Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 68 references

Dilepton angular distributions in the color-dipole $S$-matrix framework

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims to derive, for the first time, the full helicity density matrix for Z and W produced at forward rapidities in the color-dipole S-matrix framework, and to show that the Drell–Yan angular distribution reduces to six…

desk verdict A careful Z/W extension of the dipole S-matrix DME derivation with a clean Lam-Tung mechanism; the numerics are conditional until checked against LHCb data and an NLO benchmark. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06207 v1 pith:IB22COBG submitted 2025-07-08 hep-ph hep-ex

Yan B. Bandeira , Victor P. Goncalves , Wolfgang Schäfer This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords Drell–Yanprocesshelicitydensitymatrixelementscolor-dipoleS-matrixunintegratedgluondistributionLam–TungrelationforwardrapidityZbosonproductionW
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 derives, for the first time, the helicity density matrix elements for Z and W boson production at forward rapidities in the color-dipole S-matrix framework. It establishes closed expressions for the six nonvanishing angular coefficients, all linearly dependent on a single unintegrated gluon distribution $f(x,k)$, and shows that the out-of-plane $\sin\phi$ and $\sin 2\phi$ terms vanish at the order considered. The central prediction is that the Lam–Tung relation $A_0-A_2$ is nonzero for both Z and W at forward rapidities, with the violation generated by the large-$k$ tail of the gluon distribution rather than by non-linear QCD effects. Numerical results for $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV and rapidity $2.0 \le y \le 4.0$ show Z and W behave similarly across four unintegrated gluon distribution models, with saturation effects almost invisible. The authors note that no comparison with experimental data has been made yet and that the size of next-to-leading-order corrections remains open.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the partonic density matrix constructed from light-front wave functions and the color-dipole cross section. In momentum space, the relation $\sigma(x,r) = \tfrac12 \int d^2k\, f(x,k)\,(1-e^{-ik\cdot r})(1-e^{ik\cdot r})$ converts the S-matrix expression into $\hat\rho_{\lambda\lambda'}\,d\hat\sigma = \frac{1}{2(2\pi)^2}\int d^2k\, f(x,k)\, I^{(\lambda,\lambda')}(z,q,zk)$, where $I^{(\lambda,\lambda')}$ is built from dipole-like differences $\Psi(z,q)-\Psi(z,q-zk)$ of light-front wave functions. The spin traces produce explicit kernels for the six surviving structure functions. The decisive identity is the Lam–Tung kernel $\mathcal{I}_{LT} = I_L - 2I_{\Delta\Delta}$, whose leading terms in a small-$k$ expansion vanish, so the remaining contribution is controlled by the behavior of $f(x,k)$ at large transverse momentum.

What would settle it

A measurement of the Z-boson angular coefficients $A_0$ and $A_2$ in the forward rapidity range $2 \le y \le 4$ at LHC energies, binned in $q_T$, would settle the claim: the predicted Lam–Tung combination $A_0-A_2$ should rise to a peak near the vector-boson mass and then fall as $q_T$ grows, with the height set by the high-$k$ tail of $f(x,k)$. Data consistent with zero across that range, or lying outside the spread of the four unintegrated gluon distribution models, would falsify the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the first complete derivation of the gauge-boson helicity density matrix for the process $q \to q'G$ with $G = \gamma^*, Z^0, W$ in the color-dipole S-matrix framework. Starting from the light-front wave functions for gauge-boson emission and writing the dipole cross section in terms of the unintegrated gluon distribution $f(x,k)$, the authors evaluate the spin traces and obtain explicit kernels for the structure functions $W_T$, $W_L$, $W_{\Delta}$, $W_{\Delta\Delta}$, $W_{Tp}$, and $W_{\nabla p}$, while $W_{\Delta\Delta p}$, $W_{\Delta p}$, and $W_{\nabla}$ vanish. The angular distribution is therefore fully characterized by six nonvanishing angular coefficients. In the massless-quark limit the parity-even kernels reduce to the earlier virtual-photon results of the same framework. The Lam–Tung combination $A_0 - A_2 = 2(\rho_L - 2\rho_{\Delta\Delta})$ vanishes in the collinear small-$k$ limit, but receives a finite contribution from the high-$k$ tail of the unintegrated gluon distribution, so the framework predicts a clear Lam–Tung violation for both Z and W at forward rapidities. The numerical predictions at $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV show that the KS-linear and KS-nonlinear models nearly coincide, indicating that non-linear effects have negligible impact in this kinematical range.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the target response can be written exactly as one unintegrated gluon distribution through $\sigma(x,r) = \tfrac12 \int d^2k\, f(x,k)\,(1-e^{-ik\cdot r})(1-e^{ik\cdot r})$ with $x$ fixed by Eq. (3.7), and that this hybrid S-matrix factorization is accurate for the forward rapidities and transverse momenta considered.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The full Drell–Yan angular distribution at forward rapidity becomes a quantitative probe of the unintegrated gluon distribution, since all six surviving coefficients are linearly dependent on the same $f(x,k)$.
  • The Lam–Tung relation is predicted to be violated for both Z and W bosons, with the size of the violation set by the large-$k$ tail of the gluon distribution rather than by saturation physics.
  • Non-linear QCD effects have little impact on the angular coefficients in this kinematical range, so the framework suggests that measurements of $A_0-A_2$ at forward rapidities are not primarily sensitive to saturation.
  • The angular coefficients change character between the Gottfried–Jackson and Collins–Soper frames, and at high $q_T$ the CS-frame density matrix approaches an equipartition among the three polarization states, a pattern that can be tested directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the same six-kernel decomposition could be applied to proton–nucleus collisions, where the proton unintegrated gluon distribution is replaced by a nuclear dipole cross section; the paper states the formulas are valid for $pA$, but the nuclear predictions are not developed.
  • Because each surviving coefficient weights $k$ differently, the complete $q_T$-dependent set is a stronger shape constraint on the unintegrated gluon distribution than the transverse-momentum spectrum alone, and could discriminate among gluon models even where cross-section shapes overlap.
  • The predicted vanishing of the out-of-plane coefficients $A_5$, $A_6$, and $A_7$ gives a clean baseline: a nonzero measurement of those coefficients in the forward region would indicate a mechanism outside this leading-order S-matrix picture, such as loop-generated absorptive parts, intrinsic transverse momentum, or higher-twist effects.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives the full helicity density matrix elements for electroweak gauge boson production (gamma*, Z, W) in forward Drell-Yan processes using the color-dipole S-matrix and hybrid factorization formalism. Starting from the hadronic tensor decomposition of Ref. [8], the authors compute the light-front wave function traces in momentum space, obtain six nonvanishing angular structure functions, and show that the out-of-plane correlations vanish by symmetry. They demonstrate that the virtual-photon limit of Ref. [9] is recovered. Numerical predictions for pp collisions at sqrt(s)=14 TeV and 2<=y<=4 are presented for four unintegrated gluon distribution models, including a Balitsky-Kovchegov solution. The Lam-Tung combination A0-A2 is predicted to be nonzero, with KS-linear and KS-nonlinear results nearly identical and the GBW model almost satisfying the Lam-Tung relation. The authors explicitly state in Section V that a comparison with data was not performed.

Significance. If the analytical derivation is correct, the paper provides a useful extension of the hybrid factorization approach to less inclusive angular observables and offers a transparent reason why the Lam-Tung relation fails in this framework: the violation is controlled by the large-transverse-momentum tail of the unintegrated gluon distribution. The trace algebra is presented in sufficient detail to be checked, the gamma* limit is a valid internal cross-check, and the derivation does not use Drell-Yan angular data as input; the UGDs are external HERA fits and no parameter of this paper is fitted to the target observable. The main value of the manuscript is therefore its formalism and the six-term angular decomposition. The quantitative conclusions, however, are conditional on the chosen UGD models and on the validity of the hybrid factorization at the considered kinematics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.C, Fig. 7, and Section V] The quantitative claims that A0-A2 is nonzero and that non-linear QCD effects have negligible impact on the Lam-Tung relation are based on predictions from four UGD models, but no comparison is made with the LHCb measurement in Ref. [4] in the same forward rapidity range, nor with an independent NLO or kT-factorization benchmark. Because the UGD models differ in shape and normalization and because A0-A2 is a ratio, the spread among the models does not by itself quantify the accuracy of the prediction. The authors acknowledge this limitation in Section V, but the numerical section is framed as a physical prediction rather than as an illustration; please add a data comparison with the appropriate experimental cuts or explicitly re-label these numbers as model-dependent estimates.
  2. [Section III, Eqs. (3.6)-(3.7)] The numerical results assume that the target response can be represented by a single unintegrated gluon distribution f(x,k) with x determined by Eq. (3.7). The validity of this hybrid factorization for forward rapidities and for transverse momenta up to several hundred GeV is not demonstrated. Since the Lam-Tung signal is driven by the large-k tail, a failure of the single-UGD assumption at high k would directly affect the central conclusion; please quantify this sensitivity, for example by varying the UGD normalizations or by cross-checking against kT-factorization results.
  3. [Section IV.C, Eqs. (4.1)-(4.3)] The conclusion that the Lam-Tung violation comes from the large-k tail of the UGD is based on the vanishing of the first two terms of a small-k expansion, I0=I2=0, together with the collinear identification integral d^2k k^2 f(x,k) -> xg(x,mu^2). This identifies a plausible mechanism but does not prove that the tail dominates the full integral; the next nonvanishing term should be written out and its numerical magnitude assessed, or the claim should be softened accordingly.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (3.3)] The sum over quark flavors shows q_f(x1,mu^2)+q_f(x1,mu^2); the second term should be the antiquark distribution \bar{q}_f(x1,mu^2). Please correct this typo.
  2. [Section IV] There are several typographical errors: "UDGs" should be "UGDs" and "neglibigle" should be "negligible".
  3. [Appendix B, Eq. (B8)] The notation for the angular coefficients switches between g_{Tp}, g_{\nabla p} and g_{TP}, g_{\nabla P}; please unify the capitalization throughout the appendix and Section II.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DMEs are derived from prior LFWFs and external UGDs, with no target observable used as input; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation starts from the hybrid factorization formula (3.3)-(3.4), the standard dipole-cross-section/UGD relation (3.5), and the explicit LFWFs taken from the authors' prior work [10]. The helicity density matrix elements are then obtained by evaluating the traces in Eqs. (3.9)-(3.25). None of these steps uses Drell-Yan angular coefficients or the Lam-Tung relation as input; the angular coefficients are outputs of the calculation, not fitted parameters. The only self-citations are [10,11] for the LFWFs and [9] for the virtual-photon limit check; these are independent prior calculations with stated assumptions, and the photon limit is explicitly compared to [9] rather than assumed. The numerical predictions use external HERA-fitted UGD models and CT14LL PDFs; no parameter of this paper is adjusted to the target observables. The paper's own admission in Sec. V that no data comparison or NLO estimate is provided is a validation gap and a correctness risk, not a circular step. Therefore the derivation is self-contained with respect to the claimed results.

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

The central derivation uses only established S-matrix factorization, external UGD fits, and electroweak couplings; no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated. The free parameters are the UGD and PDF fits imported from the literature, not fitted to the target observable.

free parameters (4)
  • GBW UGD parameters (Q0, x0, lambda) = fitted to HERA data in Ref [64]; values not reproduced in this paper
    These parameters define the GBW unintegrated gluon distribution used in Sec IVA; they control f(x,k) entering all numerical predictions.
  • KS UGD parameters (BK initial condition and coupling) = fitted to HERA data in Refs [63,65]
    The KS-linear and KS-nonlinear UGDs are numerical solutions of evolution equations with parameters adjusted to HERA data; the comparison between them is used to judge nonlinear effects.
  • CCFM UGD scale and parameters = evaluated at mu = 100 GeV in this paper; parameters from Ref [62]
    The CCFM model is a linear-evolution input to the same cross-section formula; its normalization and kT shape affect the DME predictions.
  • CT14LL collinear quark PDFs = global fit from Ref [61]
    The projectile quark and antiquark distributions are external fits; their x dependence enters the convolutions in Eq (3.3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The dipole S-matrix factorization formula, Eq (3.4), correctly describes forward gauge-boson production at leading order.
    The paper assumes this hybrid factorization, established for inclusive cross sections in Refs [10,11,22], applies to helicity density matrices without modification.
  • domain assumption The dipole-proton cross section relates to a single UGD f(x,k) through Eq (3.5), with x fixed by Eq (3.7).
    This assumption converts the r-space dipole integrals to momentum space; if f(x,k) is not universal, the derived expressions are not predictive.
  • domain assumption The four UGD models and CT14LL PDFs provide accurate numerical inputs in the probed kinematics.
    The quantitative results, including the Lam-Tung predictions, depend entirely on these external fits; the paper provides no uncertainty quantification.
  • ad hoc to paper The Breit-Wigner width can be replaced by a delta function and Z-gamma interference neglected.
    Stated in Sec III; this simplifies the mass dependence and is not expected to change angular distributions, but it is an unquantified approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper Next-to-leading-order QCD corrections do not change the qualitative angular-distribution structure.
    The paper states in Sec V that the magnitude of NLO corrections is open; the six-coefficient pattern and Lam-Tung predictions assume LO accuracy suffices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dilepton angular distributions in the color-dipole $S$-matrix framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IB22COBG

@misc{pith2026250706207,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dilepton angular distributions in the color-dipole $S$-matrix framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IB22COBG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06207}
}
abstract

The dilepton production at forward rapidities in hadronic collisions at the LHC energies is considered and the helicity density matrix elements of gauge bosons that enter the Drell--Yan angular coefficients associated with the gauge boson decay ($G = \gamma^*, Z^0, W$) are derived using the color-dipole $S$ - matrix framework. We show results for $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 14$ TeV for the nonvanishing helicity density matrix elements in the rapidity range of $2.0 \le y \le 4.0$ of the gauge boson. We consider different models for the proton unintegrated gluon distributions, among others a solution of the Balitsky--Kovchegov equation. We compare the associated predictions with those obtained disregarding the non-linear term in the evolution equation. In addition, the Lam--Tung relation is discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06207 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: One of two diagrams for the Drell–Yan process in the hybrid factorization formalism. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: A set of unintegrated gluon distributions at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The density matrix elements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The density matrix elements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The density matrix elements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The density matrix elements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The Lam-Tung relation for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 091801 (2022), 2203.01602

    arXiv 2022

  2. [8]

    V. E. Lyubovitskij, W. Vogelsang, F. Wunder, and A. S. Zhevlakov, Phys. Rev. D109, 114023 (2024), 2403.18741

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [9]

    Low mass Drell-Yan production of lepton pairs at forward directions at the LHC: a hybrid approach

    W. Schäfer and A. Szczurek, Phys. Rev. D93, 074014 (2016), 1602.06740

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  4. [1]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Eur. Phys. J. C72, 2001 (2012), 1203.2165

    arXiv 2012

  5. [2]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP08, 159 (2016), 1606.00689

    arXiv 2016

  6. [3]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B750, 154 (2015), 1504.03512

    arXiv 2015

  7. [5]

    C. S. Lam and W.-K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D18, 2447 (1978)

    work page 1978

  8. [6]

    J. G. Körner and E. Mirkes, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.23, 9 (1991)

    work page 1991

Show all 68 references
  1. [7]

    Mirkes, Nucl

    E. Mirkes, Nucl. Phys. B387, 3 (1992)

    1992

  2. [10]

    Y. B. Bandeira, V. P. Goncalves, and W. Schäfer, JHEP07, 171 (2024), 2405.10265

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Y. B. Bandeira, V. P. Goncalves, and W. Schäfer, Phys. Rev. D 111, 074041 (2025), 2411.12675

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    N. N. Nikolaev and B. G. Zakharov, Z. Phys. C49, 607 (1991)

    1991

  5. [13]

    B. Kopeliovich, in 23rd International Workshop on Gross Properties of Nuclei and Nuclear Excitations: Dynamical Properties of Hadrons in Nuclear Matter (Hirschegg ’95) (1995), hep- ph/9609385

    1995

  6. [14]

    S. J. Brodsky, A. Hebecker, and E. Quack, Phys. Rev. D55, 2584 (1997), hep-ph/9609384

    1997 arXiv

  7. [15]

    B. Z. Kopeliovich, J. Raufeisen, and A. V. Tarasov, Phys. Lett. B 503, 91 (2001), hep- ph/0012035

    2001

  8. [16]

    Raufeisen, J.-C

    J. Raufeisen, J.-C. Peng, and G. C. Nayak, Phys. Rev. D66, 034024 (2002), hep-ph/0204095

    2002 arXiv

  9. [17]

    B. Z. Kopeliovich, J. Raufeisen, A. V. Tarasov, and M. B. Johnson, Phys. Rev. C67, 014903 (2003), hep-ph/0110221

    2003 arXiv

  10. [18]

    M. A. Betemps, M. B. G. Ducati, M. V. T. Machado, and J. Raufeisen, Phys. Rev. D67, 114008 (2003), hep-ph/0303100

    2003 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Golec-Biernat, E

    K. Golec-Biernat, E. Lewandowska, and A. M. Staśto, Phys. Rev. D 82, 094010 (2010), 1008.2652

    2010 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Basso, V

    E. Basso, V. P. Goncalves, J. Nemchik, R. Pasechnik, and M. Sumbera, Phys. Rev. D93, 034023 (2016), 1510.00650

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Basso, V

    E. Basso, V. P. Goncalves, M. Krelina, J. Nemchik, and R. Pasechnik, Phys. Rev. D93, 094027 (2016), 1603.01893

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gelis and J

    F. Gelis and J. Jalilian-Marian, Phys. Rev. D66, 094014 (2002), hep-ph/0208141

    2002 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ducloué, T

    B. Ducloué, T. Lappi, and H. Mäntysaari, Phys. Rev. D97, 054023 (2018), 1710.02206

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Marquet, S.-Y

    C. Marquet, S.-Y. Wei, and B.-W. Xiao, Phys. Lett. B802, 135253 (2020), 1909.08572

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Staśto, B.-W

    A. Staśto, B.-W. Xiao, and D. Zaslavsky, Phys. Rev. D86, 014009 (2012), 1204.4861. 23

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Kang and B.-W

    Z.-B. Kang and B.-W. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D87, 034038 (2013), 1212.4809

    2013 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Piloneta and A

    S. Piloneta and A. Vladimirov, JHEP12, 059 (2024), 2407.06277

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    M. A. Nefedov, N. N. Nikolaev, and V. A. Saleev, Phys. Rev. D87, 014022 (2013), 1211.5539

    2013 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Motyka, M

    L. Motyka, M. Sadzikowski, and T. Stebel, Phys. Rev. D95, 114025 (2017), 1609.04300

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Nefedov and V

    M. Nefedov and V. Saleev, Phys. Lett. B790, 551 (2019), 1810.04061

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    F. G. Celiberto, D. Gordo Gómez, and A. Sabio Vera, Phys. Lett. B 786, 201 (2018), 1808.09511

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Gauld, A

    R. Gauld, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and A. Huss, JHEP11, 003 (2017), 1708.00008

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    N. N. Nikolaev, G. Piller, and B. G. Zakharov, J. Exp. Theor. Phys.81, 851 (1995), hep- ph/9412344

    1995

  26. [34]

    N. N. Nikolaev, G. Piller, and B. G. Zakharov, Z. Phys. A354, 99 (1996), hep-ph/9511384

    1996 arXiv

  27. [35]

    N. N. Nikolaev, W. Schäfer, B. G. Zakharov, and V. R. Zoller, J. Exp. Theor. Phys.97, 441 (2003), hep-ph/0303024

    2003 arXiv

  28. [36]

    N. N. Nikolaev and W. Schäfer, Phys. Rev. D71, 014023 (2005), hep-ph/0411365

    2005 arXiv

  29. [37]

    N. N. Nikolaev, W. Schäfer, B. G. Zakharov, and V. R. Zoller, Phys. Rev. D72, 034033 (2005), hep-ph/0504057

    2005 arXiv

  30. [38]

    N. N. Nikolaev, W. Schäfer, and B. G. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. D 72, 114018 (2005), hep- ph/0508310

    2005

  31. [39]

    N. N. Nikolaev, W. Schäfer, B. G. Zakharov, and V. R. Zoller, JETP Lett.82, 325 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    N. N. Nikolaev, W. Schäfer, and B. G. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 221803 (2005), hep- ph/0502018

    2005

  33. [41]

    B. Z. Kopeliovich, A. H. Rezaeian, H. J. Pirner, and I. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B653, 210 (2007), 0704.0642

    2007 arXiv

  34. [42]

    B. Z. Kopeliovich, E. Levin, A. H. Rezaeian, and I. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B675, 190 (2009), 0902.4287

    2009 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Sampaio dos Santos, G

    G. Sampaio dos Santos, G. Gil da Silveira, and M. V. T. Machado, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 812 (2020), 2004.02686

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gelis and J

    F. Gelis and J. Jalilian-Marian, Phys. Rev. D66, 014021 (2002), hep-ph/0205037

    2002 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Jalilian-Marian and A

    J. Jalilian-Marian and A. H. Rezaeian, Phys. Rev. D86, 034016 (2012), 1204.1319

    2012 arXiv

  38. [46]

    V. P. Goncalves, Y. Lima, R. Pasechnik, and M. Šumbera, Phys. Rev. D101, 094019 (2020), 2003.02555

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Y. N. Lima, A. V. Giannini, and V. P. Goncalves, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 54 (2024), 2302.13720

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    M. A. Betemps and M. B. Gay Ducati, Phys. Rev. D70, 116005 (2004), hep-ph/0408097

    2004 arXiv

  41. [49]

    M. B. G. Ducati, M. T. Griep, and M. V. T. Machado, Phys. Rev. D89, 034022 (2014), 1307.6882

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Ducloué, Phys

    B. Ducloué, Phys. Rev. D96, 094014 (2017), 1701.08730

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Baier, A

    R. Baier, A. H. Mueller, and D. Schiff, Nucl. Phys. A741, 358 (2004), hep-ph/0403201

    2004 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Mirkes and J

    E. Mirkes and J. Ohnemus, Phys. Rev. D50, 5692 (1994), hep-ph/9406381

    1994 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Boer and W

    D. Boer and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D74, 014004 (2006), hep-ph/0604177

    2006 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Faccioli and C

    P. Faccioli and C. Lourenço,Particle Polarization in High Energy Physics: An Introduction and Case Studies on Vector Particle Production at the LHC (Springer, 2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Peng, W.-C

    J.-C. Peng, W.-C. Chang, R. E. McClellan, and O. Teryaev, Phys. Lett. B758, 384 (2016), 1511.08932

    2016 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Brandenburg, S

    A. Brandenburg, S. J. Brodsky, V. V. Khoze, and D. Mueller, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 939 (1994), hep-ph/9403361. 24

    1994 arXiv

  49. [57]

    K. J. Eskola, P. Hoyer, M. Vanttinen, and R. Vogt, Phys. Lett. B333, 526 (1994), hep- ph/9404322

    1994

  50. [58]

    Gelis and J

    F. Gelis and J. Jalilian-Marian, Phys. Rev. D76, 074015 (2007), hep-ph/0609066

    2007 arXiv

  51. [59]

    J. C. Martens, J. P. Ralston, and J. D. Tapia Takaki, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 5 (2018), 1707.01638

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Hagiwara, K.-i

    K. Hagiwara, K.-i. Hikasa, and N. Kai, Phys. Rev. Lett.52, 1076 (1984)

    1984

  53. [61]

    Dulat, T.-J

    S. Dulat, T.-J. Hou, J. Gao, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, C. Schmidt, D. Stump, and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D93, 033006 (2016), 1506.07443

    2016 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Hautmann and H

    F. Hautmann and H. Jung, Nucl. Phys. B883, 1 (2014), 1312.7875

    2014 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Kutak and S

    K. Kutak and S. Sapeta, Phys. Rev. D86, 094043 (2012), 1205.5035

    2012 arXiv

  56. [64]

    K. J. Golec-Biernat and M. Wüsthoff, Phys. Rev. D59, 014017 (1998), hep-ph/9807513

    1998 arXiv

  57. [65]

    K. J. Golec-Biernat and M. Wüsthoff, Phys. Rev. D60, 114023 (1999), hep-ph/9903358

    1999 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Y. B. Bandeira and V. P. Goncalves, Eur. Phys. J. A59, 19 (2023), 2210.17226

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Taels, JHEP01, 005 (2024), 2308.02449

    P. Taels, JHEP01, 005 (2024), 2308.02449

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    V. E. Lyubovitskij, A. S. Zhevlakov, and I. A. Anikin, Phys. Rev. D110, 074028 (2024), 2408.01243. 25

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.