Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

Prospects for early heavy-quark measurements at the EIC

T0 review · 3 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 Early EIC runs will map charm and beauty beyond HERA

desk verdict Useful LO baseline for EIC heavy-flavor planning, but the like-sign D0D0 'first-year' claim is contradicted by the paper's own arithmetic and should be corrected. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09608 v1 pith:QTOU45UV submitted 2026-08-10 hep-ph hep-thnucl-th

Allencris John Rubesh Rajan , Laboni Manna This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-thnucl-th
keywords heavy-quarkelectroproductiondeepinelasticscatteringElectron-IonCollidernuclearpartondistributionfunctionsgluonshadowingEMCeffectdouble-charmproductionleading-orderQCD
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 predicts the rates and kinematic reach of inclusive charm- and beauty-pair production in electron–proton and electron–nucleus collisions at the beam energies and luminosities planned for the first years of the Electron-Ion Collider. It uses leading-order QCD with modern proton and nuclear parton distribution functions to map the accessible ranges in photon virtuality, heavy-quark transverse momentum, and rapidity, and converts the cross sections into expected event yields. The goal is to supply a parton-level baseline that future higher-order calculations and the EIC's own data can be tested against, and to quantify how much the EIC will improve on earlier HERA measurements. For nuclear targets, the paper also computes the nuclear modification ratio and identifies the rapidity regions where gluon shadowing, anti-shadowing, and EMC-like suppression should be visible in early data.

What carries the argument

The machinery is collinear-factorisation QCD at leading order, with the heavy quarks treated as massive final-state particles: a three-flavour scheme for charm and a four-flavour scheme for beauty, so the dominant production channel is virtual-photon–gluon fusion, $\gamma^* g \to Q\bar{Q}$. Cross sections are generated with an automated leading-order matrix-element tool, using a common central scale $\mu_0 = H_T/2$ and a nine-point scale variation to estimate the theoretical uncertainty. The paper's observability criterion is the event-count formula $N_{\rm ev} = (d\sigma/dX) \times f \times \epsilon \times \Delta X \times L$, with a threshold of 20 events per bin; the detection efficiencies (3% for charm, 5% for beauty) and fragmentation fractions are taken from other experiments or detector studies because detailed EIC performance estimates are not yet available. The nuclear modification ratio $R^{eA}$, computed with nuclear PDFs relative to a proton baseline at the same collision energy, is the key ratio that turns a measured eA/ep cross-section ratio into a statement about the nuclear gluon distribution.

What would settle it

A concrete check is to apply the paper's own numbers to the same-sign D0D0 channel: with $\sigma \approx 1.02$ pb, $L = 5.85$ fb$^{-1}$, and $\epsilon = 3\%$, the yield is about 5 events, below the 20-event threshold used elsewhere, so reaching 20 events would require $\epsilon \approx 5.8\%$; early EIC runs that record fewer than 20 same-sign pairs, or a direct efficiency measurement below that level, would falsify the 'first-year like-sign' claim while leaving the other reach predictions testable against the differential spectra.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that early EIC running will make heavy-flavour electroproduction a high-statistics observable over a much wider kinematic range than HERA achieved, and that the same measurements in electron–nucleus collisions will expose the nuclear gluon distribution's main features. In ep collisions at $\sqrt{s_{ep}}=72$ GeV, charm production is predicted to remain observable up to $Q^2 \approx 400$ GeV$^2$ and across the full rapidity range, while beauty production reaches $Q^2 \approx 175$ GeV$^2$; in e–Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{eN}}=63$ GeV, the corresponding reach is $Q^2 \approx 224$ GeV$^2$ for charm and $Q^2 \approx 75$ GeV$^2$ for beauty. The computed nuclear modification ratio $R^{eA} = (1/A)\,\sigma_{eA}/\sigma_{ep}$, evaluated differentially in heavy-quark rapidity, shows a clear pattern: suppression at backward rapidity from gluon shadowing, an anti-shadowing rise of order 7–10% near central and forward rapidity, and an EMC-like downturn at the most forward rapidity. Because beauty is heavier, it probes larger gluon momentum fractions and mainly samples the anti-shadowing and EMC regions rather than the small-$x$ shadowing regime, giving the two flavours complementary sensitivity. The paper presents these results as a parton-level baseline, with kinematic reach and statistical precision quantified through observability lines defined by a 20-event threshold at the projected early-science luminosities.

Load-bearing premise

The event-yield and observability claims rest on assumed D0 and B0 detection efficiencies (3% and 5%) and fragmentation fractions borrowed from other experiments, since detailed EIC detector performance is not yet available.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Charm electroproduction in ep at 72 GeV will be observable across essentially the full planned rapidity range and up to $Q^2 \approx 400$ GeV$^2$, extending the $x_{\rm Bj}$ reach well beyond what HERA's statistics permitted.
  • Beauty electroproduction, although suppressed by the larger quark mass, remains observable up to $Q^2 \approx 175$ GeV$^2$ in ep and up to $y_b \approx 2.5$ in e–Au, with narrower scale uncertainties than charm.
  • The $R^{eA}$ ratio for charm is predicted to show gluon shadowing at backward rapidity, anti-shadowing at central/forward rapidity, and an EMC-like downturn at the most forward rapidity for copper, silver, and gold targets.
  • Because beauty probes larger gluon momentum fractions at the same rapidity, its $R^{eA}$ stays near unity or mildly suppressed, complementing charm's sensitivity to the small-$x$ shadowing region.
  • Double-charm-pair electroproduction offers a new observable: opposite-sign $D^0\bar{D}^0$ pairs at the nanobarn level and same-sign $D^0D^0$ pairs at the picobarn level, a channel that was beyond HERA's reach.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Applying the paper's own event-count formula to its same-sign $D^0D^0$ cross section (about 1.02 pb), luminosity (5.85 fb$^{-1}$), and 3% efficiency gives roughly 5 events, below the paper's 20-event threshold; this suggests the stated 'first-year' like-sign claim would require a higher efficiency or a lower threshold than assumed.
  • The parton-level predictions could be turned into a sharper test by recomputing $R^{eA}$ with alternative nuclear PDF sets, which the paper notes are equally applicable; the spread among sets would show where early EIC data best discriminate nuclear gluon models.
  • Once real EIC detector efficiencies are known, the observability lines can be redrawn and the predicted differential cross sections compared directly with data, turning the baseline into a quantitative test of leading-order collinear factorisation in a multi-scale regime.
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 presents leading-order predictions, made with MadGraph5 aMC@NLO, for inclusive charm and beauty pair electroproduction in ep and eA collisions at representative early-EIC energies, together with estimates of double-charm D0-pair production in ep. Differential distributions in Q^2, heavy-quark pT and rapidity are shown with scale and PDF uncertainties, and event-yield estimates are derived from projected luminosities, assumed fragmentation fractions and detection efficiencies. For eA collisions, the nuclear modification ratio R_eA is computed with EPPS21 nPDFs. The stated goal is to provide a parton-level baseline for early EIC heavy-flavour measurements and to demonstrate an improved statistical reach relative to HERA, including an explicit claim that like-sign D0D0 pairs may be measurable in the first year of EIC operation.

Significance. If taken as a baseline projection rather than a precision prediction, the study is useful for early EIC feasibility discussions. Its strengths are that the calculations use a standard public code with clearly stated PDFs, masses, scales, acceptance cuts, and explicit scale and PDF uncertainty bands, and that the setup is reproducible via the NLOAccess online platform. The paper does not fit any parameters to data, so there is no internal circularity in the cross-section calculation. The main limitations are the LO accuracy of the DIS matrix elements, the use of efficiencies inherited from ECCE and CMS rather than ePIC, and the fact that the observed R_eA pattern (shadowing, anti-shadowing, EMC-like suppression) is inherited from the EPPS21 input nPDFs rather than being an independent finding. These limitations reduce the strength of the paper's 'demonstrate substantial improvement' language but do not invalidate the baseline purpose.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Fig. 6; Section 5] The claim that like-sign D0D0 pairs are 'potentially measurable as early as the first year of operation' is contradicted by the paper's own arithmetic. The same-sign cross section is stated as σ = 1.02^{+1.12}_{-0.46} pb (Fig. 6), and the yield formula N = σ_DD · L · ε^2 with L = 5.85 fb^-1 and ε = 3% gives N ≈ 1.02 × 5.85 × 1000 × (0.03)^2 ≈ 5.4 events, i.e. below the N_ev = 20 observability threshold defined in Eq. (11). Even the upper scale-variation value, 2.14 pb, gives only about 11 events, still below the paper's own threshold. If instead σ_DD is intended not to include the fragmentation fractions, the yield is even smaller. The same issue affects the time line: according to Table 1, the ep 10×130 GeV configuration with L = 5.85 fb^-1 is a Year 2 scenario, not Year 1. The Section 5 statement, and the corresponding 'beyond HERA' capability claim, should be removed or replaced by a statement consistent with the stated threshold and luminosity schedule.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (11); all observability lines in Section 4] The entire quantitative reach argument rests on the ad hoc choice N_ev = 20, which is justified only by the statement that it 'roughly corresponds to the statistical accuracy of the typical last bins of HERA measurements'. This is not substantiated with a HERA comparison, and the same-sign D0D0 example shows that the criterion is not applied consistently to all claimed measurability statements. The authors should either (i) derive N_ev from a specified target statistical uncertainty or significance, including a background model, or (ii) clearly label all observability lines as illustrative and avoid claiming that channels below the line are measurable. As written, the 'substantial improvement in statistical reach relative to HERA' conclusion in Section 5 is not quantitatively supported by the presented criterion.
  3. [Section 4.2, Figs. 9 and 10] The paper states in several places that R_eA 'exhibits' shadowing, anti-shadowing and EMC-like suppression. Since R_eA is computed by dividing cross sections obtained with EPPS21 and CT18ANLO, this pattern is necessarily inherited from the EPPS21 nuclear gluon distribution; it is a prediction of the input nPDFs, not an observable finding. This is acceptable for a baseline study, but the wording should be changed (e.g. 'predicts', 'is consistent with EPPS21 expectations') so that readers are not led to think the calculation itself provides evidence for these nuclear effects. The current wording in Section 5 ('the nuclear modification factor R_eA exhibits a rich structure') overstates the novelty of the result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 5] The phrase 'demonstrate the substantial improvement in statistical precision over HERA' is too strong for a LO parton-level study with assumed efficiencies from other detectors; 'suggest' or 'project' would be more appropriate.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (11)] The labels on the observability lines (e.g. '20 ev / 25 GeV^2 / 5.85 fb^-1') do not display the fragmentation fraction and efficiency values used for each flavour; including them would make the lines reproducible from the stated inputs.
  3. [Table 2] The dagger footnote states that the beauty upper range is 120–175 GeV^2, but the table row is labelled '120–200'; the bin label and the footnote should be made consistent.
  4. [Fig. 6] The legend uses σcc and σcbar cbar without kinematical subscript bars; using σ(c c) and σ(cbar cbar) with the same rapidity cuts as in the text would improve readability.
  5. [Section 4.1, Table 2] The text says 'charm cross sections (in nb) are higher than those for beauty (in pb)' across the entire kinematic domain; this is true, but the statement would be clearer if the units were not compared directly without the numerical factors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: forward LO calculation from external PDFs and matrix elements; minor self-citation in the outlook is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central cross sections and reach estimates are produced by MadGraph5 aMC@NLO with external CT18ANLO and EPPS21 PDFs; no parameter is fitted to the predicted observables, and the R_eA ratio (Eq. 10) is a straightforward forward ratio computed from those inputs. The shadowing, anti-shadowing, and EMC-like structure in the R_eA plots is inherited from the EPPS21 nuclear PDFs, but the paper explicitly frames this as identifying accessible kinematic regimes rather than as a new derivation, and it cautions that a definitive conclusion requires higher-order calculations and experimental input. The only self-citation with author overlap is ref. [82] in the conclusion, used only to mention future resolved-photon MadGraph extensions; it carries no weight in the quantitative derivation. The like-sign D0D0 claim suffers from an internal arithmetic inconsistency: the paper's own Eq. (11) with sigma = 1.02 pb, L = 5.85 fb^-1 and epsilon = 3% gives about 5 events, below the stated 20-event threshold. That is a correctness issue, not circularity. No definitional identity, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation chain forces any result.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The central forecasts depend on external PDFs, chosen quark masses, and, most importantly, assumed reconstruction efficiencies and fragmentation fractions. The efficiency parameters are the most consequential free inputs: the event-yield claims, including the same-sign D0D0 'measurable' conclusion, scale directly with them. The PDFs and masses are standard external inputs, not fitted here.

free parameters (5)
  • D0 detection efficiency (epsilon_c) = 0.03 (3%)
    Assumed from ECCE performance studies, not ePIC. Scales the event-yield claims linearly, and the same-sign D0D0 yield as epsilon^2.
  • B0 detection efficiency (epsilon_b) = 0.05 (5%)
    Assumed from CMS estimates; uncertainty not propagated into the event-yield reach.
  • c to D0 fragmentation fraction = 0.542 +/- 0.024
    From LEP measurements; used to convert parton-level charm to D0 yields.
  • b to B0 fragmentation fraction = 0.404 +/- 0.006
    From PDG; used for beauty yields.
  • Observability threshold N_ev = 20 events per bin
    Chosen to match the typical statistical accuracy of the last HERA bins; arbitrary but stated.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Leading-order collinear factorization with massive heavy quarks in the 3FNS (charm) and 4FNS (beauty) is sufficient for a baseline.
    Invoked in Section 3; the paper acknowledges MadGraph DIS is LO only and that NLO will reduce scale bands.
  • domain assumption CT18ANLO proton PDFs and EPPS21 nuclear PDFs are the correct external inputs.
    Stated in Section 3; the choice of PDF set affects all central values.
  • standard math One-photon exchange and the dominance of F2 over FL in Eq. (9) hold in the studied kinematic range.
    Standard DIS approximation, cited to Ref. [62].
  • domain assumption ePIC acceptance is approximated by |eta_e| < 3.5 and |eta_Q| < 3.5.
    Stated in Section 3; the reach results depend on these cuts.
  • ad hoc to paper The N_ev = 20 threshold corresponds to the statistical accuracy of typical last bins of HERA measurements.
    Stated in Section 3 without a quantitative source; it defines the observability lines throughout Section 4.
  • ad hoc to paper EPPS21 NLO nuclear PDFs can be combined with LO matrix elements for a baseline R_eA.
    Used in Section 4.2; not discussed as a scheme mismatch, but common in feasibility studies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Prospects for early heavy-quark measurements at the EIC." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QTOU45UV

@misc{pith2026260809608,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Prospects for early heavy-quark measurements at the EIC},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QTOU45UV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09608}
}
abstract

We assess the prospects for inclusive heavy-quark-pair electroproduction in electron-proton ($ep$) and electron-nucleus ($e$A) collisions, alongside double-charm-pair ($D^0 \bar{D}^0$ and $D^0D^0$) electroproduction in $ep$ collisions, during the early operational phase of the Electron-Ion Collider (EIC). Based on the anticipated beam energies and luminosities of the EIC, we estimate the total cross sections and differential distributions for photon virtuality $Q^2$, heavy-quark transverse momentum, and rapidity. This analysis evaluates different Bjorken-$x$ ($x_{\rm Bj}$) intervals across a range of $Q^2$ values. Expected event yields are estimated from the projected integrated luminosities of the early science programme, demonstrating the substantial improvement in statistical precision over previous HERA measurements at moderate and large $x_{{\rm Bj}}$. For electron--nucleus collisions, we compute the nuclear modification ratio $R^{e\text{A}}$ within collinear factorisation using nuclear parton distribution functions, and identify the kinematic regimes in which shadowing, anti-shadowing, and EMC-like suppression are accessible with early EIC data. These results are intended to serve as a parton-level baseline to support feasibility studies and to provide a reference for future higher-order theoretical and experimental investigations at the EIC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09608 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representative Feynman diagram illustrating the in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Differential cross section dσ/dQ2 for the production of a charm quark in ep → e cc¯ + X at a centre-of-mass en￾ergy √ sep = 72 GeV. The hatched blue and orange band rep￾resents the scale and PDF uncertainties respectively, where the scale uncertainty is obtained by varying the factorisation and renormalisation scales in the range 0.5 ≤ µF,R ≤ 2.0. The purple line indicates the observability line for an inte￾grated l… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Differential cross sections in laboratory rapidity for charm yc (a) and beauty yb (b) quark production in ep colli￾sions at a c.m. energy of √ sep = 72 GeV. The hatched blue bands show the scale uncertainty, and the orange bands indi￾cate the PDF uncertainty. The purple horizontal observabil￾ity lines correspond to 20 observed events for the integrated luminosities listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Predicted cross sections (σDD) and expected event yields (Nevents) for opposite-sign (D 0D¯ 0 , red) and same-sign (D 0D 0 + D¯ 0D¯ 0 , blue) neutral D meson pair production in ep collisions at √ s = 72 GeV (Q 2 > 2.5 GeV2 ) with CT18ANLO PDF. Horizontal error bands fo…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Transverse momentum cross sections p c,b T for a charm (a) and beauty (b) in ep collisions at √ sep = 72 GeV. Hatched blue and orange bands denote scale (0.5 ≤ µF,R ≤ 2.0) and PDF uncertainties, respectively. Purple horizontal lines indicate the 20 observed events for …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Differential cross section dσ/dQ 2 for eAu → e cc¯+X (a) and eAu → e bb¯ + X (b) at √ seN = 63 GeV. The blue hatched bands represent the scale uncertainty. The purple horizontal histogram indicates the observability threshold corresponding to the projected Year 4 eAu l…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Nuclear modification ratio R eA for charm production across three nuclear targets (Au (a), Ag (b) and Cu (c)) as a function of rapidity at √ seN = 63 GeV. The ratios are computed using EPPS21nlo nPDFs [27] normalized to the CT18ANLO proton baseline. The shaded bands re…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Nuclear modification ratio R eA for beauty produc￾tion across three nuclear targets (Au (a), Ag (b), and Cu (c)) as a function of rapidity yb at √ seN = 63 GeV. The ratios are computed using EPPS21nlo nPDFs [27] normalized to the CT18ANLO proton baseline. but remains …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Heavy quarks in deep-inelastic scattering,

    S. Forte, E. Laenen, P. Nason, and J. Rojo, “Heavy quarks in deep-inelastic scattering,”Nucl. Phys. B834(2010) 116–162, arXiv:1001.2312 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    Heavy Quark Production in Deep-Inelastic Scattering at HERA

    B. W. Harris, E. Laenen, S. Moch, and J. Smith, “Heavy Quark Production in Deep-Inelastic Scattering at HERA,” arXiv:hep-ph/9905365 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [3]

    Measurement of the Charm and Beauty Structure Functions using the H1 Vertex Detector at HERA

    E. Laenen, S. Riemersma, J. Smith, and W. L. van Neerven, “Complete O (alpha-s) corrections to heavy flavor structure functions in electroproduction,”Nucl. Phys. B392(1993) 162–228. 4.H1Collaboration, F. D. Aaronet al., “Measurement of the Charm and Beauty Structure Functions using the H1 Vertex Detector at HERA,”Eur . Phys. J. C65(2010) 89–109, arXiv:090...

    work page Pith review arXiv 1993

  4. [5]

    Combination and QCD analysis of beauty and charm production cross-section measurements in deep inelasticepscattering at HERA,

    H1 and Z. Collaborations, “Combination and QCD analysis of beauty and charm production cross-section measurements in deep inelasticepscattering at HERA,”Eur . Phys. J. C78no. 6, (2018) 473,arXiv:1804.01019 [hep-ex]. 6.H1, ZEUSCollaboration, H. Abramowiczet al., “Combination and QCD Analysis of Charm Production Cross Section Measurements in Deep-Inelastic ...

    arXiv 2018

  5. [15]

    New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC,

    T.-J. Houet al., “New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC,”Phys. Rev. D103no. 1, (2021) 014013,arXiv:1912.10053 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [16]

    The 3-Loop Non-Singlet Heavy Flavor Contributions and Anomalous Dimensions for the Structure FunctionF 2(x,Q 2) and Transversity,

    J. Ablinger, A. Behring, J. Bl ¨umlein, A. De Freitas, A. Hasselhuhn, A. von Manteuffel, M. Round, C. Schneider, and F. Wißbrock, “The 3-Loop Non-Singlet Heavy Flavor Contributions and Anomalous Dimensions for the Structure FunctionF 2(x,Q 2) and Transversity,”Nucl. Phys. B886(2014) 733–823,arXiv:1406.4654 [hep-ph]. 17.H1 and ZEUSCollaboration, H. Abramow...

    arXiv 2014

  7. [20]

    Parton distributions from LHC, HERA, Tevatron and fixed target data: MSHT20 PDFs,

    S. Bailey, T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, and R. S. Thorne, “Parton distributions from LHC, HERA, Tevatron and fixed target data: MSHT20 PDFs,”Eur . Phys. J. C81no. 4, (2021) 341,arXiv:2012.04684 [hep-ph]. 21.European MuonCollaboration, J. J. Aubertet al., “The ratio of the nucleon structure functionsF2 n for iron and deuterium,” Phys. Lett....

    arXiv 2021

  8. [25]

    Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report,

    R. Abdul Khaleket al., “Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report,” Nucl. Phys. A1026(2022) 122447,arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 61 references
  1. [26]

    EPS09: A New Generation of NLO and LO Nuclear Parton Distribution Functions,

    K. J. Eskola, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, “EPS09: A New Generation of NLO and LO Nuclear Parton Distribution Functions,”JHEP04(2009) 065,arXiv:0902.4154 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  2. [27]

    EPPS21: a global QCD analysis of nuclear PDFs,

    K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Salgado, “EPPS21: a global QCD analysis of nuclear PDFs,”Eur . Phys. J. C82no. 5, (2022) 413,arXiv:2112.12462 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [28]

    Nuclear PDFs After the First Decade of LHC Data,

    M. Klasen and H. Paukkunen, “Nuclear PDFs After the First Decade of LHC Data,”Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.73(2023) 321–353

    2023

  4. [29]

    nCTEQ15 – Global analysis of nuclear parton distributions with uncertainties in the CTEQ framework,

    K. Kovarik, A. Kusina,et al., “nCTEQ15 – Global analysis of nuclear parton distributions with uncertainties in the CTEQ framework,”Phys. Rev. D93no. 8, (2016) 085037, arXiv:1509.00792 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [30]

    nNNPDF3.0: evidence for a modified partonic structure in heavy nuclei,

    R. Abdul Khalek, R. Gauld, T. Giani, E. R. Nocera, T. R. Rabemananjara, and J. Rojo, “nNNPDF3.0: evidence for a modified partonic structure in heavy nuclei,”Eur . Phys. J. C82 (2022) 507,arXiv:2201.12363 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [31]

    Gluon Shadowing in Heavy-Flavor Production at the LHC,

    A. Kusina, J.-P. Lansberg, I. Schienbein, and H.-S. Shao, “Gluon Shadowing in Heavy-Flavor Production at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. Lett.121no. 5, (2018) 052004,arXiv:1712.07024 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [32]

    Reweighted nuclear PDFs using heavy-flavor production data at the LHC,

    A. Kusina, J.-P. Lansberg, I. Schienbein, and H.-S. Shao, “Reweighted nuclear PDFs using heavy-flavor production data at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. D104no. 1, (2021) 014010, arXiv:2012.11462 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [33]

    Impact of heavy quark and quarkonium data on nuclear gluon PDFs,

    P. Duwentasteret al., “Impact of heavy quark and quarkonium data on nuclear gluon PDFs,”Phys. Rev. D105no. 11, (2022) 114043,arXiv:2105.09872 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [34]

    The Challenge of the EMC Effect: existing data and future directions,

    S. Malace, D. Gaskell, D. W. Higinbotham, and I. Cloet, “The Challenge of the EMC Effect: existing data and future directions,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. E23no. 08, (2014) 1430013, arXiv:1405.1270 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [35]

    Nuclear parton densities and heavy-quark production at the Electron-Ion Collider,

    M. Klasen, K. Kovarik, and F. Potthoff, “Nuclear parton densities and heavy-quark production at the Electron-Ion Collider,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 1, (2023) 014018,arXiv:2305.03548. 12

    2023 arXiv

  11. [36]

    Extending nuclear PDF analyses into the high-x, low-Q 2 region,

    E. P. Segarraet al., “Extending nuclear PDF analyses into the high-x, low-Q 2 region,”Phys. Rev. D103no. 11, (2021) 114015, arXiv:2012.11566 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [37]

    Exposing Novel Quark and Gluon Effects in Nuclei,

    I. C. Clo ¨etet al., “Exposing Novel Quark and Gluon Effects in Nuclei,”J. Phys. G46no. 9, (2019) 093001, arXiv:1902.10572 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [38]

    Measurement of the EMC effect in light and heavy nuclei,

    J. Arringtonet al., “Measurement of the EMC effect in light and heavy nuclei,”Phys. Rev. C104no. 6, (2021) 065203, arXiv:2110.08399 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [39]

    A Contribution to the Description of J/psi Suppression in Nucleus Nucleus Collisions,

    C. Gerschel and J. Hufner, “A Contribution to the Description of J/psi Suppression in Nucleus Nucleus Collisions,”Phys. Lett. B 207(1988) 253–258,arXiv:hep-ph/9901416

    1988 arXiv

  15. [40]

    Heavy quark production in nuclear collisions,

    R. V ogt, “Heavy quark production in nuclear collisions,”Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.43(1999) 197–275,arXiv:hep-ph/9903551

    1999 arXiv

  16. [41]

    Cold Nuclear Matter Effects onJ/ψproduction,

    E. G. Ferreiro, “Cold Nuclear Matter Effects onJ/ψproduction,” Phys. Lett. B749(2015) 98–103,arXiv:1411.0549 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [42]

    J/psi suppression at RHIC,

    A. Capella and E. G. Ferreiro, “J/psi suppression at RHIC,”Eur . Phys. J. C42(2005) 419–424,arXiv:hep-ph/0505032

    2005 arXiv

  18. [43]

    J/psi suppression in p A and A A collisions,

    A. Capella, E. G. Ferreiro, and A. B. Kaidalov, “J/psi suppression in p A and A A collisions,”Phys. Rev. Lett.85(2000) 2080–2083,arXiv:hep-ph/0002100

    2000 arXiv

  19. [44]

    J/psi Suppression from Hadronic Collisions to Heavy Ion Collisions,

    S. Gavin and R. V ogt, “J/psi Suppression from Hadronic Collisions to Heavy Ion Collisions,”Nucl. Phys. B345(1990) 104–124

    1990

  20. [45]

    J/ψsuppression in p-A collisions from parton energy loss in cold nuclear matter,

    F. Arleo and S. Peigne, “J/ψsuppression in p-A collisions from parton energy loss in cold nuclear matter,”Phys. Rev. Lett.109 (2012) 122301,arXiv:1204.4609 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  21. [46]

    High transverse momentum quarkonium production and suppression in heavy ion collisions,

    R. Sharma and I. Vitev, “High transverse momentum quarkonium production and suppression in heavy ion collisions,”Phys. Rev. C 87no. 4, (2013) 044905,arXiv:1203.0329 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [47]

    Revisiting scaling properties of medium-induced gluon radiation,

    F. Arleo, S. Peigne, and T. Sami, “Revisiting scaling properties of medium-induced gluon radiation,”Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 114036,arXiv:1006.0863 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [48]

    Using Nuclei to Probe Short Distance Quark Quark Interactions,

    S. J. Brodsky and A. H. Mueller, “Using Nuclei to Probe Short Distance Quark Quark Interactions,”Phys. Lett. B206(1988) 685–690

    1988

  24. [49]

    Energy loss as a source ofJ/ψ suppression inpAcollisions,

    S. Gavin and R. V ogt, “Energy loss as a source ofJ/ψ suppression inpAcollisions,”Phys. Rev. Lett.78(1997) 1006–1009

    1997

  25. [50]

    Nucleus as a Color Filter in QCD,

    S. J. Brodsky and P. Hoyer, “Nucleus as a Color Filter in QCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett.63(1989) 1566–1569

    1989

  26. [51]

    ForwardJ/ψ production in proton-nucleus collisions at high energy,

    B. Duclou ´e, T. Lappi, and H. M¨antysaari, “ForwardJ/ψ production in proton-nucleus collisions at high energy,”Phys. Rev. D91no. 11, (2015) 114005,arXiv:1503.02789 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [52]

    Heavy quarkonium production and polarization in p+A collisions,

    Y .-Q. Ma, R. Venugopalan, and H.-F. Zhang, “Heavy quarkonium production and polarization in p+A collisions,”Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 054010,arXiv:1503.07772 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [53]

    Heavy quark pair production in high energy pA collisions: Open heavy flavors,

    H. Fujii and K. Watanabe, “Heavy quark pair production in high energy pA collisions: Open heavy flavors,”Nucl. Phys. A920 (2013) 78–93,arXiv:1308.1258 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  29. [54]

    Universal Cold Nuclear Matter Effects in Quarkonium Production,

    J.-W. Qiu, P. Sun, B.-W. Xiao, and F. Yuan, “Universal Cold Nuclear Matter Effects in Quarkonium Production,”Phys. Rev. D 89no. 3, (2014) 034007,arXiv:1310.2230 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [55]

    Coherence phenomena in charmonium production offnuclei at the energies of RHIC and LHC,

    B. Z. Kopeliovich, A. V . Tarasov, and J. Hufner, “Coherence phenomena in charmonium production offnuclei at the energies of RHIC and LHC,”Nucl. Phys. A696(2001) 669–714, arXiv:hep-ph/0104254

    2001 arXiv

  31. [56]

    Cold nuclear matter effects on J/psi production: Intrinsic and extrinsic transverse momentum effects,

    E. G. Ferreiro, F. Fleuret, J. P. Lansberg, and A. Rakotozafindrabe, “Cold nuclear matter effects on J/psi production: Intrinsic and extrinsic transverse momentum effects,” Phys. Lett. B680(2009) 50–55,arXiv:0809.4684 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [57]

    Impact of the nuclear modification of the gluon densities onJ/ψproduction at RHIC and LHC,

    E. G. Ferreiro, F. Fleuret, J. P. Lansberg, and A. Rakotozafindrabe, “Impact of the nuclear modification of the gluon densities onJ/ψproduction at RHIC and LHC,”Phys. Rev. C88no. 4, (2013) 047901,arXiv:1111.1228 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  33. [58]

    Υproduction inpPb collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV,

    E. G. Ferreiro, F. Fleuret, J. P. Lansberg, and A. Rakotozafindrabe, “Υproduction inpPb collisions at√sNN =5.02 TeV,”Phys. Rev. C88(2013) 047901, arXiv:1305.4569 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  34. [59]

    Cold Nuclear Matter Effects on Heavy Quarkonium Production,

    R. V ogt, “Cold Nuclear Matter Effects on Heavy Quarkonium Production,”Phys. Rev. C81(2010) 044903,arXiv:1003.3497 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  35. [60]

    Heavy-flavour and quarkonium production in the LHC era: from proton–proton to heavy-ion collisions,

    A. Andronicet al., “Heavy-flavour and quarkonium production in the LHC era: from proton–proton to heavy-ion collisions,”Eur . Phys. J. C76no. 3, (2016) 107,arXiv:1506.03981 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [61]

    Prospects for quarkonium studies at the high-luminosity LHC,

    E. Chaponet al., “Prospects for quarkonium studies at the high-luminosity LHC,”Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.122(2022) 103906,arXiv:2012.14161 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [62]

    Devenish and A

    R. Devenish and A. Cooper-Sarkar,Deep inelastic scattering. Oxford Univ. Press, 2004. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198506713.001.0001

    2004

  38. [63]

    Asymptotic Sum Rules at Infinite Momentum,

    J. D. Bjorken, “Asymptotic Sum Rules at Infinite Momentum,” Phys. Rev.179(1969) 1547–1553

    1969

  39. [64]

    The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V . Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, “The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,”JHEP0...

    2014 arXiv

  40. [65]

    2025 EIC-France Workshop: Physics Highlights and Perspectives,

    F. Arleoet al., “2025 EIC-France Workshop: Physics Highlights and Perspectives,” in2025 EIC-France Workshop. 2, 2026. arXiv:2602.19664 [hep-ph]. 66.nCTEQCollaboration, A. Muzakkaet al., “Compatibility of LHC pPb data within the nCTEQ15 framework,”Phys. Rev. D 106no. 5, (2022) ...

    2022

  41. [68]

    nNNPDF2.0: quark flavor separation in nuclei from LHC data,

    R. Abdul Khalek, J. J. Ethier, J. Rojo, and G. van Weelden, “nNNPDF2.0: quark flavor separation in nuclei from LHC data,” JHEP09(2020) 183,arXiv:2006.14629 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [69]

    Recent open heavy flavor studies for the Electron-Ion Collider,

    X. Li, “Recent open heavy flavor studies for the Electron-Ion Collider,”PoSQNP2024(2025) 113,arXiv:2501.18044 [nucl-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [70]

    Fragmentation fractions ofcandbquarks into charmed hadrons at LEP,

    L. Gladilin, “Fragmentation fractions ofcandbquarks into charmed hadrons at LEP,”Eur . Phys. J. C75no. 1, (2015) 19, arXiv:1404.3888 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [71]

    Open Heavy Flavor Studies for the ECCE Detector at the Electron Ion Collider,

    X. Liet al., “Open Heavy Flavor Studies for the ECCE Detector at the Electron Ion Collider,”arXiv:2207.10632 [physics.ins-det]. 72.Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navaset al., “Review of particle physics,”Phys. Rev. D110no. 3, (2024) 030001. 73.CMSCollaboration, V . Khach...

    2024

  45. [75]

    Heavy-quark pair-production in DIS at NLO QCD matched to a parton shower,

    S. Castro, C. Del Pio, A. Kardos, S.-O. Moch, and A. Spourdalakis, “Heavy-quark pair-production in DIS at NLO QCD matched to a parton shower,”arXiv:2606.21510 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  46. [76]

    NLOAccess: automated online computations for collider physics,

    C. Flore, “NLOAccess: automated online computations for collider physics,”Eur . Phys. J. A59no. 3, (2023) 46, arXiv:2301.09167 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [77]

    Automated event generation for S-wave quarkonium and leptonium production in NRQCD and NRQED,

    A. Colpani Serri, C. A. Flett, J.-P. Lansberg, O. Mattelaer, H.-S. Shao, and L. Simon, “Automated event generation for S-wave quarkonium and leptonium production in NRQCD and NRQED,” JHEP02(2026) 159,arXiv:2510.26773 [hep-ph]. 13

    2026

  48. [78]

    Automated NRQCD and NRQED simulations of quarkonium and leptonium production with P-wave states and physical-mass effects,

    L. Maxia, H.-S. Shao, and L. Simon, “Automated NRQCD and NRQED simulations of quarkonium and leptonium production with P-wave states and physical-mass effects,” arXiv:2607.26739 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  49. [79]

    Physics case for quarkonium studies at the Electron Ion Collider,

    D. Boeret al., “Physics case for quarkonium studies at the Electron Ion Collider,”Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.142(2025) 104162,arXiv:2409.03691 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [80]

    HELAC-Onia: An automatic matrix element generator for heavy quarkonium physics,

    H.-S. Shao, “HELAC-Onia: An automatic matrix element generator for heavy quarkonium physics,”Comput. Phys. Commun.184(2013) 2562–2570,arXiv:1212.5293 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  51. [81]

    HELAC-Onia 2.0: an upgraded matrix-element and event generator for heavy quarkonium physics,

    H.-S. Shao, “HELAC-Onia 2.0: an upgraded matrix-element and event generator for heavy quarkonium physics,”Comput. Phys. Commun.198(2016) 238–259,arXiv:1507.03435 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [82]

    Resolved photoproduction in MadGraph5 aMC@NLO,

    L. Manna, A. Safronov, C. Flore, D. Kikola, J.-P. Lansberg, and O. Mattelaer, “Resolved photoproduction in MadGraph5 aMC@NLO,”PoSDIS2024(2025) 185, arXiv:2410.17061 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [83]

    Automated NLO calculations for asymmetric hadron-hadron collisions in MadGraph5 aMC@NLO,

    C. Flore, D. Kikoła, A. Kusina, J.-P. Lansberg, O. Mattelaer, and A. Safronov, “Automated NLO calculations for asymmetric hadron-hadron collisions in MadGraph5 aMC@NLO,”Eur . Phys. J. A61no. 10, (2025) 239,arXiv:2501.14487 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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