Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 68 references

In the weak-field limit after nuclear collisions, the glasma energy-momentum tensor settles into a universal late-time falloff independent of how nuclear color charges are modeled.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 00:19 UTC pith:QGQBF7XZ

load-bearing objection Solid analytic control of weak-field glasma EMT: universal late-time powers plus usable Meijer-G and series forms, limited mainly by the stated O(gA^{2}) truncation. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25137 v1 pith:QGQBF7XZ submitted 2026-07-27 nucl-th

Analytic and Approximate Solutions to Color Glass Condensate in the Classical Weak-Field Limit

S. Robicheaux , R. J. Fries This is my paper
classification nucl-th
keywords color glass condensateglasmaenergy-momentum tensorMcLerran-Venugopalan modelweak-field limitMeijer-G functionsheavy-ion collisionsimproved Gaussian model
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Right after two high-energy nuclei collide, the matter left behind is a classical gluon field called the glasma. This paper works in the weak-field limit of that field and shows that, at late proper time, the energy density and pressures always fall the same way no matter which model is used for the nuclei's gluon distributions: energy density and transverse pressure go as 1/\u03c4, while longitudinal pressure goes as 1/\u03c4\u00b3. For the standard McLerran-Venugopalan model with uniform sources the authors give closed analytic formulas in Meijer-G functions; for a proposed improved Gaussian model that fixes ultraviolet and infrared problems they give reliable series at both early and late times. A sympathetic reader cares because these formulas turn a previously numerical early stage of heavy-ion collisions into something that can be checked analytically and used to test simulation codes.

Core claim

In the classical weak-field limit the large-time behavior of the glasma energy-momentum tensor is universal across models of the nuclear gluon correlator: energy density and transverse pressure scale as 1/\u03c4 and longitudinal pressure as 1/\u03c4\u00b3. For infinite nuclei in the McLerran-Venugopalan model the leading gradient terms of every component admit closed forms proportional to (m\u03c4)^{-n} times a linear combination of Meijer-G functions that approach constants; an improved Gaussian model with global color neutrality recovers the same leading powers and the MV shape in the ultraviolet limit.

What carries the argument

Two-point correlators of the classical gluon fields in the forward light cone, written as light-cone integrals over nuclear gluon two-point functions and reduced in the weak-field limit (leading non-abelian seed only, Wilson factor U=1) to single radial integrals that yield every component of the energy-momentum tensor; those integrals close to Meijer-G functions in the MV model.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation keeps only the leading non-abelian seed at the collision and sets the Wilson-line factor to one, which is controlled only when the product of coupling and charge density is small.

What would settle it

Run abelianized classical Yang-Mills evolution with smooth, weak, nearly constant color sources and check whether the measured ratios of longitudinal and transverse pressure to energy density, and the late-time 1/\u03c4 and 1/\u03c4\u00b3 falloffs, match the analytic Meijer-G or improved-Gaussian series.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Late-time energy density, transverse pressure and longitudinal pressure of the weak glasma are fixed by universal powers of proper time, independent of the nuclear gluon model.
  • MV-model stress-tensor components for infinite nuclei are known in closed form as Meijer-G combinations and can be used as analytic benchmarks.
  • The improved Gaussian model supplies UV-finite, IR-safer series that recover MV qualitatively when the UV scale is removed.
  • Angular momentum per unit rapidity carried by the weak gluon field approaches a nonzero constant at large time.
  • Abelianized glasma event generators can be validated against the predicted pressure-to-energy ratios and flow components for weakly varying sources.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same light-cone correlator machinery could be reused to extract the momentum-broadening coefficient q-hat for a parton traversing the weak glasma without new field solutions.
  • If non-abelian corrections only rescale the overall coefficients while leaving the 1/\u03c4 and 1/\u03c4\u00b3 powers intact, the universal late-time skeleton would survive into the full classical regime.
  • Matching the analytic Si/\u03b5 and Tiz/\u03b5 ratios to dilute-source runs would give a clean pass/fail test for existing glasma codes before any hydro stage is attached.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the classical gluon field produced in the collision of two boost-invariant color-charge sheets in the weak-field (linearized, O(gA²), U=1) limit. Starting from the resummed Bessel-function solutions in transverse momentum space (Eqs. 13–15), the authors derive coordinate-space two-point functions as light-cone circle integrals (Eqs. 22, 26, 27) over a general gluon correlator γ, and assemble the energy-momentum tensor in a gradient expansion of the charge variance μ(R). For the MV model with constant μ they obtain closed-form expressions for all EMT components as combinations of Meijer-G functions (Eqs. 74a–f) with constant asymptotic values, yielding ε, P_T ∼ 1/τ and P_L ∼ 1/τ³ (Eqs. 75–76). They argue the late-time powers are universal, i.e. independent of the correlator model, via binomial expansion of the kernel 1/√(4τ²−r′²) (Table I). An "improved Gaussian" (iG) correlator enforcing global color neutrality and a finite UV coarse-graining scale is constructed; its EMT is given by convergent small- and large-τ series that overlap near τ≈0.3 fm. Comparisons to abelian IP-Glasma runs and an application to angular momentum (dL_y/dη becoming constant at late time, Eq. 85) round out the paper.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper delivers three concrete assets: (i) the first closed-form coordinate-space analytic EMT of the weak-field glasma (Eqs. 74a–f), in terms of Meijer-G functions with explicitly extracted constant asymptotics — a parameter-free derivation in the sense that all time dependence follows from the resummed kernels and the MV g-functions; (ii) a structural universality argument for the late-time powers that requires only convergence of two moments of the initial correlator, making it robust across correlator models and, as the authors could note, against restoring the bounded Wilson-line factor; (iii) falsifiable, quantitative predictions — the asymptotic ratios P_L/ε → 0⁻, P_T/ε → 1/2, S_z/ε → const, ω ∼ τ, and the constant asymptote of dL_y/dη in Eq. (85) — that can vet numerical glasma codes, as illustrated by the IP-Glasma comparison in Fig. 7. The iG model, with global color neutrality built into the two-point ansatz, is a useful methodological addition even if incremental relative to Lam–Mahlon. The work is solid, verifiable analytic craftsmanship in a regime complementary to lattice simulations.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV.C, below Eq. (58)] The check of ∂_μT^{μν}=0 'order by order in gradients of μ_k' is the only internal consistency test available for the O(∇²) results of Eqs. (D1a)–(D1g) and Table I, which depend on the extensive moment integrals (C1c)–(C1f) and the f₃…f₉, φ₂…φ₄ functions of Eqs. (D2)–(D11). Leaving it 'as an exercise for the interested reader' is not adequate: an algebraic slip anywhere in Appendix C or D would currently be invisible. The authors should demonstrate the identity explicitly at least through the first nontrivial gradient order (the leading-order check, ∂_τ ε + (ε+P_L)/τ = 0 at O(μ₁μ₂), is a one-line verification given Eqs. (58a,b)) and state how the η-derivative terms are handled for the higher-order pieces.
  2. [§II.C and Fig. 2; §VI.B] The weak-field truncation (recursion (7)→(11); U=1 below Eq. (38)) is controlled by g⁴Γ ~ g⁴μ being small. The paper's own Fig. 2 shows a ~27% suppression of ⟨E₀E₀⟩ already at g=1, μ=19.4 fm⁻², while Table IV and the discussion of Figs. 6–7 invoke realistic couplings g≈2 where the condition fails parametrically. Since the universality result (ε,P_T∼1/τ, P_L∼1/τ³) is claimed model-independently and is the paper's headline, the authors should (i) state a quantitative validity bound (e.g., on g⁴μ/m² or g⁴μB_q) within which U=1 is self-consistent, and (ii) state explicitly which conclusions survive outside that window. The structural argument for the powers (binomial expansion of the kernel 1/√(4τ²−r′²) plus moment convergence) appears unaffected by U(r)≠1, since U is bounded; saying so explicitly, with the caveat that prefactors shift, would strengthen the paper.
  3. [§VI.B, paragraph after Eq. (77)] The iG model is advertised as IR-safe via global color neutrality and 'UV-finite to at least second order gradients' (Summary), but the text notes that m is not fully replaced in ε_L,3,iG and that higher gradient orders cannot be guaranteed UV-safe. These statements are in tension and the Summary overstates the result. Please give a precise table or statement of which EMT components and gradient orders are (a) m-independent and (b) B_q-finite, and align the Summary wording with the qualified statement in this section.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Throughout] Typos: 'coliding' and 'qualitiative' (§I); 'conincidental' (below Eq. (58g)); 'straight forward' (several places); 'singularites' (below Eq. (74f)); 'measurementf' (§VII); double period after 'Meijer-G functions. .' (§I).
  2. [§II.C, Eq. (15a)] The noted minus-sign difference relative to Ref. [32] in Eq. (15a) should be resolved or explicitly attributed to a convention choice (gauge, ε-tensor, or Fourier convention), since readers will cross-check against that reference.
  3. [Eq. (39c)] The notation (r×∇_R)/r is nonstandard; please define the 2D cross product used here. Also state whether the antisymmetry of (39c) under μ₁↔μ₂ with the minus sign in (39d) has been checked against ⟨B₀E₀⟩ = −⟨E₀B₀⟩.
  4. [§VI.B, Eqs. (78)] The series (78a,b) are said to be 'quite well behaved' with overlap of the small- and large-τ expansions near τ≈0.3 fm. Please state the radius of convergence of (78) analytically if known (the coefficients a_n from Eq. (77) should permit an estimate), rather than only demonstrating it numerically in Fig. 4.
  5. [Fig. 7 and preceding paragraph] The agreement with abelian IP-Glasma is qualitative; since the code enforces IR/UV cutoffs via the lattice but not global color neutrality, please state the lattice spacing and box size used and comment on whether the 'slightly faster relaxation' of IP-Glasma could be a cutoff-matching artifact. The relaxation-time scaling ∝B_q^0.4 in the right panel is stated without an error band or fit quality.
  6. [Appendix G] The regulator rescaling m′=0.95√2 m drifting to 0.97√2 m between second and fourth order in τ is presented as evidence that no consistent mapping to Ref. [17]'s scheme exists. A short explanation of why the drift should be order-dependent (or a figure) would help; also clarify the 'constant 8% difference in ε₀'.
  7. [Table I] The header 'Q₁(τ)…Q₅(τ)' vs. the leading 'Q' row label is confusing; state explicitly that the subscript indexes the gradient order and that blank entries mean the term does not occur at that order. The large-τ growth of higher-gradient terms (τ³) should be accompanied by a quantitative breakdown criterion for the gradient expansion (e.g., |∇²μ/μ| τ² ≲ 1).
  8. [§VI.B, discussion of Figs. 5–6] The matching relations m≈0.5 B_c^{−1/2} (Fig. 5) vs. m≈0.46 B_c^{−1/2} and m≈1.3 B_c^{−1/2} (Fig. 6) are three different prescriptions used in quick succession; a compact summary of which matching applies to which observable (and why) would prevent confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: late-time powers and Meijer-G forms are derived from Yang-Mills weak-field kernels plus a stated two-point ansatz, not forced by fits or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is classical: light-cone Yang-Mills with the O(gA²) seed and linearized recursion (Sec. II.C, Eqs. 11–15), two-point field correlators reduced to nuclear gluon correlators G_k via structure constants (Sec. III, Eqs. 22, 26, 27), a general rotationally invariant γ expanded in smooth μ gradients (Sec. IV.A, Eq. 33), and the remaining r′-integrals over light-cone δ/Θ kernels (Eqs. 58). Large-time universality (ε, P_T ∼ 1/τ, P_L ∼ 1/τ³) follows from binomial expansion of 1/√(4τ²−r′²) and extension of the integral to infinity whenever the model moments of f₁, ϕ₁ converge—an algebraic property of the kernels, not of a fitted target. Closed MV forms (Eqs. 74–76) are obtained by converting K_ν products to Meijer-G contour integrals and evaluating the r′ integral; iG series (Eqs. 78–80) likewise follow from expanding E₁. Phenomenological μ(R), B_q, B_c and IP-Glasma comparisons (Apps. A–B, Fig. 7) are illustrative and do not enter the analytic claims. Self-citations to the authors’ recursive near-field work [17] supply setup and consistency checks (flow directions, energy-momentum conservation) but are not used as uniqueness theorems that force the late-time powers or Meijer-G coefficients. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its own definition or to a fit of a closely related observable.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper sits inside classical CGC: boost-invariant light-cone sources, Gaussian (or near-Gaussian) color charge statistics, and the weak-field truncation of Yang-Mills. Free parameters are IR/UV regulators and phenomenological scales taken from saturation fits; the iG model is a new postulated correlator shape. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • m (MV infrared cutoff) = ∼1–1.3 fm^{-1} (matched to Bc in comparisons)
    Ad-hoc gluon mass ∼1 fm^{-1} regulating the 2D Coulomb Green function; appears in all MV closed forms and asymptotics.
  • Bq (iG UV area scale) = 0.3 GeV^{-2} (physical example); →0 recovers MV-like UV
    Gaussian width for color-charge coarse-graining; sets early-time regularity and relaxation speed.
  • Bc (iG confinement area scale) = 4 GeV^{-2}
    Gaussian width enforcing global color neutrality; replaces m as the longest scale in leading iG EMT terms.
  • n (Qs–μ conversion factor) = 0.8 (range 0.57–1.15)
    Dimensionless factor in μ=(Nc²−1)Qs²/(n² g⁴); chosen in a literature range for phenomenology.
  • g and central μ = scenario-dependent (e.g. μ=19.4 fm^{-2} for Au)
    Coupling and source strength; weak-field plots use small g, ‘almost physical’ uses g∼1 and μ∼19 fm^{-2} from IP-Glasma-style averages.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Classical Yang-Mills with boost-invariant light-cone color currents J±=δ(x∓)ρ(x⊥) and axial gauge x+A−+x−A+=0.
    Standard CGC collision setup (Sec. II); underpins all field solutions.
  • domain assumption Weak-field limit: retain only O(gA²) seeds at τ=0+ and drop higher non-abelian terms in the τ-recursion; set Wilson factor U=1.
    Sec. II.C and IV.B; required for Bessel resummation and gauge-invariant two-point functions without links.
  • domain assumption Color charge two-point function factorizes in color and is specified by μ(R)D(r); higher cumulants of W[ρ] neglected.
    MV and iG ansätze (Secs. II.B, V); Lam-Mahlon note non-Gaussianity but weak-field drops it.
  • domain assumption Gradient expansion of slowly varying μ(R) truncated at second order; odd gradients vanish by parity.
    Sec. IV.A; validity requires |∇μ|/μ ≪ m or 1/√Bc.
  • ad hoc to paper Global color neutrality ∫d²r D(r)=0 implemented by difference of two unit-normalized Gaussians in iG.
    Inspired by Kovchegov/Lam-Mahlon but with specific Gaussian Tq,Dq choices (Sec. V).
  • standard math Meijer-G and Bessel integral identities used to evaluate r' integrals (standard special-function analysis).
    Secs. VI, Apps. F–G.
invented entities (1)
  • Improved Gaussian (iG) nuclear gluon correlator no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide a UV-regularized, globally color-neutral replacement for δ-correlated MV charges so EMT integrals are finite without ad-hoc momentum cutoffs.
    Defined by D=F−C with Gaussian F (scale Bq) and C (scale Bq+Bc); g0,1,g2,1,g2,2 given in closed elementary/E1 form (Eq. 70).

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 45495 in / 3895 out tokens · 68744 ms · 2026-07-31T00:19:00.185795+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We discuss two-point functions and the energy momentum tensor of the classical gluon field after the collision of sheets of color charges on the light cone in the weak-field limit. The classical fields created by such a setup is thought to approximate the behavior of the gluon matter created right after the collision of heavy nuclei at large energies. Our discussion is based on a general expression for the gluon distribution in a nucleus, which contains the McLerran-Venugopalan (MV) Model as a special case. We derive the time-dependence of the energy momentum tensor in this general scenario. We show that the large-time behavior is universal, i.e.\ independent of the specific model for the gluon distribution, e.g.\ for energy density, transverse pressure and longitudinal pressure $\epsilon, P_T \sim 1/\tau$ and $P_L \sim 1/\tau^3$, where $\tau$ is longitudinal proper time. Subsequently, we focus on two special cases, the MV model and a proposed improved Gaussian (iG) model with improved ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) behavior, the latter inspired by earlier work by Lam and Mahlon. We explicitly discuss the time dependence of the energy momentum tensor in both models. In the case of the MV-model, for infinite colliding nuclei, it is possible to give closed-formed analytic solutions for the energy momentum tensor in terms of special functions. Components of the energy momentum tensor take the form $\sim C (m\tau)^{-n} H(m\tau)$, where $n$ is an integer power, $m$ is the infrared cutoff, $H$ is a linear combination of Meijer-G functions with constant asymptotic value, and $C$ is a known constant. For the iG-model, we obtain reliable series expansions for both small and large times and show that the MV-model is recovered qualitatively in the UV limit. We briefly comment on implications for the angular momentum carried by the gluon field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25137 by R. J. Fries, S. Robicheaux.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The locations of points at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The initial correlation functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The reduced leading order coefficients in the gradient expansion for energy density, longitudinal pressure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The reduced longitudinal and transverse energy densities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Left panel: The UV-limit of the functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Reduced energy density in both the MV (dashed lines) and improved Gaussian model (solid line). The iG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Left panel:Longitudinal pressure (green) and average transverse (blue) pressure normalized by the energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 50 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    =A gx−λg (1−x) 5.6 ∂xg(x,˜µ2) ∂log ˜µ2 = αs(˜µ2) 2π 1Z x dzPgg (z) x z g x z ,˜µ2 (A4) where the functionP gg is the gluon splitting function. To leading order it is Pgg (z) = 6 z (1−z)+ + 1−z z +z(1−z) + 11 2 − Nf 3 δ(1−z).(A5) In principle there is a contribution to the DGLAP evolution from annihilation of virtual quarks but this is thrown out on ground...

  2. [2]

    The Color glass condensate and high-energy scattering in QCD,

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  3. [3]

    Gelis, E

    F. Gelis, E. Iancu, J. Jalilian-Marian, and R. Venugopalan, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60, 463 (2010), arXiv:1002.0333 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Lappi and L

    T. Lappi and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A772, 200 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602189

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    C. Gale, S. Jeon, B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 012302 (2013), arXiv:1209.6330 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    Berges, K

    J. Berges, K. Boguslavski, S. Schlichting, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D89, 074011 (2014), arXiv:1303.5650 [hep-ph]. 32

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Kurkela, A

    A. Kurkela, A. Mazeliauskas, J.-F. Paquet, S. Schlichting, and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. C99, 034910 (2019), arXiv:1805.00961 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Berges, M

    J. Berges, M. P. Heller, A. Mazeliauskas, and R. Venugopalan, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 035003 (2021), arXiv:2005.12299 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D49, 2233 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9309289

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  10. [10]

    L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D49, 3352 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9311205

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  11. [11]

    Jalilian-Marian, A

    J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, L. D. McLerran, and H. Weigert, Phys. Rev. D55, 5414 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9606337

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  12. [12]

    Kovner, L

    A. Kovner, L. D. McLerran, and H. Weigert, Phys. Rev. D52, 3809 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9505320

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  13. [13]

    Kovner, L

    A. Kovner, L. D. McLerran, and H. Weigert, Phys. Rev. D52, 6231 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9502289

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  14. [14]

    Schenke, P

    B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. C86, 034908 (2012), arXiv:1206.6805 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  15. [15]

    Schenke, C

    B. Schenke, C. Shen, and P. Tribedy, Phys. Rev. C102, 044905 (2020), arXiv:2005.14682 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    M. R. Heffernan, C. Gale, S. Jeon, and J.-F. Paquet, (2023), arXiv:2306.09619 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    R. J. Fries, J. I. Kapusta, and Y. Li, Nucl. Phys. A774, 861 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0511101

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  18. [18]

    G. Chen, R. J. Fries, J. I. Kapusta, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. C92, 064912 (2015), arXiv:1507.03524 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  19. [19]

    I. G. Beardenet al.(BRAHMS), Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 102301 (2004), arXiv:nucl-ex/0312023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  20. [20]

    Krasnitz, Y

    A. Krasnitz, Y. Nara, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 192302 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0108092

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  21. [21]

    Lappi, Phys

    T. Lappi, Phys. Rev. C67, 054903 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0303076

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  22. [22]

    Schenke, P

    B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 252301 (2012), arXiv:1202.6646 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  23. [23]

    Gelfand, A

    D. Gelfand, A. Ipp, and D. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. D94, 014020 (2016), arXiv:1605.07184 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    Ipp and D

    A. Ipp and D. M¨ uller, Phys. Lett. B771, 74 (2017), arXiv:1703.00017 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    McDonald, S

    S. McDonald, S. Jeon, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C108, 064910 (2023), arXiv:2306.04896 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    A. Ipp, M. Leuthner, D. I. M¨ uller, S. Schlichting, K. Schmidt, and P. Singh, Phys. Rev. D109, 094040 (2024), arXiv:2401.10320 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Bartels, K

    J. Bartels, K. J. Golec-Biernat, and H. Kowalski, Phys. Rev. D66, 014001 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0203258

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  28. [28]

    Kowalski and D

    H. Kowalski and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. D68, 114005 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0304189

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  29. [29]

    Garcia-Montero, H

    O. Garcia-Montero, H. Elfner, and S. Schlichting, Phys. Rev. C109, 044916 (2024), arXiv:2308.11713 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Lappi, Phys

    T. Lappi, Phys. Lett. B643, 11 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0606207

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  31. [31]

    Chen and R

    G. Chen and R. J. Fries, Phys. Lett. B723, 417 (2013), arXiv:1303.2360 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [32]

    Lappi and S

    T. Lappi and S. Schlichting, Phys. Rev. D97, 034034 (2018), arXiv:1708.08625 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Guerrero-Rodr ´ ıguez and T

    P. Guerrero-Rodr ´ ıguez and T. Lappi, Phys. Rev. D104, 014011 (2021), arXiv:2102.09993 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Fujii, K

    H. Fujii, K. Fukushima, and Y. Hidaka, Phys. Rev. C79, 024909 (2009), arXiv:0811.0437 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  35. [35]

    M. E. Carrington, A. Czajka, and S. Mrowczynski, Eur. Phys. J. A58, 5 (2022), arXiv:2012.03042 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    M. E. Carrington, A. Czajka, and S. Mr´ owczy´ nski, Phys. Rev. C106, 034904 (2022), arXiv:2105.05327 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Li and J

    M. Li and J. I. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. C94, 024908 (2016), arXiv:1602.09060 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [38]

    Jalilian-Marian, A

    J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov, and H. Weigert, Phys. Rev. D59, 014014 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9706377

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  39. [39]

    Jalilian-Marian, A

    J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, and H. Weigert, Phys. Rev. D59, 014015 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9709432

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  40. [40]

    Iancu, A

    E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Lett. B510, 133 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0102009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  41. [41]

    G. B. Arfken and H. J. Weber,Mathematical Methods for Physicists, 6th ed. (Elsevier Academic Press, 2005)

    2005

  42. [42]

    Lin, Integral Transforms and Special Functions24, 783 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1080/10652469.2012.758119

    Q.-G. Lin, Integral Transforms and Special Functions24, 783 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1080/10652469.2012.758119

    arXiv 2013

  43. [43]

    Y. V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. D54, 5463 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9605446

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  44. [44]

    C. S. Lam and G. Mahlon, Phys. Rev. D61, 014005 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907281

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  45. [45]

    C. S. Lam and G. Mahlon, Phys. Rev. D64, 016004 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0102337

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  46. [46]

    MeijerG,

    W. R. Inc., “MeijerG,”https://functions.wolfram.com/07.34.03.1058.01(2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    MeijerG,

    W. R. Inc., “MeijerG,”http://functions.wolfram.com/07.34.03.0615.01(2026)

    2026

  48. [48]

    MeijerG,

    W. R. Inc., “MeijerG,”http://functions.wolfram.com/07.34.21.0009.01(2026)

    2026

  49. [49]

    IP-Glasma 0.1,

    B. Schenkeet al., “IP-Glasma 0.1,”https://github.com/schenke/ipglasma(2023)

    2023

  50. [50]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Nature548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Nature548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [51]

    Liang and X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 102301 (2005), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 96, 039901 (2006)], arXiv:nucl- th/0410079

    arXiv 2005

  52. [52]

    Jiang, Z.-W

    Y. Jiang, Z.-W. Lin, and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. C94, 044910 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 95, 049904 (2017)], arXiv:1602.06580 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    Becattini, I

    F. Becattini, I. Karpenko, M. Lisa, I. Upsal, and S. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C95, 054902 (2017), arXiv:1610.02506 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    R. J. Fries, G. Chen, and S. Somanathan, Phys. Rev. C97, 034903 (2018), arXiv:1705.10779 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  55. [55]

    M. E. Carrington and S. Mrowczynski, (2025), arXiv:2505.07324 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Initial longitudinal and transverse motion of nuclei in the weak field limit,

    S. Robicheaux and R. J. Fries, “Initial longitudinal and transverse motion of nuclei in the weak field limit,” (2026), in Preparation

    2026

  57. [57]

    Lappi, Eur

    T. Lappi, Eur. Phys. J. C55, 285 (2008), arXiv:0711.3039 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  58. [58]

    A. H. Rezaeian, M. Siddikov, M. Van de Klundert, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D87, 034002 (2013), arXiv:1212.2974 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  59. [59]

    Schenke, P

    B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. C89, 064908 (2014), arXiv:1403.2232 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [60]

    De Vries, C

    H. De Vries, C. De Jager, and C. De Vries, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables36, 495 (1987)

    1987

  61. [61]

    BesselI,

    W. R. Inc., “BesselI,”http://functions.wolfram.com/03.02.26.0008.01(2024)

    2024

  62. [62]

    W. R. Inc., “Exp,”http://functions.wolfram.com/01.03.21.0099.01(2024)

    2024

  63. [63]

    MeijerG,

    W. R. Inc., “MeijerG,”https://functions.wolfram.com/HypergeometricFunctions/MeijerG/(2024). 33

    2024

  64. [64]

    LaguerreL,

    W. R. Inc., “LaguerreL,”http://functions.wolfram.com/05.08.26.0001.01(2024)

    2024

  65. [65]

    Hypergeometric1F1Regularized,

    W. R. Inc., “Hypergeometric1F1Regularized,”http://functions.wolfram.com/07.21.03.0001.01(2024)

    2024

  66. [66]

    Luke,The Special Functions and Their Approximations, Mathematics in science and engineering No

    Y. Luke,The Special Functions and Their Approximations, Mathematics in science and engineering No. v. 1 (Academic Press, 1969)

    1969

  67. [67]

    BesselJ,

    W. R. Inc., “BesselJ,”http://functions.wolfram.com/03.01.21.0005.01(2025)

    2025

  68. [68]

    HypergeometricPFQRegularized,

    W. R. Inc., “HypergeometricPFQRegularized,”http://functions.wolfram.com/07.32.26.0004.01(2025)

    2025