Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Quasi-Classical Evaluation of Gluon Saturation Induced Helicity Effects

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gluon saturation generates a helicity-dependent correction to the longitudinal gluon field that acts only in two-particle correlations and suppresses the back-to-back dijet peak.

desk verdict A solid quasi-classical calculation with a real new result, but the headline quantitative claim is hostage to an unproven polarized-source ansatz. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13431 v1 pith:26Q7D6OX submitted 2024-11-20 hep-ph

Ming Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords gluonsaturationhelicitysmallxsub-eikonaldijetazimuthalcorrelationdouble-spinasymmetryincoherentdiffractionMVmodel
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

At sub-eikonal order in high-energy scattering, helicity is carried by the transverse gluon field. This paper claims that in the saturation regime, the longitudinal gluon field also acquires helicity dependence through a nonlinear interaction between the eikonal-order field and the sub-eikonal transverse field. The resulting field is shown to leave single-gluon helicity distributions untouched and to act only in two-particle (or multi-particle) correlations. Evaluated in the double-spin asymmetry for incoherent diffractive dijet production in longitudinally polarized electron-nucleus collisions, this saturation-induced effect contributes at order $Q_s^6$, is negative near the back-to-back configuration, and is comparable in size to the direct helicity effect, further suppressing the back-to-back dijet peak. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives a new, polarization-based way to probe gluon saturation in future polarized electron-ion collisions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the classical solution for the sub-eikonal longitudinal field in a dense color field, Eq. (22), obtained by solving the classical Yang-Mills equations and independently by two-source Feynman diagrams involving one eikonal field and one sub-eikonal transverse field. Its key feature is that it requires two color sources with the same light-cone coordinate but distinct transverse coordinates and colors; as a result, in the quasi-classical Gaussian ensemble (the MV model and its helicity-extended counterpart) the induced effect appears only in correlations of three or more fields at distinct transverse points, and the basic object is the three-field average $\langle\langle \delta A^+ A^+ A^+\rangle\rangle \propto f^{cba}\Gamma(x,y,u)$, with $\Gamma$ antisymmetric under coordinate exchange. This is why single-particle helicity TMDs see nothing and the effect first appears in the four-point correlation at order $Q_s^6$.

What would settle it

Measure the double-spin asymmetry for incoherent diffractive dijet production in longitudinally polarized electron-nucleus collisions at a future electron-ion collider in the kinematics specified in the paper: the $O(Q_s^6)$ correlation should show a negative, narrow dip around $\Delta\phi=\pi$ whose magnitude tracks $Q_s$ approximately quadratically, as in Fig. 11a, and which is absent or sign-opposite if the ansatz in Eq. (50) is wrong. A cleaner theory-side check is to compute $\langle\langle \beta^a(x^-,x)\alpha^b(y^-,y)\rangle\rangle$ in a model that does not assume the unpolarized shape $L(x-y)$ for the polarized correlator; any different shape would change the sign or magnitude of $C^{(1)}_{\mathrm{ind}}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Equation (115c) together with Fig. 9 is the paper's central result: the gluon-saturation-induced helicity-dependent field $A^{+,c}_{\mathrm{ind}} = -2g f^{cde}\epsilon^{il}\int_z \phi(x-z)\,\partial_i \alpha^d\,\partial_l \beta^e$ contributes to the four-point polarized Wilson-line correlator $Q_i(x,y,u,v)$ at order $Q_s^6$, through a term proportional to $F\,\partial_i G - \partial_i F\,G$. Numerically this contribution is negative with a peak near $\Delta\phi=\pi$, with magnitude comparable to the $O(Q_s^6)$ direct-helicity term, so the saturation-induced mechanism adds to the suppression of the back-to-back peak in the double-spin asymmetry. The paper also establishes that the induced term vanishes in single-particle helicity distributions (dipole and Weizs\"acker-Williams gluon helicity TMDs), making it intrinsically a two-particle correlation effect.

Load-bearing premise

The simplified helicity-extended MV ansatz of Eq. (50), which assumes that the polarized-unpolarized two-point function has the same transverse shape as the unpolarized one and normalization $\mu_0^2/P^+$, fixes the sign, shape, and $Q_s^6$ size of the induced effect; if the true polarized small-$x$ wavefunction has a different correlation structure, the conclusion that the induced effect is comparable to the direct effect would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The dipole and Weizs\"acker-Williams gluon helicity TMDs receive no contribution from the saturation-induced field up to the computed orders, so single-spin measurements at small $x$ will not see this mechanism.
  • In incoherent diffractive dijet production, the $O(Q_s^6)$ induced term, like the direct term, decreases the back-to-back correlation, so a quantitative extraction of $Q_s$ from the double-spin asymmetry must include it.
  • The suppression region of the induced effect is narrower around $\Delta\phi=\pi$ than the direct one, which may allow the two contributions to be separated by the shape of the azimuthal correlation.
  • A full quantitative prediction of the back-to-back peak requires the $O(Q_s^8)$ terms and an all-order resummation; the paper provides the averaging machinery needed for that computation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this mechanism is correct, the same two-source correlator should generate saturation-induced helicity effects in other multi-particle observables, such as three-particle correlations or quark-antiquark-gluon final states, where the three distinct transverse coordinates needed for $\Gamma(x,y,u)$ are naturally available.
  • The strong dependence of the induced correlation on $|p_1|/|p_2|$ shown in Fig. 10a suggests that jet-momentum imbalance in polarized electron-nucleus collisions is a sensitive lever arm for isolating the saturation-induced piece, beyond the azimuthal-angle shape.
  • The sign-alternating $Q_s$-expansion seen at $O(Q_s^4)$ and $O(Q_s^6)$ hints that the full resummed result may exponentiate; if so, the double-spin asymmetry would provide a direct measurement of the exponent, i.e. of the polarized source correlation length.
  • The ansatz in Eq. (50) postulates equal transverse shapes for polarized and unpolarized correlators; a lattice or model computation of the polarized correlator would convert the prediction into a parameter-free test.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a sub-eikonal, saturation-induced helicity-dependent component of the longitudinal gluon field, A^+_ind = -2g f^{cde} ε^{il} ∫_z φ(x-z) ∂_i α^d ∂_l β^e (Eq. 22), in the quasi-classical color glass condensate. The author re-derives this expression by solving classical Yang-Mills equations and by diagrammatic calculations with quark and gluon sources, showing that it requires two distinct color sources at the same longitudinal coordinate. He then argues that this field does not contribute to the dipole or Weizsäcker-Williams gluon helicity TMDs at the considered orders, and that it first appears in a four-point polarized Wilson line correlator. Using the MV model for the unpolarized correlator and a simplified helicity-extended ansatz for the polarized-unpolarized correlator (Eq. 50), he obtains an O(Qs^6) contribution Q_i to the four-point correlator (Eq. 115c) and evaluates the resulting azimuthal correlation function C(p1,p2) for incoherent diffractive dijet production. The numerical result shows that this induced contribution is negative near Δφ = π with a magnitude comparable to the direct O(Qs^6) helicity contribution, further suppressing the back-to-back peak. The paper concludes that saturation-induced helicity effects are genuine multi-particle correlations and may be a new probe of saturation in polarized collisions.

Significance. The analytic framework is valuable: the diagrammatic cross-check of Eq. (22), the explicit three-field average in Eq. (57), and the color and longitudinal-coordinate bookkeeping in Secs. IV and V are careful and reproducible. The demonstration that single-particle helicity distributions receive no contribution from the induced field at O(μ0^6) is a useful structural insight. However, the quantitative headline—the sign and comparable magnitude of the induced effect—is controlled by the ad hoc ansatz of Eq. (50), which is not derived from the helicity-extended MV model, and by the evaluation of C(p1,p2) rather than the full double-spin asymmetry. These issues do not invalidate the formal derivation but do limit the robustness of the physical conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (50)] The entire O(Qs^6) induced contribution in Eq. (115c) and in Fig. 9 is built from the ansatz ⟨⟨β^a(x−,x) α^b(y−,y)⟩⟩ = δ^{ab} δ(x− − y−) L(x−y) μ0^2/P^+. This correlator is not derived from the helicity-extended MV model of Ref. [11]; the paper only states that Eq. (50) is 'inspired by' that model. The sign, transverse shape, and normalization of this correlator directly control the sign, angular width, and magnitude of the induced contribution. As written, the comparable-magnitude conclusion is therefore a property of the ansatz, not a robust prediction of the helicity-extended quasi-classical model. I request a derivation of Eq. (50) from the model of Ref. [11] or, failing that, an explicit sensitivity study (for example, varying the sign, replacing L(x−y) by another transverse shape, or introducing a separate normalization constant), together with a corresponding softening of the abstract and conclusion.
  2. [Sec. VI, Eq. (116)] The quantity actually computed and plotted is the spin-dependent correlation function C(p1,p2) in Eq. (116), not the double-spin asymmetry A_LL = (σ_{++} − σ_{+-})/(σ_{++} + σ_{+-}). The unpolarized denominator is never constructed, so the sign of the O(Qs^6) contributions to C does not by itself determine whether the back-to-back peak of the physical asymmetry is further suppressed, nor the 'comparable magnitude' of the induced versus direct effect in the asymmetry. The paper should either compute the denominator and form the asymmetry, or explicitly and consistently state that only the numerator correlation is evaluated and remove the double-spin-asymmetry claim from the abstract.
  3. [Sec. VI.C, Fig. 9 and Eq. (136)] The numerical comparison between the direct and induced O(Qs^6) contributions is shown for a single value of the IR parameter, κ = 0.6, with the regularization Λ_IR^2 = κ Q_s^2. Since both O(Qs^6) terms are IR-sensitive and the paper acknowledges that the next-order terms are unknown and expected to be positive, the stability of the 'comparable magnitude' conclusion should be established by showing the κ-dependence of the ratio between the two contributions, or at least by stating the range of κ over which the conclusion holds.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (51)] In the definition of L(x−y), the exponential should be e^{iq·(x−y)} rather than e^{ip·(x−y)}, since the integration variable is q.
  2. [Sec. VI.C, Figs. 9–11] The y-axis is labeled C(Δφ), but the units GeV^{-4} are not defined in the text; please state explicitly what the normalization of the plotted quantity is.
  3. [Sec. VI.A, Eq. (116)] The derivation of Eq. (116) is said to follow from Refs. [25,29], but Ref. [25] is cited as 'in preparation'. If a formula from that work is used here, either provide a preprint or include a self-contained derivation of the cross-section expression.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'spliting' in the Introduction, 'represnts' in Sec. V.B.2, and a few missing commas in displayed equations; a careful proofread would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the induced helicity field is re-derived independently from Yang-Mills equations and diagrammatics, and the observable evaluation follows from a stated model ansatz rather than from fitting or from assuming the target result.

full rationale

The central object A+_ind (Eq. 22) is obtained twice in the paper: by solving classical Yang-Mills equations (Sec. II.A) and by explicit diagrammatic calculations for quark and gluon sources (Sec. II.B and II.C). The prior derivation in Ref. [10] (same author) is therefore not load-bearing; the paper does not rely on it as the only support. The polarized-source average in Eq. (50), ⟨⟨β^a α^b⟩⟩ = δ^ab δ(x− − y−) L(x − y) μ0^2/P+, is explicitly introduced as a 'simplified ansatz' 'inspired by' the helicity-extended MV model of Ref. [11]; it is an input model assumption, not fitted to the dijet correlation and not equivalent to the final induced term Eq. (115c). The three-field average (Eq. 53), the function Γ (Eq. 58), and the induced contribution (Eq. 115c) are deterministic consequences of that ansatz; the sensitivity of the sign and magnitude to the ansatz shows model dependence, not circularity. The direct-helicity contribution uses the unpolarized four-point function (Eq. 96) from independent references [26–28], and the expansion (Eq. 103) is derived from that expression. Other self-citations ([16], [25], [47], [53]) are contextual, motivational, or methodological and do not supply load-bearing content. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no result reduces to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. The free parameters are model and kinematic inputs from the MV model, plus the IR regularization parameter kappa. The most important axiom is the simplified helicity-extended MV ansatz, which is an input assumption and not derived from a more fundamental action.

free parameters (6)
  • mu0^2 (MV model color charge density) = related to Qs^2 via Eq. (102); numerical value set through Qs inputs
    Sets the saturation scale in the MV model; not fitted to data in this paper.
  • Qs (gluon saturation scale) = 0.8, 1.0, 1.5 GeV in numerical plots
    Input parameter controlling the size of the computed correlation; scanned in Fig. 11.
  • Q^2 (photon virtuality) = 4 GeV^2
    Kinematic input entering the photon splitting scale a_f^2 = z1 z2 Q^2.
  • |p1|, |p2| (jet transverse momenta) = 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 GeV
    Kinematic inputs used in the numerical evaluation; scanned in Fig. 10.
  • kappa (IR regularization parameter) = 0.6
    Defines Lambda_IR^2 = kappa Qs^2 in the replacement L(q) = 1/(q^2(q^2+Lambda_IR^2)) (Eq. 136); affects numerical magnitudes and IR behavior.
  • L^- (shockwave longitudinal extent) = combined with mu0^2 into Qs^2; numerical value not separately specified
    Appears in longitudinal integrals and cancels in the final Qs-dependent expressions after using Eq. (102).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Classical Yang-Mills equations (1) with current (2) describe quasi-classical small-x gluons.
    Invoked in Sec. II.A; standard CGC approximation for dense gluon fields.
  • standard math Lorenz gauge and sub-eikonal expansion with A^- = 0.
    Used in Sec. II.A; standard technical setup for sub-eikonal fields.
  • domain assumption MV model Gaussian averaging (49): ⟨alpha^a alpha^b⟩ = delta^{ab} delta(x−-y−) L(x-y) mu0^2.
    From [12,13]; used throughout for unpolarized ensemble averages.
  • ad hoc to paper Helicity-extended MV ansatz (50): ⟨⟨beta^a alpha^b⟩⟩ = delta^{ab} delta(x−-y−) L(x-y) mu0^2/P+.
    Simplified model input, described as inspired by [11]; all quantitative conclusions about the induced effect depend on this correlation structure.
  • domain assumption Only the helicity-dependent part of A_i_sub is retained.
    Stated in Sec. II.A; other sub-eikonal contributions are outside the scope of the paper.
  • domain assumption Large-Nc limit and truncation at O(Qs^6).
    Used in Secs. V and VI; higher-order terms are expected to alternate in sign but are not computed.
  • domain assumption Unpolarized four-point Wilson line correlator closed form (96) from [26-28].
    Imported from prior literature; basis for the expansion in Eq. (103).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasi-Classical Evaluation of Gluon Saturation Induced Helicity Effects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/26Q7D6OX

@misc{pith2026241113431,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasi-Classical Evaluation of Gluon Saturation Induced Helicity Effects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/26Q7D6OX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13431}
}
read the original abstract

At sub-eikonal order in the high-energy limit, helicity dependences are generally contained in the transverse components of the gluon field. In the gluon saturation regime, novel helicity effects arise from the nonlinear interaction between the eikonal-order longitudinal gluon field and the sub-eikonal-order transverse gluon field. We derive this saturation induced helicity-dependent field both by solving the classical Yang-Mills equations and through direct diagrammatic calculations. Our analysis shows that the saturation induced helicity effect is intrinsically a two-particle (or multi-particle) correlation effect, rather than a single-particle distribution effect. Furthermore, we evaluate this effect in the context of double-spin asymmetry for incoherent diffractive dijet production in longitudinally polarized electron-nucleus collisions, using a simplified helicity-extended McLerran-Venugopalan model. We find that the saturation induced helicity effect further suppresses the back-to-back peak in the dijet azimuthal angle correlation, with a magnitude comparable to that of the direct helicity effect. This gluon saturation induced helicity effect may offer a novel avenue to probe gluon saturation in polarized collisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13431 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In this case, there are two quark sources that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Eikonal order gluon field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a) Eikonal order gluon field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The two color sources can come from quarks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) Multiple eikonal gluon exchanges can be resumed into the eikonal Wilson line. (b) sub-eikonal order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Contraction diagrams characterized by longitudinal coordinates corresponding to terms in eq. (67). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Contraction diagram characterized by longitudinal coordinates with (a) corresponding to eq. (73) and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Non-vanishing contraction diagrams for the four terms in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Schematic diagram for quark-antiquark dijet production in longitudinally polarized electron-proton/nucleus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Comparison of the leading order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Correlation functions from (a) gluon saturation induced helicity effect and (b) direct helicity effect for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Correlation functions from (a) gluon saturation induced helicity effect and (b) direct helicity effect for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Forward parton-nucleus scattering at next-to-eikonal accuracy in the CGC

    hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Full next-to-eikonal quark and gluon propagators in a dynamical gluon background are derived, and forward quark and gluon production cross sections are computed for quark-nucleus and gluon-nucleus scattering.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [11]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and E. Levin, Quantum chromodynam- ics at high energy , Vol. 33 (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [25]

    M¨ antysaari, N

    H. M¨ antysaari, N. Mueller, F. Salazar, and B. Schenke, Multigluon Correlations and Evidence of Saturation from Dijet Measurements at an Electron-Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 112301 (2020), arXiv:1912.05586 [nucl- th]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [1]

    We are interested in eq

    (102) from which one obtains Q2 0 = πQ2 s in the large- Nc limit. We are interested in eq. (95) in the large- Nc limit and expansions up to the order ∼ (Q2 0)3. Carrying out the expansions, one gets D Sq ¯q(x, y)Sq ¯q(u, v) E − D Sq ¯q(x, y) ED Sq ¯q(u, v) E ≃ 2 N 2c Q4 0F 2(x, y; u, v) + 2 N 2c Q6 0Γ1F 2(x, y; u, v) − 4 3N 2c Q6 0F (x, u; y, v)F 2(x, y; ...

    work page

  4. [2]

    (94) to get contribu- tions from direct helicity effect

    and sub-leading order O(Q6 0) terms are then substituted into eq. (94) to get contribu- tions from direct helicity effect. B. Gluon Saturation Induced Helicity Dependence We proceed to compute the term in eq. (93), At or- der Q4 s, three A+ fields are needed from expanding the (partial) Wilson lines and the contribution at this or- der vanishes due to van...

    work page

  5. [3]

    In this case, two of the five A+ fields have the same transverse coordinates

    Four Transverse Coordinates We first consider the case that all four transverse co- ordinates are involved. In this case, two of the five A+ fields have the same transverse coordinates. We have the following combinations 17 I4 ≡ ig5P + s Z +∞ −∞ x−dx− Z +∞ x− dx− 1 Z +∞ −∞ dy− Z +∞ −∞ du− Z +∞ −∞ dv−tr tc1 tctb tr tath × D D A+ c1 (x− 1 , x)∂i xA+ c (x−, ...

    work page

  6. [4]

    The three coordinates can be {x, y, u}, {x, y, v} and {x, u, v}

    Three Transverse Coordinates We now consider the cases that only three different transverse coordinates are involved. The three coordinates can be {x, y, u}, {x, y, v} and {x, u, v}. To having five A+ fields distributed among three different transverse coordinates {x, y, u}(note that, when expand- ing the Wilson lines, at least two A+ fields should come f...

    work page

  7. [5]

    in eq. (118). The final result is C (1) dir (p1, p2) = 32 3s Q6 0S⊥ Z p,k 1 p4(p1 + p2 + p)4k4 ϵij h Ψi I (p1 − k, p2 + k, p)Ψj F (p1, p2, p) + Ψi I (p1, p2, p)Ψj F (p1 + k, p2 − k, p) − 3Ψi I (p1, p2, p)Ψj F (p1, p2, p) i + 16 3s Q6 0S⊥ Z p,k 1 p4(p1 + p2 + p + k)4k4 ϵij h Ψi I (p1 + k, p2, p)Ψj F (p1 + k, p2, p) + Ψi I (p1, p2 + k, p)Ψj F (p1, p2 + k, p...

    work page

  8. [6]

    (127) Using this expression, the various terms involving the f j(k1) function in eq. (125) can be simplified as h f j(p1 + p) − f j(p2 + p) + f j(p2) − f j(p1) i = −(p2 1 + a2 f )ϵijΨi F (p1, p2, p), (128) 22 h f j(p1 + p + q) − f j(p1 − q) + f j(p2 − q) − f j(p + q + p2) i = −(p2 1 + a2 f )ϵijΨi F (p1 − q, p2 − q, p + 2q) (129) and h f j(p + q + p2) + f ...

    work page

Show all 62 references
  1. [7]

    (104a) in detail

    Calculating I4 We analyze eq. (104a) in detail. Other terms can be similarly calculated. We decompose the five-field averaging into a product of three-field averaging and two-field averaging. The non-vanishing combinations are D D A+ c1 (x− 1 , x)∂i xA+ c (x−, x)A+ b (y−, y)A+...

  2. [8]

    Calculating I3 For the term in eq. (106a), the non-vanishing combinations in the averaging are D D ∂i xA+ c (x−, x)A+ b1 (y− 1 , y)A+ b (y−, y)A+ a (u−, u)A+ a1 (u− 1 , u) E E = D A+ b1 (y− 1 , y)A+ a1 (u− 1 , u) ED D ∂i xA+ c (x−, x)A+ b (y−, y)A+ a (u−, u) E E + D A+ b (y−, ...

  3. [9]

    Abdul Khalek et al

    R. Abdul Khalek et al. , Science Requirements and De- tector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report, Nucl. Phys. A 1026, 122447 (2022), arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Iancu and R

    E. Iancu and R. Venugopalan, The Color glass conden- sate and high-energy scattering in QCD, in Quark-gluon plasma 4 , edited by R. C. Hwa and X.-N. Wang (2003) pp. 249–3363, arXiv:hep-ph/0303204

    2003 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Zheng, E

    L. Zheng, E. C. Aschenauer, J. H. Lee, and B.-W. Xiao, Probing Gluon Saturation through Dihadron Correla- tions at an Electron-Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. D 89, 074037 (2014), arXiv:1403.2413 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [13]

    G. A. Chirilli, Sub-eikonal corrections to scattering am- plitudes at high energy, JHEP 01, 118, arXiv:1807.11435 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  7. [14]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and M. G. Santiago, Quark sivers func- tion at small x: spin-dependent odderon and the sub- eikonal evolution, JHEP 11, 200, [Erratum: JHEP 09, 186 (2022)], arXiv:2108.03667 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Altinoluk and G

    T. Altinoluk and G. Beuf, Quark and scalar propaga- tors at next-to-eikonal accuracy in the CGC through a dynamical background gluon field, Phys. Rev. D 105, 074026 (2022), arXiv:2109.01620 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Li, Small x physics beyond eikonal approxima- tion: an effective Hamiltonian approach, JHEP 07, 158, arXiv:2304.12842 [hep-ph]

    M. Li, Small x physics beyond eikonal approxima- tion: an effective Hamiltonian approach, JHEP 07, 158, arXiv:2304.12842 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  10. [17]

    Agostini, Scalar propagator in a background gluon field beyond the eikonal approximation, JHEP 11, 099, arXiv:2307.13573 [hep-ph]

    P. Agostini, Scalar propagator in a background gluon field beyond the eikonal approximation, JHEP 11, 099, arXiv:2307.13573 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  11. [18]

    Li, Quasiclassical Gluon Fields and Low’s Soft The- orem at Small Momentum-Fraction x, Phys

    M. Li, Quasiclassical Gluon Fields and Low’s Soft The- orem at Small Momentum-Fraction x, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 021902 (2024), arXiv:2402.17568 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Cougoulic and Y

    F. Cougoulic and Y. V. Kovchegov, Helicity-dependent extension of the McLerran–Venugopalan model, Nucl. Phys. A 1004, 122051 (2020), arXiv:2005.14688 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Computing quark and gluon distribution functions for very large nuclei, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2233 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9309289

    1994 arXiv

  14. [21]

    L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Gluon distribu- tion functions for very large nuclei at small transverse momentum, Phys. Rev. D 49, 3352 (1994), arXiv:hep- ph/9311205

    1994

  15. [22]

    Cougoulic, Y

    F. Cougoulic, Y. V. Kovchegov, A. Tarasov, and Y. Tawabutr, Quark and gluon helicity evolution at small x: revised and updated, JHEP 07, 095, [Erratum: JHEP 09, 052 (2024)], arXiv:2204.11898 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Y. V. Kovchegov, D. Pitonyak, and M. D. Sievert, Small- x Asymptotics of the Gluon Helicity Distribution, JHEP 10, 198, arXiv:1706.04236 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  17. [24]

    T. Kar, A. Kovner, M. Li, and V. V. Skokov, Inco- herent diffractive dijet production and gluon Bose en- hancement in the nuclear wave function, JHEP 07, 134, arXiv:2312.04493 [hep-ph]

  18. [26]

    Rodriguez-Aguilar, D

    B. Rodriguez-Aguilar, D. N. Triantafyllopoulos, and S. Y. Wei, Incoherent diffractive dijet production in electron DIS off nuclei at high energy, Phys. Rev. D 107, 114007 (2023), arXiv:2302.01106 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Rodriguez-Aguilar, D

    B. Rodriguez-Aguilar, D. N. Triantafyllopoulos, and S. Y. Wei, Incoherent diffractive production of jets in electron DIS off nuclei at high energy, Phys. Rev. D 110, 074018 (2024), arXiv:2407.17665 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Thomson, Modern particle physics (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, New York, 2013)

    M. Thomson, Modern particle physics (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, New York, 2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to quantum field theory (Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA, 1995)

    1995

  22. [30]

    P. R. Auvil and J. J. Brehm, Wave Functions for Particles of Higher Spin, Phys. Rev. 145, 1152 (1966)

    1966

  23. [31]

    H. K. Dreiner, H. E. Haber, and S. P. Martin, Two- component spinor techniques and Feynman rules for quantum field theory and supersymmetry, Phys. Rept. 494, 1 (2010), arXiv:0812.1594 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Leader, Spin in Particle Physics , Cambridge Mono- graphs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmol- 31 ogy, Vol

    E. Leader, Spin in Particle Physics , Cambridge Mono- graphs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmol- 31 ogy, Vol. 15 (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and M. Li, Weizs¨ acker-Williams Gluon Helicity Distribution and Inclusive Dijet Production in Longitudinally Polarized Electron-Proton Collisions, in preparation

  26. [34]

    Fujii, Penetration of a high-energy Q anti-Q bound state through SU(N) color background, Nucl

    H. Fujii, Penetration of a high-energy Q anti-Q bound state through SU(N) color background, Nucl. Phys. A 709, 236 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0205066

    2002 arXiv

  27. [35]

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

  28. [36]

    Quark production, Nucl. Phys. A 743, 57 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402257

    2004 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Dominguez, C

    F. Dominguez, C. Marquet, and B. Wu, On multiple scat- terings of mesons in hot and cold QCD matter, Nucl. Phys. A 823, 99 (2009), arXiv:0812.3878 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and B. Manley, Elastic Dijet Produc- tion in Electron Scattering on a Longitudinally Polarized Proton at Small x: A Portal to Orbital Angular Momen- tum Distributions, (2024), arXiv:2410.21260 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Altinoluk, G

    T. Altinoluk, G. Beuf, A. Czajka, and A. Tymowska, DIS dijet production at next-to-eikonal accuracy in the CGC, Phys. Rev. D 107, 074016 (2023), arXiv:2212.10484 [hep- ph]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Altinoluk, G

    T. Altinoluk, G. Beuf, A. Czajka, and C. Marquet, Back- to-back dijet production in DIS at next-to-eikonal accu- racy and twist-3 gluon TMDs, (2024), arXiv:2410.00612 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bhattacharya, R

    S. Bhattacharya, R. Boussarie, and Y. Hatta, Signature of the Gluon Orbital Angular Momentum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 182002 (2022), arXiv:2201.08709 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bhattacharya, R

    S. Bhattacharya, R. Boussarie, and Y. Hatta, Explor- ing orbital angular momentum and spin-orbit correla- tion for gluons at the Electron-Ion Collider, (2024), arXiv:2404.04209 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and D. E. Wertepny, Long-Range Ra- pidity Correlations in Heavy-Light Ion Collisions, Nucl. Phys. A 906, 50 (2013), arXiv:1212.1195 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Hahn, CUBA: A Library for multidimensional numeri- cal integration, Comput

    T. Hahn, CUBA: A Library for multidimensional numeri- cal integration, Comput. Phys. Commun. 168, 78 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404043

    2005 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Gelis, T

    F. Gelis, T. Lappi, and L. McLerran, Glittering Glasmas, Nucl. Phys. A 828, 149 (2009), arXiv:0905.3234 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kovner and V

    A. Kovner and V. V. Skokov, Bose enhancement, the Liouville effective action and the high multiplicity tail in p-A collisions, Phys. Rev. D 98, 014004 (2018), arXiv:1805.09296 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and D. E. Wertepny, Two-Gluon Corre- lations in Heavy-Light Ion Collisions: Energy and Geom- etry Dependence, IR Divergences, and kT -Factorization, Nucl. Phys. A 925, 254 (2014), arXiv:1310.6701 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Dumitru, F

    A. Dumitru, F. Gelis, L. McLerran, and R. Venugopalan, Glasma flux tubes and the near side ridge phenomenon at RHIC, Nucl. Phys. A 810, 91 (2008), arXiv:0804.3858 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Dusling, D

    K. Dusling, D. Fernandez-Fraile, and R. Venugopalan, Three-particle correlation from glasma flux tubes, Nucl. Phys. A 828, 161 (2009), arXiv:0902.4435 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Iancu, K

    E. Iancu, K. Itakura, and L. McLerran, A Gaussian ef- fective theory for gluon saturation, Nucl. Phys. A 724, 181 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212123

    2003 arXiv

  43. [51]

    McLerran and V

    L. McLerran and V. Skokov, Finite Numbers of Sources, Particle Correlations and the Color Glass Condensate, Nucl. Phys. A 947, 142 (2016), arXiv:1510.08072 [hep- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Y. V. Kovchegov, D. Pitonyak, and M. D. Sievert, Helic- ity Evolution at Small-x, JHEP01, 072, [Erratum: JHEP 10, 148 (2016)], arXiv:1511.06737 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Y. V. Kovchegov, D. Pitonyak, and M. D. Sievert, Small- x asymptotics of the quark helicity distribution, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 052001 (2017), arXiv:1610.06188 [hep- ph]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and M. D. Sievert, Small-x Helicity Evo- lution: an Operator Treatment, Phys. Rev. D 99, 054032 (2019), arXiv:1808.09010 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    G. A. Chirilli, High-energy operator product expansion at sub-eikonal level, JHEP 06, 096, arXiv:2101.12744 [hep- ph]

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    Borden, Y

    J. Borden, Y. V. Kovchegov, and M. Li, Helicity evolution at small x: quark to gluon and gluon to quark transition operators, JHEP 09, 037, arXiv:2406.11647 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Kovner, M

    A. Kovner, M. Li, and V. V. Skokov, Probing Gluon Bose Correlations in Deep Inelastic Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 182003 (2022), arXiv:2105.14971 [hep- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Kovner, M

    A. Kovner, M. Li, and V. V. Skokov, Probing gluon Bose correlations in nuclear wave function in deep in- elastic scattering, Phys. Rev. D 107, 114032 (2023), arXiv:2304.12382 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Longitudinal double-spin asym- metries for dijet production at intermediate pseudora- pidity in polarized pp collisions at √s = 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 98, 032011 (2018), arXiv:1805.09742 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Longitudinal double-spin asym- metry for inclusive jet and dijet production in pp col- lisions at √s = 510 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 100, 052005 (2019), arXiv:1906.02740 [hep-ex]

    2019

  53. [61]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Longitudinal double-spin asymmetry for inclusive jet and dijet production in po- larized proton collisions at √s = 510 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 105, 092011 (2022), arXiv:2110.11020 [hep-ex]

    2022

  54. [62]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and M. Li, Gluon double-spin asymme- try in the longitudinally polarized p + p collisions, JHEP 05, 177, arXiv:2403.06959 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.