Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Investigating the inclusive $D^0$ photoproduction in ultraperipheral $PbPb$ collisions at the Large Hadron Collider

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Inclusive D0 photoproduction in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions is sensitive to nuclear and nonlinear QCD effects, and preliminary CMS data favor models with those effects over a linear no-nuclear-evolution prediction.

desk verdict A workmanlike, modest phenomenological paper whose new momentum-space expression and three-model comparison with preliminary CMS data are useful, but whose central claim rests on a visual comparison and an underspecified CCFM nuclear rescaling. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02223 v1 pith:FYQ6FCEC submitted 2025-06-02 hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-th

Victor P. Goncalves , Luana Santana , Wolfgang Schäfer This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-exnucl-th
keywords D0photoproductionUltraperipheralheavy-ioncollisionsColordipoleS-matrixUnintegratedgluondistributionSmall-xQCDdynamicsNucleareffectsBalitsky-KovchegovequationHeavymesonproduction
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 seeks to establish that inclusive D0 photoproduction in ultraperipheral lead-lead collisions at the LHC is a workable observable for telling apart competing descriptions of QCD at small x inside a nucleus. It derives the differential cross-section in the color dipole S-matrix approach in both impact-parameter and transverse-momentum space, and shows the momentum-space answer is governed by the unintegrated gluon distribution of the target nucleus. Comparing three models—CCFM linear evolution without nuclear effects, PB-EPPS16 linear evolution with nuclear shadowing, and running-coupling Balitsky-Kovchegov nonlinear evolution—against preliminary CMS data, it finds that CCFM cannot describe the measured D0 rapidity distributions while the other two can. A sympathetic reading is that precise data on this process will therefore help decide how much of the small-x nuclear gluon field is shaped by nuclear modifications versus gluon saturation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the unintegrated gluon distribution (UGD) $F(x,k)$, the density of gluons carrying longitudinal momentum fraction $x$ and transverse momentum $k$ inside the nuclear target. It enters through the standard identity $\sigma(r,x)=\frac{4\pi}{3}\int \frac{d^2 k}{k^2}\,\alpha_s F(x,k)\,(1-e^{ik\cdot r})$ connecting the color dipole cross-section to the UGD, which lets the authors rewrite the charm photoproduction spectrum as an integral over $F(x,k)$; choosing CCFM, PB-EPPS16, or rcBK for $F(x,k)$ injects three different assumptions about QCD dynamics and nuclear effects into the final D0 distributions.

What would settle it

Compute the D0 rapidity distributions with the CCFM, EPPS, and rcBK unintegrated gluon distributions while treating the electromagnetic-dissociation survival factor as a free parameter over the range spanned by the adopted values, and compare the resulting bands to the CMS data bin by bin; if one choice of that factor brings the CCFM curves into agreement with the data, the claim that nuclear and/or nonlinear effects are required would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, on its own terms, is that the preliminary CMS measurement of inclusive D0 photoproduction in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.36$ TeV already discriminates between nuclear-gluon models: the CCFM-based unintegrated gluon distribution, obtained by rescaling the proton distribution with no nuclear corrections, does not describe the data, whereas the PB-EPPS16 and rcBK nuclear unintegrated gluon distributions do. Because the two successful models differ in their underlying physics—EPPS16 adds nuclear parton modifications on top of linear evolution, rcBK solves the running-coupling Balitsky-Kovchegov equation and includes saturation—the data indicate that nuclear effects and/or nonlinear QCD dynamics must be included, but do not yet separate the two. The paper further establishes the analytic link between the color dipole S-matrix cross-section and the nuclear unintegrated gluon distribution in momentum space, making the D0 observable a direct handle on the small-x gluon field of the nucleus.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the probability the emitting lead nucleus survives the photon flux without breaking up is an exponential falloff with impact parameter controlled by a single parameter fixed to values taken from another publication; if that survival factor is actually different, the apparent preference for the nuclear and nonlinear models over the plain linear model could disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the inclusive D0 photoproduction measurement becomes a new experimental handle on the small-x nuclear gluon distribution in ultraperipheral heavy-ion collisions.
  • The preliminary CMS data already exclude the CCFM no-nuclear-effects prediction, so a final high-precision CMS measurement should sharpen the case for nuclear and/or nonlinear dynamics.
  • Measurements with smaller transverse-momentum bins and a wider rapidity range will probe smaller x in the nucleus, where the differences between linear and nonlinear evolution grow.
  • Because the EPPS16 and rcBK predictions both describe the current data, separating nuclear shadowing from gluon saturation will require future data at higher energies or larger rapidities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not pursue this, but treating the electromagnetic-dissociation survival factor as a free parameter fit to the data would break its degeneracy with the choice of unintegrated gluon distribution and test the robustness of the model ranking.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same dipole-to-UGD formula to B-meson photoproduction; the heavier quark provides a second hard scale, so comparing D0 and B yields could map the scale dependence of nuclear saturation.
  • At higher LHC energies the accessible small-x range widens, so the gap between the CCFM and rcBK predictions should grow; if it does, the observable becomes a sharper discriminator of saturation than at 5.36 TeV.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies inclusive D0 meson photoproduction in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions at the LHC using the color dipole S-matrix approach. It derives analytic expressions for the differential cross section in impact-parameter and transverse-momentum space, expresses the result in terms of the nuclear unintegrated gluon distribution (UGD), and presents predictions for three UGD models: a CCFM-based proton UGD rescaled to lead without nuclear effects, the PB-EPPS16 nuclear UGD with linear evolution and nuclear effects, and a nuclear UGD obtained from the running-coupling Balitsky-Kovchegov (rcBK) equation with nonlinear effects. The predictions are compared with preliminary CMS data for the rapidity distribution in three pT bins. The central claim is that the CCFM prediction fails to describe the data while the EPPS and rcBK models do better, implying that nuclear effects and/or nonlinear QCD dynamics must be included.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and relevant observable: inclusive D0 photoproduction in ultraperipheral heavy-ion collisions has only recently become experimentally accessible, and the CMS preliminary data offer a new handle on nuclear UGDs and high-energy QCD dynamics. The authors provide a useful analytic mapping from the color-dipole formalism to the UGD-based momentum-space expression, and they use three well-motivated UGD models without fitting any parameter to the D0 data, so the predictions are genuine model outputs rather than a re-fit of the target observable. The central observable appears sensitive to the treatment of nuclear and nonlinear effects, and a quantitative version of this analysis would be a valuable contribution. However, the current support for the central claim is weakened by the qualitative nature of the data comparison and by an incompletely specified baseline for the 'no nuclear effects' CCFM curve.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, paragraph introducing the UGD models and Fig. 3] The CCFM baseline is not defined precisely. The text states that the CCFM-setA1 proton UGD was 'rescaled for a Lead ion, disregarding nuclear effects', but it does not give the rescaling prescription. This matters directly for the central claim: if the rescaling is F_A = A F_p, then the factor A=208 dominates the normalization and the comparison tests an ad hoc overall factor rather than a controlled QCD-dynamics discrimination; if instead some nuclear geometry or saturation-scale prescription is used, it must be stated explicitly. The authors should provide the exact formula used for the nuclear CCFM input, and ideally show that the qualitative conclusion is robust to the choice of rescaling.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (21) and Fig. 3] The model-data comparison in Fig. 3 is purely visual. There is no chi-square, likelihood ratio, or other quantitative goodness-of-fit measure, and no uncertainty bands are shown for the three UGD predictions beyond the variation of the survival parameter S. Since the conclusion that 'CCFM is not able to describe the data' and that 'the other two models provide a better description' is the central result, the authors should quantify compatibility with the CMS data, e.g., by reporting per-bin chi-square or p-values, and should include the experimental uncertainties and a sensible treatment of the S uncertainty (for instance by marginalizing over the quoted S range).
  3. [Sec. II A, Eq. (4) and Eq. (18); Fig. 2] The survival probability P(b) is modeled with a single parameter S, and the two adopted values S=(10.4 fm)^2 and S=(17.4 fm)^2 produce a large normalization spread in Fig. 2. While P(b) is common to all three UGD models and therefore does not by itself affect the relative ranking, it does affect the absolute normalization, and the conclusion about which model 'describes' the data depends on that normalization. The authors should either propagate the S uncertainty into the data-model comparison or argue quantitatively that the relative ranking is robust to the allowed range of S.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption uses 'UDG' where 'UGD' is meant; please correct.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. IV] There are typos such as 'sensitity' in the abstract and 'embryonal' in the introduction; the manuscript should be proofread.
  3. [Reference [21]] The author name in Ref. [21] appears corrupted as 'M. K/suppress lusek-Gawenda'; the correct spelling should be restored.
  4. [Eq. (1)] The lower limit zmin of the fragmentation-function convolution is not defined; it should be specified in terms of the meson transverse momentum and the charm kinematics.
  5. [Fig. 3] The label 'P(b) =1' appears without a space in the figure panels; this is a minor formatting issue but should be made uniform.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the D0 photoproduction predictions are genuine model outputs from externally fitted UGDs, and the data comparison is not used to tune any parameter.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the authors derive the differential cross-section from the color dipole S-matrix formalism in Eqs. (8)-(16), and the target input is the unintegrated gluon distribution of the nucleus. The three UGD models are taken from independent, externally constrained sources: CCFM-setA1 from a HERA-tuned solution of the CCFM equation [35], PB-EPPS16 from the parton branching approach with EPPS16 nuclear effects [36,48], and the rcBK nuclear UGD from Refs. [37,38]. None of these models is fitted to the CMS D0 data used in Fig. 3; the paper only compares the resulting predictions with the preliminary data. The electromagnetic dissociation survival factor P(b) in Eq. (18) is a common normalization factor applied to all models, and its S values are adopted from an external reference, not fitted to the target observable. The central statement that the CCFM prediction, which disregards nuclear effects, is disfavoured while the other two models provide a better description, is therefore a comparison of pre-existing model inputs rather than a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The authors do cite their own earlier dipole formalism, but the relevant equations are rederived in the text, so the self-citations are not load-bearing reductions of the argument. Concerns about the unspecified CCFM nuclear rescaling and the visual, normalization-sensitive comparison in Fig. 3 are legitimate correctness or robustness issues, but they do not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard UPC factorization, the dipole master formula, the k_T-factorization relation between dipole cross-section and UGD, and three external UGD parametrizations. The only hand-set numerical inputs are the charm mass, two fragmentation constants, and two literature values for the dissociation constant S; none are fitted to the CMS D0 data used for comparison. No invented dynamical entities appear.

free parameters (4)
  • Charm quark mass m_c = 1.4 GeV
    Chosen standard input for dipole calculations. It affects both the normalization and the pT shape of the charm and D0 spectra; no uncertainty is propagated.
  • Peterson fragmentation parameters epsilon_c and n(D0) = epsilon_c = 0.05, n(D0) = 0.308377
    Fragmentation of charm to D0 in Eq. (17). The values are taken from the Peterson model [44] and are not varied in the paper.
  • Electromagnetic dissociation constant S = S = (10.4 fm)^2 and S = (17.4 fm)^2
    Controls the survival probability P(b) against nuclear dissociation in Eqs. (18)-(20). The paper also computes S = (11.4 fm)^2 and S = (14.9 fm)^2 for comparison, showing a significant normalization sensitivity.
  • UGD model parameters (CCFM setA1, PB-EPPS16, rcBK) = fit to HERA and nuclear data in Refs [35,36,38]
    The central predictions depend on these external parametrizations. Their fit uncertainties are not propagated into the paper's curves.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The UPC cross-section factorizes into an effective photon flux and a gamma-target cross-section (Eqs. (1)-(4)).
    Standard in ultraperipheral collision phenomenology; the photon emitter and target are treated independently with survival factors Pstrong and P(b).
  • domain assumption The dipole S-matrix master formula, Eq. (8), describes inclusive charm photoproduction on a nuclear target at high energy.
    Borrowed from Refs [24-27,29]; the paper extends it to the nuclear UGD context without new proof.
  • domain assumption The dipole cross-section is related to the nuclear UGD by Eq. (14), enabling the momentum-space representation.
    This is the k_T-factorization assumption; the equivalence of the impact-parameter and UGD forms underpins the model comparison.
  • domain assumption The pointlike photon spectrum and the theta-function strong-interaction survival probability are sufficient after integrating impact parameters.
    Used in Eqs. (4)-(6); the paper states that cutting b < 2R_Pb makes the pointlike approximation sufficient.
  • standard math The Fourier-Bessel identities used to pass from Eqs. (11)-(13) to Eqs. (15)-(16) are valid.
    Standard integrals, not proven in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating the inclusive $D^0$ photoproduction in ultraperipheral $PbPb$ collisions at the Large Hadron Collider." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FYQ6FCEC

@misc{pith2026250602223,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating the inclusive $D^0$ photoproduction in ultraperipheral $PbPb$ collisions at the Large Hadron Collider},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FYQ6FCEC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02223}
}
abstract

The inclusive $D^0$ photoproduction in $PbPb$ collisions at the center - of - mass energies of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is investigated considering the color dipole $S$ - matrix approach. The analytical expressions for the differential distributions are derived in the impact parameter and transverse momentum spaces and predictions for the rapidity and transverse momentum distributions are presented considering three distinct models for the unintegrated gluon distribution of the nuclear target. In particular, we compare the predictions derived assuming a linear dynamics, with and without the inclusion of nuclear effects, with those obtained by solving the running coupling Balitsky - Kovchegov equation. A comparison of these predictions with the recent (preliminary) CMS data is also performed. Our results indicate that a detailed analysis of this observable will be very useful to improve our understanding of the strong interaction theory at high energies and in a nuclear medium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02223 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Predictions for the rapidity (left panel) and transverse mo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Predictions for the rapidity (left panel) and transverse mo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Rapidity distribution associated with the inclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    Gimeno-Estivill, T

    P. Gimeno-Estivill, T. Lappi and H. M¨ antysaari, [arXiv:2503.16108 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    C. A. Bertulani and G. Baur, Phys. Rep. 163, 299 (1988); F. Krauss, M. Greiner and G. Soff, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 39, 503 (1997); C. A. Bertulani, S. R. Klein and J. Nystrand, Ann. Rev . Nucl. Part. Sci. 55, 271 (2005); V. P. Goncalves and M. V. T. Machado, J. Phys. G 32, 295 (2006); A. J. Baltz et al. , Phys. Rept. 458, 1 (2008); J. G. Contreras and J. ...

    work page 1988

  3. [2]

    S. R. Klein, J. Nystrand, Phys. Rev. C 60, 014903 (1999)

    1999

  4. [3]

    V. P. Goncalves and C. A. Bertulani, Phys. Rev. C 65, 054905 (2002)

    2002

  5. [4]

    Frankfurt, M

    L. Frankfurt, M. Strikman and M. Zhalov, Phys. Lett. B 540, 220-226 (2002)

    2002

  6. [5]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. D 111, no.5, 052006 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [6]

    S. R. Klein, J. Nystrand and R. Vogt, Eur. Phys. J. C 21, 563-566 (2001)

    work page 2001

  8. [7]

    S. R. Klein, J. Nystrand and R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. C 66, 044906 (2002)

    work page 2002

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    V. P. Goncalves and M. V. T. Machado, Eur. Phys. J. C 31, 371-378 (2003)

    2003

  2. [9]

    V. P. Goncalves and M. V. T. Machado, Phys. Rev. D 71, 014025 (2005)

    2005

  3. [10]

    V. P. Goncalves, M. V. T. Machado and A. R. Meneses, Phys. Re v. D 80, 034021 (2009)

    2009

  4. [11]

    V. P. Gon¸ calves, Phys. Rev. D88, no.5, 054025 (2013)

    2013

  5. [12]

    V. P. Goncalves, C. Potterat and M. S. Rangel, Phys. Rev. D 93, no.3, 034038 (2016)

    2016

  6. [13]

    Kotko, K

    P. Kotko, K. Kutak, S. Sapeta, A. M. Stasto and M. Strikman, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no.5, 353 (2017)

    2017

  7. [14]

    V. P. Gon¸ calves, G. Sampaio dos Santos and C. R. Sena, Nucl. P hys. A 976, 33-45 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    Guzey and M

    V. Guzey and M. Klasen, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no.5, 396 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    Guzey and M

    V. Guzey and M. Klasen, Phys. Rev. C 99, no.6, 065202 (2019)

    2019

  10. [17]

    V. P. Gon¸ calves, G. Sampaio dos Santos and C. R. Sena, Eur. P hys. J. C 80, no.6, 521 (2020)

    2020

  11. [18]

    K. J. Eskola, V. Guzey, I. Helenius, P. Paakkinen and H. Paukku nen, Phys. Rev. C 110, no.5, 054906 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    https://cms- 12 results.web.cern.ch/cms-results/ public-results/preliminary-results/HIN-24-003/

    CMS collaboration, Constraining nuclear parton dynamics with th e first measurement of D0-photoproduction in ultraperipheral heavy-ion collisions at the L HC, 2024. https://cms- 12 results.web.cern.ch/cms-results/ public-results/preliminary-results/HIN-24-003/

    2024

  13. [20]

    Nystrand, private communication

    J. Nystrand, private communication

  14. [21]

    K/suppress lusek-Gawenda, M

    M. K/suppress lusek-Gawenda, M. Ciema/suppress la, W. Sch¨ afer and A. Szczurek, Phys. Rev. C 89, no.5, 054907 (2014)

    2014

  15. [22]

    G. Baur, K. Hencken and D. Trautmann, J. Phys. G 24, 1657 (1998)

    1998

  16. [24]

    N. N. Nikolaev, W. Sch¨ afer, B. G. Zakharov and V. R. Zoller, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 97, 441-465 (2003)

    2003

  17. [25]

    N. N. Nikolaev and W. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. D 71, 014023 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    N. N. Nikolaev, W. Sch¨ afer, B. G. Zakharov and V. R. Zoller, Ph ys. Rev. D 72, 034033 (2005)

    2005

  19. [27]

    N. N. Nikolaev, W. Sch¨ afer and B. G. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. D 72, 114018 (2005)

    2005

  20. [28]

    N. N. Nikolaev, W. Sch¨ afer, B. G. Zakharov and V. R. Zoller, JE TP Lett. 82, 325-334 (2005)

    2005

  21. [29]

    N. N. Nikolaev, W. Sch¨ afer and B. G. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 221803 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    Y. B. Bandeira, V. P. Goncalves and W. Sch¨ afer, JHEP 07, 171 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Y. B. Bandeira, V. P. Goncalves and W. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.7, 074041 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Gelis, E

    F. Gelis, E. Iancu, J. Jalilian-Marian and R. Venugopalan, Ann. Re v. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 463 (2010); H. Weigert, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 55, 461 (2005); J. Jalilian-Marian and Y. V. Kovchegov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 56, 104 (2006); A. Morreale and F. Salazar, Universe 7, no...

    2010

  25. [33]

    Klasen and H

    M. Klasen and H. Paukkunen, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 74, 49-87 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    N. A. Abdulov, A. Bacchetta, S. Baranov, A. Bermudez Martin ez, V. Bertone, C. Bissolotti, V. Can- delise, L. I. E. Banos, M. Bury and P. L. S. Connor, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no.8, 752

    2021

  27. [35]

    solving numerically the Ciafaloni - Catani - Fiorani - M archesini (CCFM equation) [45–47] via Monte Carlo method, with the free parameters adjusted in order to describe the HERA data. Such an equation is almost equivalent to BFKL equation in the regime of asymptotic energies ...

  28. [36]

    Jung, [arXiv:hep-ph/0411287 [hep-ph]]

    H. Jung, [arXiv:hep-ph/0411287 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Blanco, A

    E. Blanco, A. van Hameren, H. Jung, A. Kusina and K. Kutak, Ph ys. Rev. D 100, no.5, 054023 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    J. L. Albacete and A. Dumitru, [arXiv:1011.5161 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. L. Albacete, A. Dumitru, H. Fujii and Y. Nara, Nucl. Phys. A 897, 1-27 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Balitsky, Nucl

    I. Balitsky, Nucl. Phys. B 463, 99-160 (1996)

    1996

  33. [41]

    Y. V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. D 60, 034008 (1999)

    1999

  34. [42]

    N. N. Nikolaev, G. Piller and B. G. Zakharov, J. Exp. Theor. Phys . 81, 851-859 (1995)

    1995

  35. [43]

    N. N. Nikolaev, G. Piller and B. G. Zakharov, Z. Phys. A 354, 99-105 (1996)

    1996

  36. [44]

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

    1991

  37. [45]

    Peterson, D

    C. Peterson, D. Schlatter, I. Schmitt and P. M. Zerwas, Phys . Rev. D 27, 105 (1983)

    1983

  38. [46]

    Ciafaloni, Nucl

    M. Ciafaloni, Nucl. Phys. B 296, 49-74 (1988)

    1988

  39. [47]

    Catani, F

    S. Catani, F. Fiorani and G. Marchesini, Phys. Lett. B 234, 339-345 (1990)

    1990

  40. [48]

    Catani, F

    S. Catani, F. Fiorani and G. Marchesini, Nucl. Phys. B 336, 18-85 (1990)

    1990

  41. [49]

    K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen and C. A. Salgado, Eu r. Phys. J. C 77, no.3, 163 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

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