Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Associated jet + electroweak gauge boson production in hadronic collisions at forward rapidities in the color-dipole $S$-matrix framework

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives a master formula, Eq. (12), for the differential cross-section of forward jet production accompanied by an electroweak gauge boson ($W^\pm$, $Z^0$, or $\gamma$), expressed entirely through the target's unintegrated…

desk verdict Solid analytic extension of the dipole S-matrix formalism to associated G+jet production, with genuinely new W±+jet formulas and a clean back-to-back TMD limit; the only real flaw is an abstract that promises more phenomenology than the paper delivers. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12675 v2 pith:A4W72XON submitted 2024-11-19 hep-ph nucl-th

Yan B. Bandeira , Victor P. Goncalves , Wolfgang Schäfer This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords color-dipoleS-matrixunintegratedgluondistributionforwardrapiditiesassociatedjetproductionelectroweakgaugebosonssaturationtransverse-momentum-dependentfactorizationlinearlypolarizedgluons
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that the associated production of a forward jet and an electroweak gauge boson in $pp$ or $pA$ collisions can be computed, at small $x$, from a single color-dipole master formula: the cross-section for $q \to G q_k$ is expressed through the target's unintegrated gluon distribution $f(x,k)$, with vector and axial contributions separated for transverse and longitudinal polarizations. If correct, this formula unifies earlier jet+$\gamma$ and jet+$Z^0$ results as special limits and yields the first jet+$W^\pm$ prediction in this framework. The authors further show that in the back-to-back correlation limit the same formula reproduces TMD factorization, with the unpolarized and linearly polarized gluon TMDs equal to the dipole gluon distribution. This matters because two-particle forward observables of this kind are among the cleanest probes of gluon saturation and nonlinear QCD effects at LHC energies.

What carries the argument

The central object is Eq. (12), the master formula. It follows from the eikonal Fock-state expansion Eq. (2), in which the projectile quark's $S$-matrix acts on the $|G q_k\rangle$ component as a product $S_G(b_G)S_{q_k}(b_q)$, reducing the two-parton target correlator to dipole $S$-matrices; after a change to the relative momentum $p=(1-z)p_G - z p_q$ and the momentum decorrelation $\Delta = p_G + p_q$, and using $\sigma_{q\bar q}(r)=\int d^2k\, f(x,k)\left(1-e^{ik\cdot r}\right)$, the spectrum is written directly in terms of $f(x,k)$. The light-front wave functions $\Psi_{T,L}(z,r)$, with vector and axial parts given in Eq. (10), supply the splitting $q \to G q$; the auxiliary functions $E_1$ and $E_2$ in Eqs. (17)-(18) encode the angular structure and control the back-to-back limit, in which $E_1$ and $E_2$ contract with $\Delta_i\Delta_j$ to produce an effective gluon polarization density matrix $f_{ij}(x,\Delta)=\Delta_i\Delta_j f(x,\Delta)$, so that the linearly polarized TMD equals the unpolarized one.

What would settle it

One concrete test is to measure the azimuthal angle distribution of forward $W^\pm$+jet or $Z^0$+jet events and compare the $\cos(2\varphi)$ modulation with the prediction that its coefficient is fixed by the same dipole gluon TMD that sets the azimuthally averaged rate: the framework predicts the linearly polarized gluon TMD equals the unpolarized one, so any significant departure from that ratio would falsify the identification. A simpler internal check would be to evaluate Eq. (25) for a given $f(x,k)$ and verify that it reproduces the previously published jet+photon formula; a numerical disagreement would refute the claimed reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the differential cross-section $d\sigma^f_{T,L}/(dz\,d^2p\,d^2\Delta)$ for $q_f p \to G(p_G)\,q_k(p_q)\,X$, with $G = W^\pm, Z^0, \gamma$, is given by Eq. (12), a compact convolution of light-front wave functions for the $q \to G q_k$ transition with the dipole cross-section rewritten in terms of the unintegrated gluon distribution $f(x,k)$. After performing the angular integrals, the spectrum reduces to closed expressions involving the auxiliary functions $E_1$ and $E_2$. The paper demonstrates that for the photon case with massless quarks the result matches the formula used in Refs. [32, 35, 42, 57], and for $Z^0$ with massless quarks it matches the formula used in Refs. [34, 35], while $W^\pm$, which requires flavor change and both vector and axial couplings, is derived for the first time. In the back-to-back limit, the spectrum factorizes into a hard coefficient built from momentum derivatives of the light-front wave functions and a target tensor $\Phi^{ij}$, whose single independent component $F$ equals the dipole gluon TMD; this implies $xf_1 = xh_1^\perp = xG_{\rm dip}$, meaning the small-$x$ gluons are 100% linearly polarized along their transverse momentum.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation assumes that the projectile quark's interaction with the target can be treated as simultaneous, independent eikonal scatterings of the gauge boson and the quark, so that no more complicated four-parton color correlations matter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The master formula Eq. (12) yields, for the first time, the differential spectrum for forward jet+$W^\pm$ production in the color-dipole framework.
  • In the appropriate limits, the same formula reproduces the previously used jet+$\gamma$ [Eq. (25)] and jet+$Z^0$ [Eq. (31)] expressions, so those results become special cases rather than separate calculations.
  • In the back-to-back limit $|\boldsymbol{\Delta}|\ll|\boldsymbol{p}|$, the spectrum takes the TMD-factorized form of Eq. (44), with hard coefficients given by momentum derivatives of light-front wave functions and with both the unpolarized and linearly polarized gluon TMDs equal to the dipole gluon TMD.
  • Because the whole cross section is proportional to $f(x,\Delta)$ beyond the back-to-back limit as well, the forward jet+G observable is directly sensitive to the small-$x$ gluon density and to saturation-induced momentum decorrelation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extending beyond the paper: the predicted equality of the unpolarized and linearly polarized dipole gluon TMDs implies a maximal $\cos(2\varphi)$ modulation in forward $Z^0$+jet and $W^\pm$+jet back-to-back spectra; measuring the modulation-to-average ratio at forward LHC detectors would test this directly.
  • Because the gauge boson is color neutral, the same eikonal factorization avoids quadrupole Wilson-line correlators; one might expect an analogous single-dipole master formula for other color-neutral plus jet final states, such as a Drell-Yan pair plus jet, though the paper does not claim this.
  • The announced hadronic-level calculation will need to handle the photon isolation issue noted around Eq. (25); comparing the resulting forward-region predictions with published $pp$ and $pA$ data would be a direct phenomenological next step.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives, within the color-dipole S-matrix framework, the parton-level differential cross-section for the associated production of a jet with an electroweak gauge boson G = W±, Z0, γ in the process q p → G q X at forward rapidities. The central result is Eq. (12), which expresses the cross-section in transverse momentum space in terms of the unintegrated gluon distribution of the target and the light-front wave functions for the q → G q transition. The paper then presents explicit formulas for W±, reproduces the jet+γ and jet+Z0 results of the literature in the appropriate limits, and derives the back-to-back correlation limit, where the cross-section is expressed in terms of the unpolarized and linearly polarized gluon TMDs, both equal to the dipole gluon TMD.

Significance. The derivation is internally consistent, and the master formula Eq. (12) is a useful analytic result that unifies and extends previous results; the new jet+W± expression is a first. The structural simplification to dipole correlators is valid because the gauge boson is a color singlet, leaving exactly one colored final-state parton, so the quadrupole/non-eikonal concern does not land on this calculation. The TMD limit of Section IV, including the equality of the unpolarized and linearly polarized distributions, is derived cleanly and connects the dipole framework to standard TMD factorization. The paper does not, however, provide hadron-level cross-sections, numerical evaluations, or comparisons with data, so its phenomenological impact is not yet demonstrated; the abstract's claim of an improved description is therefore premature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Section V] The abstract and Section V claim that the results 'improve the description' of jet plus color-neutral particle production at forward rapidities, but the manuscript contains no hadron-level convolution with parton distribution functions, no numerical evaluation of the formulas, and no comparison with data or with previous phenomenological results. The paper provides only parton-level cross-sections in terms of the external unintegrated gluon distribution. Please rephrase the abstract and conclusions to present the parton-level cross-sections as the main result, with hadron-level phenomenology deferred to future work.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (1)] The hadronic cross-section is introduced only schematically in Eq. (1) as a convolution with the projectile quark distribution. The explicit convolution formula—including the flux factor, the mapping between the parton-level variables (z, p, Δ) and hadronic observables (rapidities and transverse momenta), and the sum over quark flavors—is never written down. Since the title and abstract refer to pp and pA collisions, please either provide the explicit hadron-level formula or explicitly restrict the scope to the parton-level process.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (31)] In Eq. (31), the first denominator of the second term should read [(p−zΔ)² + ε̄²] rather than [(p−zΔ) + ε̄²]; the exponent is missing.
  2. [Title] The title contains an unintended space in 'hadr onic'; please correct the spacing.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (43)] The normalization F(x,Δ) = 8π⁴ α_s xGdip(x,Δ) is stated without derivation; a brief derivation or an explicit reference to the appendix would help readers verify the factors of π and the convention for xGdip.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (44)] The notation xf1(x,Δ) and xh1⊥(x,Δ) should be typeset consistently (for example, with a thin space after x) to avoid reading as a function name 'xf1'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity identified: the master formula is derived from the eikonal dipole S-matrix ansatz and an external unintegrated gluon distribution, while the authors' self-citations supply analytic wave functions and integrals rather than the predicted cross-sections.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained given the eikonal Fock-state factorization in Eq. (2). The master formula Eq. (12) follows algebraically from Eq. (7) by inserting the defining relation between the dipole cross-section and the unintegrated gluon distribution, Eq. (11); the UGD f(x,k) is an external nonperturbative input, not fitted in this paper. The light-front wave functions and integral identities used to reach Eqs. (16)-(31) are taken from the authors' prior paper [43], but they are parameter-free analytic results with stated assumptions that do not include the G+jet cross-section, so under the review rules this citation counts as real evidence rather than circularity. The claimed agreement with published jet+gamma and jet+Z0 results is checked against external references (Refs. [32,35,42,57] and [34,35]), not against the paper's own fitted output. The back-to-back TMD limit is derived in the text: Eq. (33) follows from expanding Eq. (3), Eq. (39) follows from integration by parts, and Eqs. (44)-(47) identify the single independent correlator with the dipole TMD; the relation f1 = h1_perp is a consequence of that structure, not an input assumption. The only unsupported statement is the abstract's claim that the results 'improve the description,' since no hadron-level convolution or data comparison is shown; the paper itself flags this in Sec. V ('Such analysis is ongoing, and the results will be presented in a forthcoming publication'). That is a scope claim, not a circular step. No fitted parameter, uniqueness theorem, or self-referential definition carries the derivation.

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

No free parameters are fitted in this paper; the only nonperturbative input is the unintegrated gluon distribution f(x,k), which is external to the derivation. Four domain assumptions support the central claim: eikonal factorization, correctness of the prior light-front wave functions, the dipole cross-section / f(x,k) relation, and the linearized back-to-back expansion. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Eikonal straight-line propagation and factorization of the Fock-state S-matrix into individual S-matrices for the gauge boson and quark.
    Eq. (2) writes S|q_f>_phys = S_qf(b)|q_f> + [S_G(b_G)S_qk(b_q) - S_qf(b)] Psi |G q_k>, reducing the cross-section to dipole correlators; non-eikonal or quadrupole corrections would invalidate Eq. (12).
  • domain assumption The light-front wave functions for q -> G q' transitions from Ref. [43] are correct.
    Eqs. (9)-(10) use these wave functions as input without re-derivation; any error there propagates into all partonic spectra.
  • domain assumption The relation sigma_q qbar(r) = integral d^2k f(x,k) (1 - exp(i k.r)) defines the unintegrated gluon distribution.
    Eq. (11) is used to express the master formula in terms of f(x,k); the nonperturbative target input is this dipole gluon distribution.
  • domain assumption In the back-to-back limit, the dipole cross-section combination is expanded to second order in dipole sizes and saturation corrections are neglected.
    Appendix A (Eq. A.9) states this linearized two-gluon-exchange approximation; the TMD identification and f1 = h1^perp result depend on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Associated jet + electroweak gauge boson production in hadronic collisions at forward rapidities in the color-dipole $S$-matrix framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A4W72XON

@misc{pith2026241112675,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Associated jet + electroweak gauge boson production in hadronic collisions at forward rapidities in the color-dipole $S$-matrix framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A4W72XON}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12675}
}
abstract

The cross-section for the associated production of a jet with an electroweak gauge boson ($G = W^{\pm}, Z^0, \gamma$) at forward rapidities in $pp$ and $pA$ collisions is derived within the color - dipole $S$ - matrix framework. We present the full expressions for the differential cross-section of the $q p \rightarrow G q X$ process in the transverse momentum space, considering the longitudinal and transverse polarizations of the gauge boson. We demonstrate that the final formulae can be expressed in terms of the unintegrated gluon distribution and reproduce previous results for the associated jet + $\gamma$ and jet + $Z^0$ production, derived using other frameworks. Moreover, we derive the back - to - back correlation limit of the spectra and show that it can be expressed in terms of the unpolarized and linearly polarized transverse momentum gluon distributions. Our results improve the description of the inclusive jet plus color neutral particle production at forward rapidities, not far from the proton fragmentation region, in $pp$ or $pA$ collisions, and are the main ingredient to study the impact of nonlinear QCD effects in two - particle correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12675 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Typical diagram contributing for the associated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Dilepton angular distributions in the color-dipole $S$-matrix framework

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    First derivation of Z and W helicity density matrix elements in the color-dipole S-matrix framework, with forward-rapidity predictions at 14 TeV linking the Lam-Tung violation to the UGD tail.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [43]

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

    2024

  2. [1]

    Tricoli, M

    A. Tricoli, M. Sch¨ onherr and P. Azzurri, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93 (2021) no.2, 025007

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    Aurenche, R

    P. Aurenche, R. Baier, M. Fontannaz, J. F. Owens and M. Wer len, Phys. Rev. D 39, 3275 (1989)

    work page 1989

  4. [3]

    Vogelsang and A

    W. Vogelsang and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B 453, 334-354 (1995)

    work page 1995

  5. [4]

    H. Yang, A. Bermudez Martinez, L. I. E. Banos, F. Hautmann , H. Jung, M. Mendizabal, K. M. Figueroa, S. Prestel, S. T. Monfared and A. M. van Kampen, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) no.8, 755

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    Gehrmann-De Ridder, T

    A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, A. Hu ss and D. M. Walker, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) no.6, 526 13

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Brenner Mariotto and V

    C. Brenner Mariotto and V. P. Goncalves, Phys. Rev. C 75, 068202 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [7]

    Brenner Mariotto and V

    C. Brenner Mariotto and V. P. Goncalves, Phys. Rev. C 78, 037901 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 67 references
  1. [8]

    Arleo, K

    F. Arleo, K. J. Eskola, H. Paukkunen and C. A. Salgado, JHE P 04, 055 (2011)

    2011

  2. [9]

    d’Enterria and J

    D. d’Enterria and J. Rojo, Nucl. Phys. B 860, 311 (2012)

    2012

  3. [10]

    Helenius, K

    I. Helenius, K. J. Eskola and H. Paukkunen, JHEP 09, 138 (2014)

    2014

  4. [11]

    Klasen, C

    M. Klasen, C. Klein-B¨ osing and H. Poppenborg, JHEP 03, 081 (2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    Goharipour and S

    M. Goharipour and S. Rostami, Phys. Rev. C 99, no.5, 055206 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    B. Z. Kopeliovich, A. H. Rezaeian, H. J. Pirner and I. Sch midt, Phys. Lett. B 653, 210-215 (2007)

    2007

  7. [14]

    B. Z. Kopeliovich, E. Levin, A. H. Rezaeian and I. Schmid t, Phys. Lett. B 675, 190-195 (2009)

    2009

  8. [15]

    Sampaio dos Santos, G

    G. Sampaio dos Santos, G. Gil da Silveira and M. V. T. Mach ado, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.9, 812 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    Gelis and J

    F. Gelis and J. Jalilian-Marian, Phys. Rev. D 66, 014021 (2002)

    2002

  10. [17]

    Jalilian-Marian and A

    J. Jalilian-Marian and A. H. Rezaeian, Phys. Rev. D 86, 034016 (2012)

    2012

  11. [18]

    Duclou´ e, T

    B. Duclou´ e, T. Lappi and H. M¨ antysaari, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.5, 054023 (2018)

    2018

  12. [19]

    V. P. Goncalves, Y. Lima, R. Pasechnik and M. ˇSumbera, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.9, 094019 (2020)

    2020

  13. [20]

    Y. N. Lima, A. V. Giannini and V. P. Goncalves, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, no.3, 54 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    B. Z. Kopeliovich, J. Raufeisen and A. V. Tarasov, Phys. Lett. B 503, 91-98 (2001)

    2001

  15. [22]

    Raufeisen, J

    J. Raufeisen, J. C. Peng and G. C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. D 66, 034024 (2002)

    2002

  16. [23]

    B. Z. Kopeliovich, J. Raufeisen, A. V. Tarasov and M. B. J ohnson, Phys. Rev. C 67, 014903 (2003)

    2003

  17. [24]

    M. A. Betemps and M. B. Gay Ducati, Phys. Rev. D 70, 116005 (2004)

    2004

  18. [25]

    M. A. Betemps, M. B. G. Ducati, M. V. T. Machado and J. Rauf eisen, Phys. Rev. D 67, 114008 (2003)

    2003

  19. [26]

    Golec-Biernat, E

    K. Golec-Biernat, E. Lewandowska and A. M. Stasto, Phys . Rev. D 82, 094010 (2010)

    2010

  20. [27]

    M. B. G. Ducati, M. T. Griep and M. V. T. Machado, Phys. Rev . D 89, no.3, 034022 (2014)

    2014

  21. [28]

    Sch¨ afer and A

    W. Sch¨ afer and A. Szczurek, Phys. Rev. D 93, no.7, 074014 (2016)

    2016

  22. [29]

    Duclou´ e, Phys

    B. Duclou´ e, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.9, 094014 (2017)

    2017

  23. [30]

    Gelis and J

    F. Gelis and J. Jalilian-Marian, Phys. Rev. D 66, 094014 (2002)

    2002

  24. [31]

    Baier, A

    R. Baier, A. H. Mueller and D. Schiff, Nucl. Phys. A 741, 358-380 (2004)

    2004

  25. [32]

    Stasto, B

    A. Stasto, B. W. Xiao and D. Zaslavsky, Phys. Rev. D 86, 014009 (2012)

    2012

  26. [33]

    Z. B. Kang and B. W. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D 87, no.3, 034038 (2013)

    2013

  27. [34]

    Basso, V

    E. Basso, V. P. Goncalves, M. Krelina, J. Nemchik and R. P asechnik, Phys. Rev. D 93, no.9, 094027 (2016)

    2016

  28. [35]

    Basso, V

    E. Basso, V. P. Goncalves, J. Nemchik, R. Pasechnik and M . Sumbera, Phys. Rev. D 93, no.3, 034023 (2016)

    2016

  29. [36]

    Marquet, S

    C. Marquet, S. Y. Wei and B. W. Xiao, Phys. Lett. B 802 (2020), 135253

    2020

  30. [37]

    Benic, K

    S. Benic, K. Fukushima, O. Garcia-Montero and R. Venugo palan, JHEP 01, 115 (2017)

    2017

  31. [38]

    Beni´ c and A

    S. Beni´ c and A. Dumitru, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.1, 014012 (2018)

    2018

  32. [39]

    Beni´ c, K

    S. Beni´ c, K. Fukushima, O. Garcia-Montero and R. Venug opalan, Phys. Lett. B 791, 11 (2019)

    2019

  33. [40]

    Golec-Biernat, L

    K. Golec-Biernat, L. Motyka and T. Stebel, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.3, 034013 (2021)

    2021

  34. [41]

    Beni´ c, O

    S. Beni´ c, O. Garcia-Montero and A. Perkov, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.11, 114052 (2022)

    2022

  35. [42]

    Taels, JHEP 01, 005 (2024)

    P. Taels, JHEP 01, 005 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

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

    2003

  37. [45]

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

    2005

  38. [46]

    N. N. Nikolaev, W. Sch¨ afer, B. G. Zakharov and V. R. Zoll er, Phys. Rev. D 72, 034033 (2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

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

    2005

  40. [48]

    N. N. Nikolaev, W. Sch¨ afer, B. G. Zakharov and V. R. Zoll er, JETP Lett. 82, 325-334 (2005)

    2005

  41. [49]

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

    2005

  42. [50]

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

    1995

  43. [51]

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

    1996

  44. [52]

    Morreale and F

    A. Morreale and F. Salazar, Universe 7, no.8, 312 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Gelis, E

    F. Gelis, E. Iancu, J. Jalilian-Marian and R. Venugopal an, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 463 (2010); H. Weigert, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 55, 461 (2005); J. Jalilian-Marian and Y. V. Kovchegov, Prog. P art. Nucl. Phys. 56, 104 (2006)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Marquet, Nucl

    C. Marquet, Nucl. Phys. A 796, 41-60 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    J. L. Albacete and C. Marquet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 162301 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    Stasto, B

    A. Stasto, B. W. Xiao and F. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B 716, 430-434 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    Dominguez, C

    F. Dominguez, C. Marquet, B. W. Xiao and F. Yuan, Phys. Re v. D 83, 105005 (2011)

    2011

  50. [58]

    Dumitru, T

    A. Dumitru, T. Lappi and V. Skokov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no.25, 252301 (2015)

    2015

  51. [59]

    Stasto, S

    A. Stasto, S. Y. Wei, B. W. Xiao and F. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B 784, 301-306 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    M¨ antysaari, N

    H. M¨ antysaari, N. Mueller, F. Salazar and B. Schenke, P hys. Rev. Lett. 124, no.11, 112301 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Caucal, F

    P. Caucal, F. Salazar and R. Venugopalan, JHEP 11, 222 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Caucal, F

    P. Caucal, F. Salazar, B. Schenke and R. Venugopalan, JH EP 11, 169 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    J. L. Albacete and C. Marquet, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 76 (2014), 1-42

    2014

  56. [64]

    Boussarie, M

    R. Boussarie, M. Burkardt, M. Constantinou, W. Detmold , M. Ebert, M. Engelhardt, S. Fleming, L. Gamberg, X. Ji and Z. B. Kang, et al. [arXiv:2304.03302 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    Altinoluk, R

    T. Altinoluk, R. Boussarie and P. Kotko, JHEP 05 (2019), 156

    2019

  58. [66]

    Metz and J

    A. Metz and J. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011), 051503

    2011

  59. [67]

    Dominguez, J

    F. Dominguez, J. W. Qiu, B. W. Xiao and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012), 045003

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.