave function has been implemented (see e.g. ...

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Coherent rho^0 Production in Ultra-Peripheral Heavy Ion Collisions

    C. Adler et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 272302 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0206004

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    Agakishiev et al

    G. Agakishiev et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. C 85, 014910 (2012), arXiv:1107.4630 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    Photoproduction of J/psi and of high mass e+e- in ultra-peripheral Au+Au collisions at sqrt(s_NN) = 200 GeV

    S. Afanasiev et al. (PHENIX), Phys. Lett. B 679, 321 (2009), arXiv:0903.2041 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Coherent J/psi photoproduction in ultra-peripheral PbPb collisions at sqrt(s[NN]) = 2.76 TeV with the CMS experiment

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B 772, 489 (2017), arXiv:1605.06966 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Coherent J/$\psi$ photoproduction in ultra-peripheral Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV

    B. Abelev et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 718, 1273 (2013), arXiv:1209.3715 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Charmonium and $e^+e^-$ pair photoproduction at mid-rapidity in ultra-peripheral Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=2.76 TeV

    E. Abbas et al. (ALICE), Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2617 (2013), arXiv:1305.1467 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Coherent $\psi$(2S) photo-production in ultra-peripheral Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s}_{\rm NN}$ = 2.76 TeV

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 751, 358 (2015), arXiv:1508.05076 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), arXiv:2304.10928 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv

  10. [10]

    Coherent $\rho^0$ photoproduction in ultra-peripheral Pb-Pb collisions at $\mathbf{\sqrt{\textit{s}_{\rm NN}}} = 2.76$ TeV

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE), JHEP 09, 095 (2015), arXiv:1503.09177 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), JHEP 06, 035 (2020), arXiv:2002.10897 [nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Jenkovszky, E

    L. Jenkovszky, E. d. S. Rocha, and M. V. T. Machado, Phys. Lett. B 835, 137585 (2022), arXiv:2210.15749 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    N. N. Nikolaev and B. G. Zakharov, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 78, 598 (1994), [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.105,1117(1994)]

    work page 1994

  14. [14]

    A. H. Mueller and B. Patel, Nucl. Phys. B 425, 471 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9403256

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  15. [15]

    Henkels, E

    C. Henkels, E. G. de Oliveira, R. Pasechnik, and H. Trebien, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 551 (2023), arXiv:2207.13756 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    N. N. Nikolaev and B. G. Zakharov, Z. Phys. C 49, 607 (1991)

    work page 1991

  17. [17]

    Nikolaev and B

    N. Nikolaev and B. G. Zakharov, Z. Phys. C 53, 331 (1992)

    work page 1992

  18. [18]

    Henkels, E

    C. Henkels, E. G. de Oliveira, R. Pasechnik, and H. Trebien, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054008 (2021), arXiv:2009.14158 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    V. P. Gon¸ calves, D. E. Martins, and C. R. Sena, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 18 (2022)

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Theoretical uncertainties in exclusive electroproduction S-wave heavy quarkonia

    J. Cepila, J. Nemchik, M. Krelina, and R. Pasechnik, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 495 (2019), arXiv:1901.02664 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    B. Z. Kopeliovich, J. Nemchik, A. Schafer, and A. V. Tarasov, Phys. Rev. C 65, 035201 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0107227

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  22. [22]

    Golec-Biernat and S

    K. Golec-Biernat and S. Sapeta, JHEP 03, 102 (2018), arXiv:1711.11360 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    K. J. Golec-Biernat and M. Wusthoff, Phys. Rev. D 59, 014017 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9807513. 12

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  24. [24]

    K. J. Golec-Biernat and M. Wusthoff, Phys. Rev. D 60, 114023 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9903358

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  25. [25]

    Timneanu, J

    N. Timneanu, J. Kwiecinski, and L. Motyka, Eur. Phys. J. C 23, 513 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0110409

    work page arXiv 2002

  26. [26]

    J. R. Forshaw, R. Sandapen, and G. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D 69, 094013 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0312172

    work page arXiv 2004

  27. [27]

    Elastic and quasi-elastic $pp$ and $\gamma^\star p$ scattering in the Dipole Model

    C. Flensburg, G. Gustafson, and L. Lonnblad, Eur. Phys. J. C 60, 233 (2009), arXiv:0807.0325 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  28. [28]

    Henkels, E

    C. Henkels, E. G. de Oliveira, R. Pasechnik, and H. Trebien, Phys. Rev. D 102, 014024 (2020), arXiv:2004.00607 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    T. Goda, K. Kutak, and S. Sapeta, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 957 (2023), arXiv:2305.14025 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    J. L. Albacete, N. Armesto, J. G. Milhano, P. Quiroga-Arias, and C. A. Salgado, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1705 (2011), arXiv:1012.4408 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  31. [31]

    V. P. Goncalves, B. Kopeliovich, J. Nemchik, R. Pasechnik, and I. Potashnikova, Phys. Rev. D 96, 014010 (2017), arXiv:1704.04699 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    Luszczak and H

    A. Luszczak and H. Kowalski, Phys. Rev. D 89, 074051 (2014), arXiv:1312.4060 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    The Dipole Picture and Saturation in Soft Processes

    J. Bartels, E. Gotsman, E. Levin, M. Lublinsky, and U. Maor, Phys. Lett. B 556, 114 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212284

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  34. [34]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, Subnucl. Ser. 45, 139 (2009), arXiv:0802.0514 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  35. [35]

    S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de Teramond, H. G. Dosch, and J. Erlich, Phys. Rept. 584, 1 (2015), arXiv:1407.8131 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  36. [36]

    J. R. Forshaw and R. Sandapen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 081601 (2012), arXiv:1203.6088 [hep- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  37. [37]

    An Impact Parameter Dipole Saturation Model

    H. Kowalski and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. D 68, 114005 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0304189

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  38. [38]

    Frankfurt, W

    L. Frankfurt, W. Koepf, and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. D 57, 512 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9702216

    work page arXiv 1998

  39. [39]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 392 (1949)

    work page 1949

  40. [40]

    Patrignani et al

    C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C 40, 100001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  41. [41]

    Frankfurt, V

    L. Frankfurt, V. Guzey, and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. D 58, 094039 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9712339

    work page arXiv 1998

  42. [42]

    Nuclear shadowing in photoproduction of $\rho$ mesons in ultraperipheral nucleus collisions at RHIC and the LHC

    L. Frankfurt, V. Guzey, M. Strikman, and M. Zhalov, Phys. Lett. B 752, 51 (2016), arXiv:1506.07150 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    V. A. Khoze, A. D. Martin, and M. G. Ryskin, J. Phys. G 46, 085002 (2019), arXiv:1902.08136 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  44. [44]

    Yu. P. Ivanov, B. Z. Kopeliovich, A. V. Tarasov, and J. Hufner, Phys. Rev. C66, 024903 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0202216 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  45. [45]

    Y. P. Ivanov, B. Z. Kopeliovich, A. V. Tarasov, and J. Hufner, Hadron physics: Effective theories of low energy QCD. Proceedings, 2nd International Workshop, Coimbra, Portugal, September 25-29, 2002 , AIP Conf. Proc. 660, 283 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212322 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  46. [46]

    Coherent photoproduction of vector mesons in heavy ion ultraperipheral collisions: Update for run 2 at the CERN Large Hadron Collider

    V. Guzey, E. Kryshen, and M. Zhalov, Phys. Rev. C 93, 055206 (2016), arXiv:1602.01456 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  47. [47]

    J. R. Cudell, V. V. Ezhela, P. Gauron, K. Kang, Y. V. Kuyanov, S. B. Lugovsky, E. Martynov, B. Nicolescu, E. A. Razuvaev, and N. P. Tkachenko (COMPETE), Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 201801 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0206172

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  48. [48]

    C. F. von Weizsacker, Z. Phys. 88, 612 (1934)

    work page 1934

  49. [49]

    E. J. Williams, Phys. Rev. 45, 729 (1934)

    work page 1934

  50. [50]

    R. D. Woods and D. S. Saxon, Phys. Rev. 95, 577 (1954). 13

    work page 1954

  51. [51]

    Euteneuer, J

    H. Euteneuer, J. Friedrich, and N. Vogler, Nucl. Phys. A298, 452 (1978)

    work page 1978

  52. [52]

    J. B. Kogut and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D 1, 2901 (1970)

    work page 1970

  53. [53]

    Bjorken, J

    J. Bjorken, J. B. Kogut, and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D 3, 1382 (1971)

    work page 1971

  54. [54]

    H. G. Dosch, T. Gousset, G. Kulzinger, and H. J. Pirner, Phys. Rev. D 55, 2602 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9608203

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  55. [55]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2157 (1980)

    work page 1980

  56. [56]

    Exclusive diffractive processes at HERA within the dipole picture

    H. Kowalski, L. Motyka, and G. Watt, Phys. Rev. D74, 074016 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0606272 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  57. [57]

    V. N. Gribov, Sov. Phys. JETP 29, 483 (1969)

    work page 1969

  58. [58]

    A. G. Shuvaev, K. J. Golec-Biernat, A. D. Martin, and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Rev. D 60, 014015 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9902410

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  59. [59]

    B. Z. Kopeliovich, M. Krelina, J. Nemchik, and I. K. Potashnikova, Phys. Rev. D 107, 054005 (2023), arXiv:2008.05116 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    B. Z. Kopeliovich, M. Krelina, J. Nemchik, and I. K. Potashnikova, Phys. Rev. D 105, 054023 (2022), arXiv:2201.13021 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    M. R. Adams et al. (E665), Z. Phys. C 67, 403 (1995), arXiv:hep-ex/9505006

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  62. [62]

    A simple model for nuclear structure functions at small $x$ in the dipole picture

    N. Armesto, Eur. Phys. J. C 26, 35 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0206017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  63. [63]

    Krelina and J

    M. Krelina and J. Nemchik, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 444 (2020), arXiv:2003.04156 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    B. Z. Kopeliovich, J. Raufeisen, and A. V. Tarasov, Phys. Lett. B 440, 151 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9807211

    work page arXiv 1998

  65. [65]

    A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 702 (2019), arXiv:1902.01339 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2019

  66. [66]

    Acharya et al

    S. Acharya et al. (ALICE), Phys. Lett. B 820, 136481 (2021), arXiv:2101.02581 [nucl-ex]. 14

    work page arXiv 2021