Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

New evidence for the rapidity evolution in Mueller-Navelet dijet production: BFKL, Sudakov, and RG-invariance

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 NLO BFKL resummation plus initial-state radiation is what fits Mueller-Navelet dijet data across all rapidity separations.

desk verdict Genuinely novel RG-invariant NLO BFKL+HEF matching for MN dijets that deserves review, but the 'clear evidence' claim outruns the statistics and the Eq. (5) subtraction needs a numerical check. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10458 v3 pith:BZVBTEQ6 submitted 2025-06-12 hep-ph

A.A. Chernyshev , M.A. Nefedov , V.A. Saleev This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.Bx12.39.St13.85.Tp
keywords BFKLequationMueller-Naveletdijetshigh-energyfactorizationNLLresummationSudakovRGinvarianceangularcoefficientsunintegratedPDFs
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

This paper argues that Mueller-Navelet dijet production—two jets of high transverse momentum separated by a large rapidity interval—is described across all measured rapidity differences only when next-to-leading-logarithmic (NLL) BFKL resummation is added to the initial-state-radiation resummation already present in high-energy factorization (HEF). The authors match a renormalization-group-invariant NLO BFKL Green's function to the fixed-order HEF hard-scattering coefficient by subtracting the BFKL initial-condition term, so no special scale-setting prescription is needed. They find that the combined prediction reproduces Tevatron and LHC measurements of rapidity-difference distributions, azimuthal decorrelation, and ratios of angular harmonic coefficients. If the paper is right, the angular-coefficient ratios at large rapidity separation are a clean, scale-stable signature of BFKL dynamics, separated from the fixed-order prediction by more than five standard deviations in the data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the matched hard-scattering coefficient $$\hat\sigma_{ij}^{\rm(HEF+BFKL)} = \hat\sigma_{ij}^{\rm(HEF)} + \hat\sigma_{ij}^{\rm(BFKL)} - \hat\sigma_{ij}^{\rm(BFKL,0)},$$ where $\hat\sigma_{ij}^{\rm(BFKL,0)}$ is the BFKL coefficient evaluated with the Green's function replaced by its initial condition $\delta^{(2)}(\ell_{T1}-\ell_{T2})$, which the paper identifies with the $Y\to\infty$ asymptotics of the fixed-order HEF coefficient. The BFKL part uses the exact NLO Green's function expanded over eigenfunctions $H_{n,\gamma}$ of the kernel, with the $O(\bar\alpha_s)$ eigenfunction corrections fixed so that the solution is RG-invariant; collinear improvement of the characteristic function removes the spurious splitting of the LO saddle point. The HEF part uses improved KMR W unintegrated PDFs that implement Sudakov resummation, so the whole construction carries both the initial-state-radiation resummation and the NLL BFKL resummation. The subtraction in Eq. (5) is what lets the two descriptions interpolate smoothly across the transition region.

What would settle it

Take the fixed-order HEF hard-scattering coefficient (given in Ref. [44]) and compute its large-$Y$ asymptotics directly: if it differs from the BFKL(0) coefficient used here, the subtraction leaves residual double counting and the predicted transition near $Y\sim 3.5$ would shift. Alternatively, high-statistics data in the transition region could expose a kink or discontinuity in the matched prediction, which would signal that the subtraction is not exact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the NLO BFKL-improved HEF computation—not fixed-order HEF and not LO BFKL-improved HEF—describes the Mueller-Navelet data. At small rapidity difference $Y\lesssim 3$ the fixed-order HEF contribution alone matches the measurements; beyond $Y\approx 3.5$ it over-predicts the angular correlation between the jets, and the LO BFKL-improved curve over-decorrelates, producing an almost flat azimuthal distribution. Only the NLL BFKL-improved curve reproduces the observed decorrelation at large $Y$ and the falling ratios $C_{k>n}/C_n$ of the $\cos(n(\Delta\phi-\pi))$ harmonic coefficients. The paper reports that the separation between the HEF-only and NLO BFKL-improved curves in these ratios reaches well above five standard deviations even after scale uncertainties, and that the RG-invariant construction reduces the scale dependence to the level of fixed-order calculations. This is the evidence the authors put forward for BFKL dynamics at Tevatron and LHC energies.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that subtracting the BFKL(0) term—the BFKL coefficient with the Green's function set to its initial condition, identified with the fixed-order HEF coefficient's limit as the rapidity separation becomes very large—removes the double counting exactly at every finite $Y$; if this identity holds only approximately, the smooth interpolation and the apparent need for NLL corrections could be artifacts of the matching scheme.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One scheme now covers the whole measured rapidity range: fixed-order HEF at small $Y$ and NLO BFKL-improved HEF at large $Y$, so future analyses can quote one prediction instead of choosing a regime by hand.
  • The ratios $C_{k>n}/C_n$ become a quantitative test of BFKL dynamics: the data sit more than five standard deviations below the fixed-order HEF curve and agree with the NLO BFKL-improved curve.
  • At large $Y$, fixed-order HEF over-predicts azimuthal correlation and LO BFKL over-decorrelates; only the NLL resummation gives the observed shapes, so measurements in this region discriminate between resummation orders.
  • The residual scale uncertainty is comparable to fixed-order calculations because the Green's function is RG-invariant at NLL, removing the need for BLM-type scale choices that earlier Mueller-Navelet studies relied on.
  • The BFKL-induced growth of the $Y$-distribution relative to fixed-order HEF becomes more pronounced at higher collider energies, so higher-energy data should sharpen the signal further.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the matching identity is exact, the same subtract-the-shared-Regge-asymptotics recipe could be applied to other observables with two rapidity-separated hard probes, such as forward dijet or dihadron correlations, where fixed-order impact factors currently suffer large logarithmic corrections.
  • The angular-coefficient ratios' low scale sensitivity suggests that finer $Y$ bins at 13 TeV, or lower-scale measurements, could separate the NLO BFKL prediction from the collinearly improved version, providing a sharper test of the $O(\bar\alpha_s^2)$ kernel terms than absolute cross sections.
  • The paper's scheme still relies on the KMR W prescription for unintegrated PDFs; if that prescription's normalization or Sudakov content is altered, the size of the ISR effect and the position of the matching transition would change, so cross-checking with a different Sudakov-evolved unintegrated PDF set would test how much of the conclusion is specific to this choice.
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 combines the high-energy factorization (HEF) description of Mueller-Navelet dijet production, which includes initial-state radiation effects through Kimber-Martin-Ryskin-Watt unintegrated PDFs, with a next-to-leading-logarithmic (NLL) BFKL resummation using an RG-invariant solution of the BFKL equation built from NLO eigenfunctions. The two descriptions are matched through Eq. (5), where the BFKL(0) contribution—the BFKL expression with the Green's function replaced by its initial condition—is subtracted to avoid double counting. The authors compare their predictions with CMS and D0 data on rapidity-difference distributions, energy ratios, azimuthal decorrelation, and angular harmonic ratios, and conclude that both the HEF initial-state radiation effects and NLL BFKL resummation are needed for a uniform description, claiming that the angular-harmonic ratios provide clear, multi-standard-deviation evidence for BFKL dynamics.

Significance. If the matching procedure is valid and the comparisons are quantitatively reliable, this would be a significant advance: it would provide BFKL phenomenology without the BLM scale-setting prescription that has been essential in previous Mueller-Navelet analyses, and it would combine, for the first time, HEF-based initial-state radiation resummation with an RG-invariant NLO BFKL Green's function. The paper contains no parameter fits to the dijet data; all ingredients are taken from published PDFs, the NLO BFKL kernel, and the authors' prior HEF formalism. The central phenomenological direction is plausible, and the plots show systematic, physically expected differences between HEF-only, LO BFKL-improved, and NLO BFKL-improved predictions. However, the strength of the final claim depends on the matching identity in Eq. (5) and on the statistical interpretation of the quoted standard-deviation separation, both of which need to be made explicit and verified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (5) and End Matter] The matching identity is the load-bearing step of the paper. The text asserts that the BFKL(0) term is the Y-to-infinity (Regge) asymptotics of the HEF hard-scattering coefficient, so that subtracting it removes exactly the double counting between the fixed-order HEF HSC of Ref. [44] and the BFKL-resummed HSC. This is cited from Ref. [56], but the HEF HSC of Ref. [44] is derived from the complete set of LO effective-theory diagrams, not from a factorized impact-factor convolution; the factorized form with the Green's function replaced by its initial condition is at best the leading high-energy term. No numerical or analytic check is provided that the difference between the full HEF HSC and its BFKL(0) approximation is negligible in the transition region Y ~ 3-3.5 where the matching switches between the two regimes. Since the paper's central evidence for NLL BFKL is precisely that LO BFKL falls below the data while NLO BFKL agrees, an imperfect subtraction could shift the transition and manufacture or distort the apparent need for NLL corrections. The authors should provide a quantitative test of Eq. (5) in the overlap region, for example by comparing the two HSCs directly as functions of Y, or by isolating the subleading terms in the large-Y expansion of the HEF HSC.
  2. [Fig. 1(l)-(q) and surrounding text] The abstract and the discussion in the text state that the separation between the HEF-only curve and the NLL BFKL-improved curve in the angular-harmonic ratios 'reaches well above five standard deviations, even taking into account the residual scale-uncertainty bands.' No definition of this significance is given: it is not stated whether the comparison uses experimental uncertainties, theoretical uncertainties, or both, whether the experimental points are treated as correlated or uncorrelated, or what statistic (chi-square, point-by-point pull) is used. Given that the paper's headline claim is 'clear evidence in favour of the BFKL dynamics,' this statistical statement must be backed by a concrete prescription, for example a chi-square per point or a covariance-aware estimate, or the claim should be softened to a descriptive comparison of curves.
  3. [Fig. 1(a)-(e) and Fig. 1(f)-(k)] The quantitative quality of the data description is asserted from visual inspection but no goodness-of-fit numbers are given for any of the distributions. In particular, the claim that HEF describes the data well for Y < 3 and that NLO BFKL-improved HEF agrees with the data for Y > 3.5 is not supported by any uncertainty quantification. For a Letter whose main message is phenomenological evidence, providing chi-square or likelihood values per data set, or at least listing the number of data points and the quoted uncertainties, would make the evidence reproducible and falsifiable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and page 1] The abstract contains the typo 'BKFL equation' instead of 'BFKL equation'; the same typo appears in the introductory paragraph on page 1 ('NLO BKFL equation').
  2. [End Matter, last paragraph] The statement 'We have checked the consistency of the solution (4) with the running-coupling solution proposed in Ref. [64] and found the agreement up to NLL' is an unverifiable assertion because the details are deferred to a future publication. In a self-contained Letter, either the comparison should be shown in a supplementary plot or this sentence should be explicitly marked as a preliminary check that does not enter the phenomenological conclusions.
  3. [End Matter, Eq. (5) discussion] The phrase 'with the Green's function substituted by it's initial condition' contains a typo: 'it's' should be 'its'.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption of Fig. 3 states 'The (a) characteristic function (7) at Re gamma = 1/2 as function of Im gamma' but the letter '(a)' appears to be a leftover label from a multi-panel figure; the panel labels should be cleaned up.
  5. [End Matter, Eq. (9)] The notation in Eq. (9) is dense: the summation indices and the meaning of the braces — in particular whether they denote a principal-value prescription or a symmetrization — are not defined in the main text. A sentence clarifying the notation would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predictions are generated from external PDFs, published fixed-order HEF matrix elements, and a published NLO BFKL Green's function, with no parameter fitted to the MN dijet data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is genuinely input-driven. Equation (2) uses the KMRW UPDFs of Ref. [46] built on MSTW2008 PDFs, the fixed-order HEF hard-scattering coefficient is taken from the independent published calculation of Ref. [44], and the NLO BFKL Green's function is constructed from the eigenfunctions of Refs. [36,37] with a collinear-improved characteristic function. The only freedom is the scale choice mu_R = mu_F = 2 xi sqrt(|p_T1||p_T2|), with xi = 0 central and xi = +/-1 for uncertainty bands; this is not a fit to the CMS or D0 data used for comparison. The nearest potential concern is the matching identity in Eq. (5), where the BFKL(0) term is asserted to be the Y -> infinity Regge asymptotic of the HEF HSC, with Ref. [56] cited. That identity is a theoretical assumption imported from earlier work with overlapping authorship, but it is parameter-free and is not fitted to the data, so it does not constitute a circular reduction. Moreover, the same BFKL(0) subtraction enters both the LO and NLO BFKL-improved curves, so the paper's central evidence in favor of NLL BFKL dynamics comes from the difference between the LO and NLO Green's-function evolutions, not from the matching term itself. The remaining self-citations to Refs. [44,46,56] concern published formalism pieces with independent derivations; they do not by construction force the claimed conclusion that NLL BFKL resummation is crucial. No step of the enumerated circularity kinds can be exhibited from the text.

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

No parameters are fitted to the MN dijet data; all numerical inputs come from published PDFs, the NLO BFKL kernel, and the authors' earlier HEF and UPDF papers. The central computation relies on previously published building blocks that are not re-derived in this Letter.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The NLO BFKL Green's function is exactly represented by the eigenfunction expansion (4) with NLO eigenfunctions H_{n,gamma} constructed in Refs. [36,37], including the principal-value prescription at gamma=1/2.
    The Letter takes the RG-invariant NLL solution as given and does not derive it; all BFKL predictions depend on this expansion.
  • domain assumption The HEF cross section (2), with the improved KMR-W UPDFs of Ref. [46], correctly resums the initial-state radiation and Sudakov effects relevant for MN dijets.
    The LO HEF HSC from Ref. [44] is used as the complete fixed-order baseline, and all additional ISR corrections are assigned to the UPDFs.
  • ad hoc to paper The matching identity (5) holds: the BFKL(0) term equals the Y to infinity (Regge) asymptotics of the HEF HSC, so the subtraction removes double counting exactly.
    This assertion is imported from Ref. [56] without demonstration for the LO EFT diagrams of Ref. [44]; it is the pivot of the claimed transition between HEF and BFKL regimes.
  • domain assumption The collinear-improved characteristic function (9) can be added to the NLO characteristic function (7) without breaking NLO accuracy or RG-invariance.
    The collinear improvement is adopted from Refs. [21,66,67]; the paper argues Delta chi is O(alpha_s^3) but does not prove full consistency.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of New evidence for the rapidity evolution in Mueller-Navelet dijet production: BFKL, Sudakov, and RG-invariance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BZVBTEQ6

@misc{pith2026250610458,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: New evidence for the rapidity evolution in Mueller-Navelet dijet production: BFKL, Sudakov, and RG-invariance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BZVBTEQ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10458}
}
read the original abstract

We study the effects of matching of the high-energy resummation based on the BFKL equation with initial state radiation effects, taken into account within the framework of high-energy factorization, in the production of Mueller-Navelet dijets. We use RG-invariant solution of the NLO BFKL equation built out of eigenfunctions perturbatively constructed up to NLO to avoid the need for a special renormalization scale setting. We demonstrate that various data sets from the FNAL Tevatron and CERN LHC can be described in this way and both, the NLL BFKL resummation and initial state radiation effects of the high-energy factorization, are crucial for the uniform description of the data across all values of the rapidity difference between the jets. The behavior of angular distributions and ratios of angular coefficients with increasing rapidity separation between the jets provides clear evidence for the BFKL dynamics at the FNAL Tevatron and CERN LHC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10458 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Different observables related to the MN dijet production. Several contributions are shown: HEF (solid line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Different HSCs in Eq. (5) plotted on the rapidity axis. Dashed lines denotes Reggeized gluons. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The (a) characteristic function (7) at Re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The plots of the LL and NLL Green’s function (4). In all plots except the ones showing the ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Endpoint Logarithms in the NLO Mueller-Navelet Jet Vertex: Threshold Matching and BLM/MOM Prescription Sensitivity

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A conservative BFKL-aware threshold matching scheme is constructed for the NLO forward jet vertex that resums ordinary endpoint logs, preserves NLO accuracy, and is tested against CMS azimuthal observables, showing in...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [44]

    Nefedov, V

    M. Nefedov, V. Saleev, and A. Shipilova, Phys. Rev. D 87, 094030 (2013)

    work page 2013

  2. [56]

    Z.-G. He, B. Kniehl, M. Nefedov, and V. Saleev, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 162002 (2019), arXiv:1906.08979 [hep- 6 ph]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [1]

    L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.23, 338 (1976)

    work page 1976

  4. [2]

    E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov, and V. S. Fadin, Sov. Phys. JETP44, 443 (1976)

    1976

  5. [3]

    E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov, and V. S. Fadin, Sov. Phys. JETP45, 199 (1977)

    1977

  6. [4]

    I. I. Balitsky and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.28, 822 (1978)

    1978

  7. [5]

    V. S. Fadin and L. N. Lipatov, Phys. Lett. B429, 127 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9802290

    arXiv 1998

  8. [6]

    V. S. Fadin and L. N. Lipatov, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 439 (2018), arXiv:1712.09805 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 68 references
  1. [7]

    Abdul Khalek et al., Nucl

    R. Abdul Khalek et al., Nucl. Phys. A1026, 122447 (2022), arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [8]

    E. P. Byrne, JHEP07, 284 (2024), arXiv:2312.15051 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [9]

    V. S. Fadin, M. Fucilla, and A. Papa, JHEP04, 137 (2023), arXiv:2302.09868 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [10]

    E. P. Byrne, V. Del Duca, L. J. Dixon, E. Gardi, and J. M. Smillie, JHEP08, 271 (2022), arXiv:2204.12459 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Caola, A

    F. Caola, A. Chakraborty, G. Gambuti, A. von Man- teuffel, and L. Tancredi, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 212001 (2022), arXiv:2112.11097 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Falcioni, E

    G. Falcioni, E. Gardi, N. Maher, C. Milloy, and L. Vernazza, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 132001 (2022), arXiv:2112.11098 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Del Duca, R

    V. Del Duca, R. Marzucca, and B. Verbeek, JHEP01, 149 (2022), arXiv:2111.14265 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Abreu, G

    S. Abreu, G. De Laurentis, G. Falcioni, E. Gardi, C. Milloy, and L. Vernazza, JHEP04, 161 (2025), arXiv:2412.20578 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Buccioni, F

    F. Buccioni, F. Caola, F. Devoto, and G. Gambuti, JHEP03, 129 (2025), arXiv:2411.14050 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Hentschinski et al., Acta Phys

    M. Hentschinski et al., Acta Phys. Polon. B54, 3 (2023), arXiv:2203.08129 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [17]

    A. H. Mueller and H. Navelet, Nucl. Phys. B282, 727 (1987)

    1987

  12. [18]

    Del Duca and C

    V. Del Duca and C. R. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D49, 4510 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9311290

    1994 arXiv

  13. [19]

    W. J. Stirling, Nucl. Phys. B423, 56 (1994), arXiv:hep- ph/9401266

    1994

  14. [20]

    J. R. Andersen, V. Del Duca, S. Frixione, C. R. Schmidt, and W. J. Stirling, JHEP02, 007 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0101180

    2001

  15. [21]

    Sabio Vera and F

    A. Sabio Vera and F. Schwennsen, Nucl. Phys. B776, 170 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0702158

    2007 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Colferai, F

    D. Colferai, F. Schwennsen, L. Szymanowski, and S. Wallon, JHEP12, 026 (2010), arXiv:1002.1365 [hep- ph]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Ducloue, L

    B. Ducloue, L. Szymanowski, and S. Wallon, JHEP05, 096 (2013), arXiv:1302.7012 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Duclou´ e, L

    B. Duclou´ e, L. Szymanowski, and S. Wallon, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 082003 (2014), arXiv:1309.3229 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Duclou´ e, L

    B. Duclou´ e, L. Szymanowski, and S. Wallon, Phys. Rev. D92, 076002 (2015), arXiv:1507.04735 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [26]

    A. H. Mueller, L. Szymanowski, S. Wallon, B.-W. Xiao, and F. Yuan, JHEP03, 096 (2016), arXiv:1512.07127 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Caporale, D

    F. Caporale, D. Y. Ivanov, B. Murdaca, and A. Papa, Nucl. Phys. B877, 73 (2013), arXiv:1211.7225 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Caporale, D

    F. Caporale, D. Y. Ivanov, B. Murdaca, and A. Papa, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3084 (2014), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 75, 535 (2015)], arXiv:1407.8431 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Caporale, D

    F. Caporale, D. Y. Ivanov, B. Murdaca, and A. Papa, Phys. Rev. D91, 114009 (2015), arXiv:1504.06471 [hep- ph]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [30]

    F. G. Celiberto and A. Papa, Phys. Rev. D106, 114004 (2022), arXiv:2207.05015 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [31]

    A. I. Egorov and V. T. Kim, Phys. Rev. D108, 014010 (2023), arXiv:2305.19854 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Baldenegro, G

    C. Baldenegro, G. Chachamis, M. Kampshoff, M. Klasen, G. J. Milhano, C. Royon, and A. Sabio Vera, Phys. Rev. D110, 114027 (2024), arXiv:2406.10681 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Altinoluk, N

    T. Altinoluk, N. Armesto, A. Kovner, and M. Lublinsky, Phys. Rev. D108, 074003 (2023), arXiv:2307.14922 [hep- ph]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [34]

    S. J. Brodsky, G. P. Lepage, and P. B. Mackenzie, Phys. Rev. D28, 228 (1983)

    1983

  29. [35]

    S. J. Brodsky, V. S. Fadin, V. T. Kim, L. N. Lipatov, and G. B. Pivovarov, JETP Lett.70, 155 (1999), arXiv:hep- ph/9901229

    1999

  30. [36]

    G. A. Chirilli and Y. V. Kovchegov, JHEP06, 055 (2013), arXiv:1305.1924 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [37]

    G. A. Chirilli and Y. V. Kovchegov, JHEP05, 099 (2014), [Erratum: JHEP 08, 075 (2015)], arXiv:1403.3384 [hep- ph]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [38]

    L. V. Gribov, E. M. Levin, and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Rept.100, 1 (1983)

    1983

  33. [39]

    Catani, M

    S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni, and F. Hautmann, Phys. Lett. B242, 97 (1990)

    1990

  34. [40]

    Catani, M

    S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni, and F. Hautmann, Nucl. Phys. B366, 135 (1991)

    1991

  35. [41]

    Catani, M

    S. Catani, M. Ciafaloni, and F. Hautmann, Phys. Lett. B307, 147 (1993)

    1993

  36. [42]

    Catani and F

    S. Catani and F. Hautmann, Nucl. Phys. B427, 475 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9405388

    1994 arXiv

  37. [43]

    J. C. Collins and R. K. Ellis, Nucl. Phys. B360, 3 (1991)

    1991

  38. [45]

    A. V. Karpishkov, M. A. Nefedov, and V. A. Saleev, Phys. Rev. D96, 096019 (2017), arXiv:1707.04068 [hep- ph]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Nefedov and V

    M. Nefedov and V. Saleev, Phys. Rev. D102, 114018 (2020)

    2020

  40. [47]

    L. N. Lipatov, Nucl. Phys. B452, 369 (1995)

    1995

  41. [48]

    Nefedov, Phys

    M. Nefedov, Phys. Rev. D104, 054039 (2021), arXiv:2105.13915 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [49]

    E. N. Antonov, L. N. Lipatov, E. A. Kuraev, and I. O. Cherednikov, Nucl. Phys. B721, 111 (2005)

    2005

  43. [50]

    van Hameren and M

    A. van Hameren and M. Nefedov, JHEP02, 160 (2025), arXiv:2501.02619 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  44. [51]

    L. N. Lipatov and M. I. Vyazovsky, Nucl. Phys. B597, 399 (2001)

    2001

  45. [52]

    M. A. Kimber, A. D. Martin, and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Rev. D63, 114027 (2001)

    2001

  46. [53]

    G. Watt, A. D. Martin, and M. G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C31, 73 (2003)

    2003

  47. [54]

    Ioffe, V

    B. Ioffe, V. Fadin, and L. Lipatov, Quantum chromodynamics: Perturbative and nonperturbative aspects (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010)

    2010

  48. [55]

    Kovchegov and E

    Y. Kovchegov and E. Levin, Quantum Chromodynamics at High Energy, Vol. 33 (Oxford University Press, 2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    Hahn, Comput

    T. Hahn, Comput. Phys. Commun.168, 78 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404043

    2005 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C63, 189 (2009), arXiv:0901.0002 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2216 (2012), arXiv:1204.0696 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), JHEP08, 139 (2016), arXiv:1601.06713 [hep-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Tumasyan et al

    A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS), JHEP03, 189 (2022), arXiv:2111.04605 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Abachi et al

    S. Abachi et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 595 (1996), arXiv:hep-ex/9603010

    1996 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Angioni, G

    M. Angioni, G. Chachamis, J. D. Madrigal, and A. Sabio Vera, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 191601 (2011), arXiv:1106.6172 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  56. [64]

    A. V. Grabovsky, JHEP09, 098 (2013), arXiv:1307.3152 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  57. [65]

    A. V. Kotikov and L. N. Lipatov, Nucl. Phys. B582, 19 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0004008

    2000 arXiv

  58. [66]

    G. P. Salam, JHEP07, 019 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9806482

    1998

  59. [67]

    Sabio Vera, Nucl

    A. Sabio Vera, Nucl. Phys. B722, 65 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0505128

    2005

  60. [68]

    all-poles

    A. Polizzi, M. Fucilla, and A. Papa, (2025), arXiv:2505.18074 [hep-ph]. 7 qT 2→ qT 2→ qT 2→ ← qT 1 pT 2↓ ← qT 1 ↓ pT 1 ← lT 2 pT 2↓ ← lT 1 ← qT 1 ↓ pT 1 (c) (b) (a) y| − + pT 2↓ ↓ pT 1 − + − + − + BFKL − + FIG. 2: Different HSCs in Eq. (5) plotted on the rapidity axis. Dashed ...

    2025

Pith tools

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