Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 20 references

Confronting impact-parameter dependent model in next-to-leading order of perturbative QCD with combined HERA data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A four-parameter saturation-dipole model fitted to inclusive HERA cross sections reproduces nearly all small-x HERA data, including exclusive vector-meson production, and is proposed as the basis for EIC/LHeC predictions.

desk verdict A compact, transparent fit to HERA data with an existing model; the broad agreement claim rests on visual and partly circular comparisons, and the high-Q^2 extrapolation is unquantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15234 v1 pith:IFDRILJX submitted 2024-12-11 hep-ph

José Garrido , Michael Roa , Miguel Guevara This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords ColorGlassCondensatesaturationBalitsky-Kovchegovequationimpactparameterdependencesmall-xdeepinelasticscatteringHERAcombineddataexclusivevectormesonproductionprotonstructurefunctionF2
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

The paper argues that a Color-Glass-Condensate saturation dipole model, with only four free parameters adjusted to the reduced inclusive deep-inelastic cross section at HERA, gives a good description of nearly all small-x HERA measurements: the proton structure function $F_2$, the charm structure function $F_2^{c\bar{c}}$, and exclusive production of $J/\psi$, $\phi$, and $\rho$ mesons. If correct, the same parameters extend beyond the fitted range and can be used to predict inclusive and diffractive observables at the Electron-Ion Collider and the LHeC. The model rests on an analytic next-to-leading-order solution of the BK equation and an impact-parameter dependent saturation scale that falls exponentially with $b$, consistent with the Froissart bound. The fit achieves $\chi^2/\mathrm{d.o.f.} \approx 1.23$ on the inclusive data, and the same parameters are then compared with unfitted inclusive and exclusive observables across a wide kinematic range.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dipole-proton forward scattering amplitude $N(r,Y;b)$, given piecewise in Eq. (3.1): for $\tau=r^2 Q_s^2 \le 1$ it behaves as $N_0 e^{z\bar\gamma}$, while for $\tau>1$ it interpolates between $a(1-e^{-\Omega(z)})$ and $(1-a)\Omega(z)/(1+\Omega(z))$ with $a=0.65$. It is an analytical solution to the NLO BFKL/BK evolution in the saturation region, and it carries the impact-parameter dependence through the saturation scale $Q_s^2=Q_0^2\,(m b K_1(m b))^{1/\bar\gamma}\,e^{\lambda Y}$, which behaves as $e^{-mb}$ at large $b$ and ensures Froissart-compatible unitarization. Convolving $N$ with photon and vector-meson wave functions produces all observables compared with data; only four parameters ($\bar\alpha_S$, $N_0$, $Q_0^2$, $m$) are fitted.

What would settle it

A precise EIC or LHeC measurement of the exclusive $J/\psi$ cross section or the slope $B_D$ at $Q^2\gtrsim20$ GeV$^2$ and $x\sim10^{-3}$ that deviates from the four-parameter model by more than the combined experimental and model uncertainty would falsify the extrapolation claim; alternatively, a re-analysis showing that the $Q^2=90$ and 120 GeV$^2$ $F_2$ points systematically lie outside the model band would contradict the claim that the model describes nearly all available HERA data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the analytic piecewise dipole amplitude $N(r,Y;b)$ of Ref. [1], with saturation scale $Q_s^2(Y,b)=Q_0^2\,(m b K_1(m b))^{1/\bar\gamma}\,e^{\lambda Y}$, fitted to the combined H1 and ZEUS reduced cross-section $\sigma_r$ in the range $0.85<Q^2<30$ GeV$^2$ and $x\le 10^{-2}$, describes the full data set: the structure functions $F_2$ and $F_2^{c\bar{c}}$ and the total cross sections and $t$-slopes $B_D$ for exclusive $J/\psi$, $\phi$, $\rho$ production. The authors read the result as evidence that the NLO-analytic CGC dipole model retains predictive power outside its fit region, even at $Q^2$ values up to 120 GeV$^2$, and as justification for applying it to EIC and LHeC kinematics.

Load-bearing premise

The piecewise analytic formula for the dipole scattering amplitude, together with the impact-parameter dependent saturation scale, is assumed to remain valid outside the region where the four parameters were fitted (moderate $Q^2$ and $x\le 10^{-2}$), including the highest-momentum HERA points and exclusive vector-meson kinematics; if this extrapolation is wrong, the broad agreement and the EIC/LHeC predictions lose their basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the same four parameters, the model predicts the proton structure function and the reduced cross-section at kinematics not included in the fit, including $Q^2$ values up to 120 GeV$^2$, where the displayed curves follow the data within uncertainties.
  • For exclusive processes, the single inclusive fit produces total cross sections $\sigma_{\gamma^*p\to J/\psi\,p}$, $\sigma_{\gamma^*p\to \phi p}$, and $\sigma_{\gamma^*p\to \rho p}$ as functions of $Q^2+M_E^2$ and $W$, together with the diffractive slope $B_D(Q^2)$, all compared with HERA data.
  • Because the saturation scale grows as $e^{\lambda Y}$ with $\lambda$ fixed largely by the BK equation rather than by a free fit, the model can be extrapolated to smaller $x$ and used to produce numerical predictions for the EIC and the LHeC.
  • The impact-parameter dependence $Q_s^2\propto (m b K_1(m b))^{1/\bar\gamma}$ suppresses the dipole amplitude at large $b$, so total cross sections grow in a way consistent with the Froissart bound at fixed coupling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the paper compares unfitted exclusive channels visually but does not report a $\chi^2$ for them; a quantitative goodness-of-fit for the vector-meson data would sharpen the claim that the same four parameters describe 'nearly all' HERA data.
  • Editorial extension: the ansatz $Q_s^2\propto (m b K_1(m b))^{1/\bar\gamma}$ ties the transverse profile of the proton to a single scale $m$; future measurements of the $t$-dependence, especially $B_D$ at higher $Q^2$ at the EIC, would probe the $e^{-mb}$ tail directly.
  • Editorial extension: because the fit sets $\lambda\approx0.2$ and $\bar\alpha_S\approx0.1$, the model makes a specific prediction for the small-$x$ growth of $F_2$; a precise EIC measurement of that growth that maps through Eq. (3.7) to a different $\lambda$ would falsify the extrapolation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a fit of the impact-parameter dependent CGC/saturation dipole model of Contreras et al. [Ref. 1] to the combined HERA reduced cross-section data. The authors determine four free parameters (alpha_bar_S, N0, Q0^2, m) using data in the range 0.85 GeV^2 < Q^2 < 30 GeV^2 and x <= 1e-2, and then compare the model predictions with the proton structure function F2, the charm structure function F2^c cbar, and exclusive J/psi, phi, and rho vector-meson cross-sections and t-slopes. They claim good agreement across a wide kinematic range and conclude that the model is suitable for predictions at the EIC and LHeC.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the result would be significant: an analytically solvable NLO-BK-based dipole amplitude with only four parameters, respecting the Froissart bound, would describe a broad set of HERA inclusive and exclusive observables and provide a simple tool for EIC/LHeC phenomenology. The analytic formulas are explicit and the parameter values are tabulated, which in principle allows the results to be reproduced. However, the current support for the central claim is mostly qualitative, and the independent predictive tests are not quantified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Figs. 1-4] The central claim that the model 'provides a good description of nearly all available data' is supported only by visual inspection. No chi2, pull distributions, or uncertainty bands are given for F2^c cbar or the exclusive vector-meson datasets, and the inclusive-fit chi2 in Table 1 does not cover these observables. Please provide quantitative goodness-of-fit measures (with propagated parameter uncertainties) for each dataset shown, especially for the kinematic regions outside the fit range: Q^2 > 30 GeV^2 in Fig. 1a and the W/Q^2 ranges in Figs. 2-4.
  2. [Section 4, Fig. 1a] The F2 comparison is largely a consistency check rather than an independent test, because the parameters are fitted to the reduced cross-section sigma_r, which Eq. (2.3) defines through the model's F2 and FL. The paper should state this limitation explicitly and rely on F2^c cbar and the exclusive observables as independent tests; alternatively, it should present predictions made before the fit.
  3. [Section 3.2 vs Table 1] The text states 'Q0^2 in [0.15, 0.25] GeV^2', but Table 1 reports fitted values Q0^2 = 0.797 and 0.809 GeV^2. This is a direct contradiction that prevents the reader from knowing the actual fitted range. Please correct the stated range and also clarify whether lambda in Eq. (3.7) is a derived quantity from Eq. (3.5) or an independent input when the text states 'The value of lambda = 0.2 is needed'.
  4. [Sections 3.1, 3.2, 4] The extrapolation of the analytic forms (3.1) and (3.7) beyond the fitted kinematic range is an assumption that is never tested independently, yet it underlies the claimed agreement at Q^2 > 30 GeV^2 and the EIC/LHeC predictions. Provide an explicit out-of-sample assessment (e.g., chi2 computed only for data with Q^2 > 30 GeV^2, or for exclusive W bins outside the fit) or add a clear caveat that the high-Q^2 agreement is an extrapolation without quantitative support.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1 caption] The phrase 'fixed light quark masses 10^-2 / 10^-4' is ambiguous; please specify the exact up, down, and strange quark masses used in each fit row.
  2. [Section 3.2] The statement 'The value of lambda = 0.2 is needed to describe DIS data' is redundant or unclear given that Eq. (3.5) defines lambda in terms of alpha_bar_S; please clarify whether lambda is fitted, fixed, or derived from alpha_bar_S.
  3. [Eq. (2.4)-(2.5)] The treatment of the vector-meson overlap wave functions and the real-part correction beta is too brief for reproducibility; a short description or an explicit reference to the companion paper [20] where these are defined would help.
  4. [References] Reference [2] contains a typo: 'Quantum Choromodynamics' should be 'Quantum Chromodynamics'.
  5. [Abstract and Section 5] The abstract and summary state that the model is suitable for EIC/LHeC predictions, but no EIC/LHeC predictions are shown; consider adding an example prediction or rewording the claim to 'provides a framework for such predictions'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The F2 comparison partly returns the fitted sigma_r input through Eq. (2.3); charm and exclusive observables remain independent support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, after Table 1; Eq. (2.3); Table 1 caption]
    "Using the parameters of the CGC/Saturation model extracted from the χ-squared fit to the reduced inclusive DIS cross-section, we computed the structure functions ... and then compared them to the combined HERA data. The results show that with only four parameters fixed by the reduced cross-section, this model provides a good description of nearly all available data on inclusive and exclusive diffractive processes at HERA for small-x (x ≤ 10−2)."

    The four parameters in Table 1 are determined by χ2 minimization against the reduced cross-section σr using the combined H1 and ZEUS data [7]. By Eq. (2.3), σr(Q2,x,y) = F2(Q2,x) − [y2/(1+(1−y)2)] FL(Q2,x), so σr is essentially F2 with a small FL correction. The F2 curves in Fig. 1-a therefore mostly re-plot the same data that fixed the parameters; this comparison is near-tautological and not an independent test. The genuinely out-of-sample comparisons are F2^{c cbar} and the exclusive vector-meson observables, which are not part of the fitted reduced cross-section. Lumping F2 together with these in the claim of good agreement makes the fitted leg count as validation. The Q2 > 30 GeV2 portion of Fig. 1-a is extrapolation, but the points inside the fit range remain fitted input.

full rationale

The paper is a phenomenological confrontation rather than a first-principles derivation: the dipole amplitude (3.1), the anomalous-dimension correction (3.6), and the b-dependent saturation scale (3.7) are imported from Refs. [1,10,11], which are not authored by the present paper's authors; no load-bearing uniqueness claim depends on self-citation. The only self-citation, Ref. [20], is a pointer for further comparisons and is not used to justify the central result. The main circularity is that the model parameters are fitted to the reduced inclusive cross-section σr, and F2 is then presented as a successful comparison even though Eq. (2.3) makes σr almost identical to F2 up to the small FL term. That step is an example of a fitted input being called a prediction and does not provide independent validation. The charm structure function and exclusive vector-meson results are not included in the fit and thus supply real out-of-sample evidence, although only as visual comparisons. Because the central claim bundles the near-tautological F2 agreement with genuinely predictive observables, the circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the analytic dipole amplitude (Eq. 3.1), the b-dependent saturation scale (Eq. 3.7), and the photon and meson wavefunctions of Refs. [2,9], none of which are derived here. No new physical entities are introduced. The fitted constants are the main content of the paper.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha_bar_S = 0.1040 +/- 4.6e-4 (mc=1.40 GeV); 0.1100 +/- 1.8e-4 (mc=1.27 GeV)
    Strong coupling entering the BK kernel; fitted to the combined HERA reduced cross-section (Table 1).
  • N0 = 0.1311 +/- 3.7e-4; 0.1510 +/- 8.1e-4
    Dipole amplitude normalization at r^2 Q_s^2 = 1; fitted (Table 1).
  • Q0^2 = 0.797 +/- 0.0033 GeV^2; 0.809 +/- 0.0062 GeV^2
    Saturation scale normalization at b=0 and Y=0; fitted (Table 1). Section 3.2 quotes a range of 0.15 to 0.25 GeV^2, which is inconsistent with the table.
  • m = 0.4743 +/- 9.6e-4 GeV; 0.5412 +/- 1.8e-4 GeV
    Controls the b-dependence of Q_s through m b K1(m b); fitted (Table 1, Eq. 3.7).
  • a = 0.65 (fixed)
    Mixing parameter in the dipole amplitude for tau > 1 (Eq. 3.1); taken as fixed, from Ref. [1], not fitted here.
  • lambda = 0.2 (fixed)
    Exponent of rapidity in Q_s(Y,b); Section 3.2 says lambda=0.2 is needed to describe DIS data, although Eq. (3.5) appears to determine lambda from alpha_bar_S. The treatment is ambiguous.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The dipole-proton scattering amplitude N(z) in Eq. (3.1) is a valid analytic solution of the NLO BK equation in the saturation domain.
    Taken from Ref. [1]; its validity is not rederived here and it underlies all computed observables.
  • domain assumption The saturation scale Q_s^2(Y,b) = Q0^2 (m b K1(m b))^{1/gamma_bar} e^{lambda Y} in Eq. (3.7) correctly encodes the impact-parameter dependence and Froissart behavior.
    Taken from Ref. [11]; the functional form is assumed, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The photon and vector meson wavefunctions used in Eqs. (2.1)-(2.6) are accurate in the kinematic range of the comparison.
    Wavefunctions are from Refs. [2,9]; their uncertainties are not discussed.
  • domain assumption The model's analytic form remains valid outside the fitted range (Q^2 > 30 GeV^2, and for exclusive final states at high W).
    The figures extend to Q^2 up to 120 GeV^2 and high W; extrapolation validity is assumed without explicit checks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Confronting impact-parameter dependent model in next-to-leading order of perturbative QCD with combined HERA data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IFDRILJX

@misc{pith2026241215234,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Confronting impact-parameter dependent model in next-to-leading order of perturbative QCD with combined HERA data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IFDRILJX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15234}
}
abstract

In this talk, we present the CGC/saturation approach of Ref.[C.~Contreras, E.~Levin, R.~Meneses and M.~Sanhueza,Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.11, 1029] and its parameters determined from the combined HERA data. This model features an analytical solution for the non-linear Balitsky-Kovchegov (BK) evolution equation and the exponential behavior of the saturation momentum on the impact parameter $b$-dependence, characterized by $Q_s\propto \exp(-mb)$. We compare our results with experimental data at small-$x$, including the proton structure function $F_2$, charm structure function $F_2^{c\bar{c}}$, and exclusive vector meson production. The model shows good agreement across a wide kinematic range. Our findings support using this approach for reliable predictions in upcoming experiments like the Electron-Ion Collider (EIC) and the LHeC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15234 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Total vector meson cross-sections 𝜎 for 𝐽/𝜓, 𝜙 and 𝜌, as a function of 𝑄 2 + 𝑀2 𝐸 compared to theoretical estimates from CGC/saturation dipole model where solid (𝑚𝑐 = 1.4 GeV) and dashed (𝑚𝑐 = 1.27 GeV) lines correspond to the parameters used from table I, respectively. The data are from H1 and ZEUS collaborations [14–19]. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Total vector meson cross-sections 𝜎 for J/𝜓, 𝜙 and 𝜌, as a function of 𝑊. The solid lines correspond to parameters from table I with 𝑚𝑐 = 1.4 GeV, and the dashed lines with 𝑚𝑐 = 1.27 GeV. The data are from H1 and ZEUS collaborations [14–19]. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ����� �=��� ��� � �� �� �� � � � � � ��[����] �� ��� - �  γ*� -> �/ψ � ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ��� �=�� ��� � �� �� �� � � � � � �� �� ��[����] �� ��� - �  γ*� -> ϕ � ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results for the slope 𝐵𝐷 of 𝑡−distribution of exclusive vector meson electroproduction as a function of 𝑄 2 . Solid and dashed lines represent calculations using charm quark masses of 𝑚𝑐 = 1.4 GeV and 𝑚𝑐 = 1.27 GeV, respectively, from table I. The collection of experim…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Non-linear equation in the re-summed next-to-leading order of perturbative QCD: the leading twist approximation

    C.Contreras,E.Levin,R.MenesesandM.Sanhueza, “Non-linearequationinthere-summed next-to-leading order of perturbative QCD: the leading twist approximation,”Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.11, 1029 [arXiv:2007.06214 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  2. [11]

    CGC/saturation approach: a new impact-parameter dependent model

    C. Contreras, E. Levin and I. Potashnikova,“CGC/saturation approach: a new impact- parameter dependent model,”Nucl. Phys.A948 (2016), 1-18 [arXiv:1508.02544 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  3. [20]

    M. Roa, J. Garrido and M. Guevara, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.7, 074006 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.074006 [arXiv:2311.06406 [hep-ph]]. 8

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [2]

    Quantum Choromodynamics at High Energies

    Yuri V Kovchegov and Eugene Levin,“Quantum Choromodynamics at High Energies", Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [3]

    Onthepomeranchuksingularityinasymptotically freetheories

    V.S.Fadin,E.A.KuraevandL.N.Lipatov, “Onthepomeranchuksingularityinasymptotically freetheories", Phys.Lett. B60,50(1975); E.A.Kuraev,L.N.LipatovandV.S.Fadin, “The PomeranchukSingularityinNonabelianGaugeTheories" Sov.Phys.JETP 45,199(1977),[Zh. Eksp.Teor.Fiz.72,377(1977)]; I.I.BalitskyandL.N.Lipatov, “ThePomeranchukSingularity inQuantumChromodynamics,” Sov....

    work page 1975

  6. [4]

    Balitsky, [arXiv:hep-ph/9509348]; Phys

    I. Balitsky, [arXiv:hep-ph/9509348]; Phys. Rev. D60, 014020 (1999) [arXiv:hep- ph/9812311]; Y. V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev.D60, 034008 (1999), [arXiv:hep-ph/9901281]

    arXiv 1999

  7. [5]

    A Resummation of large subleading corrections at small x,

    G. P. Salam,“A Resummation of large subleading corrections at small x,”JHEP 9807(1998) 019 [hep-ph/9806482]

    arXiv 1998

  8. [6]

    ScatteringTheory:Unitarity,AnalitysityandCrossing

    M. Froissart,Phys. Rev. 123 (1961) 1053; A. Martin,“ScatteringTheory:Unitarity,AnalitysityandCrossing."LectureNotesinPhysics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New-York, 1969

    work page 1961

Show all 20 references
  1. [7]

    Combined Measurement and QCD Analysis of the Inclusive𝑒𝑝 Scattering Cross Sections at HERA,

    F. D. Aaron et al. [H1 and ZEUS Collaborations], “Combined Measurement and QCD Analysis of the Inclusive𝑒𝑝 Scattering Cross Sections at HERA,”JHEP 1001 (2010) 109 [arXiv:0911.0884 [hep-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Combination and QCD Analysis of Charm Production Cross Section Measurements in Deep-Inelastic ep Scattering at HERA,

    H. Abramowiczet al.[H1 and ZEUS Collaborations],“Combination and QCD Analysis of Charm Production Cross Section Measurements in Deep-Inelastic ep Scattering at HERA,” Eur. Phys. J. C73 (2013) 2, 2311 [arXiv:1211.1182 [hep-ex]]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Exclusive diffractive processes at HERA within the dipole picture,

    H. Kowalski, L. Motyka and G. Watt,“Exclusive diffractive processes at HERA within the dipole picture,”Phys. Rev.D74 (2006) 074016 [hep-ph/0606272]. 7 Confrontingimpact-parameterdependentmodelinnext-to-leadingorderofperturbativeQCDwithcombined HERA data José Garrido

    2006 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Geometric scaling above the saturation scale,

    E. Iancu, K. Itakura and L. McLerran,“Geometric scaling above the saturation scale,”Nucl. Phys. A708(2002) 327 [hep-ph/0203137]

    2002 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Deep inelastic cross-section measurements at large𝑦withtheZEUSdetectoratHERA,

    H. Abramowiczet al.[ZEUS Collaboration],“Deep inelastic cross-section measurements at large𝑦withtheZEUSdetectoratHERA,” Phys.Rev. D90(2014)7,072002[arXiv:1404.6376 [hep-ex]]; S. Chekanov et al. [ZEUS Collaboration], “Measurement of the Longitudinal Proton Structure Function at...

    2014 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Measurement of inclusive𝑒𝑝 cross sections at high𝑄2 at√𝑠= 225 and 252 GeV and of the longitudinal proton structure function𝐹𝐿 at HERA,

    V. Andreevet al.[H1], “Measurement of inclusive𝑒𝑝 cross sections at high𝑄2 at√𝑠= 225 and 252 GeV and of the longitudinal proton structure function𝐹𝐿 at HERA,” Eur. Phys. J. C 74, no.4, 2814 (2014) [arXiv:1312.4821 [hep-ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Chekanovet al.[ZEUS], PMC Phys

    S. Chekanovet al.[ZEUS], PMC Phys. A1, 6 (2007) [arXiv:0708.1478 [hep-ex]]

    2007 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Chekanovet al.[ZEUS], Eur

    S. Chekanovet al.[ZEUS], Eur. Phys. J. C24, 345-360 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ex/0201043 [hep- ex]]

    2002 arXiv

  9. [16]

    [ZEUS],Nucl.Phys.B 695,3-37(2004)[arXiv:hep-ex/0404008[hep-ex]]

    S.Chekanov etal. [ZEUS],Nucl.Phys.B 695,3-37(2004)[arXiv:hep-ex/0404008[hep-ex]]

    2004 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Aktaset al.[H1], Eur

    A. Aktaset al.[H1], Eur. Phys. J. C46, 585-603 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ex/0510016 [hep-ex]]

    2006 arXiv

  11. [18]

    [ZEUS],Nucl.Phys.B 718,3-31(2005)[arXiv:hep-ex/0504010[hep-ex]]

    S.Chekanov etal. [ZEUS],Nucl.Phys.B 718,3-31(2005)[arXiv:hep-ex/0504010[hep-ex]]

    2005 arXiv

  12. [19]

    F. D. Aaronet al.[H1], JHEP05, 032 (2010) [arXiv:0910.5831 [hep-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.