Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Particle production in the toy world: multiplicity distribution and entropy

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Produced-dipole entropy equals $\ln(xG)$ in the Unitary Toy Model.

desk verdict New UTM multiplicity distribution and evolution equations are worth referee time, but the dressed-Pomeron Poisson assumption needs proof before the entropy claim is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02504 v1 pith:JDVJRZLY submitted 2024-12-03 hep-ph

Eugene Levin (Tel Aviv U.) This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 13.60.Hb12.38.Cy
keywords multiplicitydistributionentropyUnitaryToyModelAGKcuttingrulesPomeroncalculuszerotransversedimensionsBFKLcascadeKNOscaling
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 derives the multiplicity distribution of dipoles produced in dipole-dipole scattering in the Unitary Toy Model, a zero-transverse-dimension version of Pomeron calculus that respects both $s$- and $t$-channel unitarity. The derivation applies AGK cutting rules to the UTM scattering amplitude and convolves each $k$-Pomeron exchange with a Poisson distribution of mean $k\,\Delta Y$ for the emitted dipoles. The resulting cross section, $\sigma_n^{AGK}(Y)=\int_0^\infty dt\,e^{-t}\,\frac{(2t\gamma N)^n}{(1+2t\gamma N)^{n+1}}$, has a shape quite different from the probability $P_n$ of finding $n$ dipoles in the projectile wave function. Yet its entropy at large rapidity is $S_E=\ln(2\gamma N)+1.5\simeq\Delta Y=\ln(xG)$, the same value found earlier for the initial-state entropy. This matters because it locates the entropy of measured final-state particles in the initial wave function, and it directly contradicts the saturon/black-hole picture in which a maximally entropic classical state must be produced.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the master formula (2), $\sigma_n(Y)=\sum_k \sigma_k^{AGK}(Y)\,e^{-k\Delta Y}(k\Delta Y)^n/n!$, which treats every $k$-Pomeron exchange as producing dipoles with a Poisson distribution whose mean is $k$ times the single-Pomeron mean. In the UTM, the AGK weights $\sigma_k^{AGK}$ follow from the Borel-summed representation of the $S$-matrix, $S=\int_0^\infty dt\,e^{-t}/(1+t\gamma N)$, and the $t$-integral turns the sum into Eq. (22). The same physics is encoded in the Borel images $b^{(n)}_{d+d}(\tau,N_j)=(2\tau\gamma N_j)^n/(1+2\tau\gamma N_j)^{n+1}$, for which the evolution equations of Section IV take the linear difference form $b^{(n)}(\tau,N_{j+1})-b^{(n)}(\tau,N_j)=b^{(n)}+2b^{(n)}b^{(sd)}+\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}b^{(n-k)}b^{(k)}-4b^{(0)}b^{(n)}$, paralleling the BFKL-cascade equations. The KNO-scaling property of Eq. (22) then converts the distribution into entropy via $S_E=\ln\bar n+\int d\zeta\,\Psi(\zeta)\ln\Psi(\zeta)$, with the $\zeta$-integral giving the $Y$-independent constant $1.5$.

What would settle it

Compute the generating function of a single dressed Pomeron multiplicity including all enhanced diagrams beyond the first, as outlined in Appendix B.3; if it is not exactly $\exp(\Delta Y(u-1))$, the Poisson premise fails. Alternatively, evaluate the arbitrary-$Y$ entropy from Eq. (33) at large but finite $Y$; if $S_E-\ln(2\gamma N)$ does not approach $1.5$ (equivalently, if the integral $I(\tilde Y)$ in Eq. (71) does not tend to $1$), the claimed equality $S_E=\ln(xG)$ fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the Unitary Toy Model the cross section for producing $n$ final-state dipoles is given by Eq. (22) in the continuous approximation and by Eq. (33) at arbitrary rapidity. The continuous form is $\sigma_n^{AGK}(Y)=\int_0^\infty dt\,e^{-t}\,(2t\gamma N)^n/(1+2t\gamma N)^{n+1}$, with $N=e^{\Delta \tilde Y}$ the imaginary part of the BFKL Pomeron Green's function; it is obtained by summing AGK-weighted $k$-Pomeron exchanges and using the fact that a cut BFKL Pomeron emits dipoles with a Poisson distribution of mean $\Delta Y$. This distribution obeys KNO scaling, so its entropy is $S_E=\ln(2\gamma N)+1.5\simeq\Delta Y$, which is exactly $S_E=\ln(xG(x))$ with $xG$ the mean multiplicity of dipoles in deep inelastic scattering. The paper shows that the initial-state UTM distribution $P_n$ has a different shape and a different mean, so the entropy equality is not a trivial consequence of identical multiplicity distributions. It also derives evolution equations for $\sigma_n$ in the parton cascade that reproduce the AGK cutting rules, and concludes that this entropy result contradicts the CGC/black-hole correspondence suggested for $2\to n$ processes.

Load-bearing premise

The master formula assumes that after summing all enhanced diagrams a single dressed Pomeron emits dipoles with exactly the same Poisson distribution as the bare BFKL Pomeron, with mean $\Delta Y$; if the resummed emission is not Poisson, Eqs. (22), (33) and the entropy result change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The average multiplicity of produced dipoles in hadron-hadron scattering coincides with the mean multiplicity $xG$ of DIS, so the entropy identity $S_E=\ln(xG)$ holds for final-state production, not only for the initial wave function.
  • The shapes of $\sigma_n/\sigma_{in}$ and $P_n$ are different, so observing a KNO-shaped final multiplicity distribution is consistent with an initial-state entropy of $\ln(xG)$.
  • The derived evolution equations for $\sigma_n$ provide a parton-cascade derivation of the AGK cutting rules, showing the cutting-rule result is reproducible by direct evolution.
  • At large $n$ and large $Y$, $\sigma_n$ initially grows like $n!(2\gamma N)^n$ before unitarity cuts it off; the states that saturate unitarity are not classical maximal-entropy states.
  • Because the entropy conclusion relies only on KNO scaling, $S_E=\ln\bar n+O(1)$ applies to any multiplicity distribution of KNO form, not just to this model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication left implicit: the entropy equality suggests the produced-state entropy is fixed at $t=-\infty$; decoherence during the collision contributes at most an $O(1)$ constant, a claim that could be tested in QCD-inspired dipole cascades by computing $\sigma_n$ exactly and comparing $S_E$ with $\ln\langle n\rangle$.
  • A testable extension is to compute the full enhanced-diagram generating function for a single dressed Pomeron numerically; if it deviates from Poisson, Eq. (22) would need correction, though the KNO argument suggests the entropy identity may still survive.
  • The nuclear-target formula (37) invites a check of whether $\sigma_n^{AGK,A}$ still satisfies KNO scaling with mean $2\gamma e^{\gamma(\tilde Y+A)}$; an $A$-dependent violation would sharply distinguish UTM production from BFKL-cascade production.
  • One could compare the toy prediction with data by extracting $S_E$ from charged-particle multiplicities in high-energy $pp$ collisions and comparing it with $\ln(xG)$ from DIS at the corresponding rapidity; the paper does not make this phenomenological 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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies multiparticle production in zero-transverse-dimension toy models, focusing on the Unitary Toy Model (UTM). It derives the final-state dipole multiplicity distribution by combining AGK cutting rules with the assumption that each cut dressed Pomeron emits dipoles with the same Poisson distribution as the bare BFKL Pomeron. The central results are the closed-form expressions for sigma_n (Eqs. 22 and 33), an evolution-equation formulation for sigma_n in the parton approach (Section IV), and the claim that the Shannon/von Neumann entropy of the produced particles equals ln(xG) at large rapidity, with a Y-independent constant of 1.5, matching the Kharzeev-Levin result. The paper argues that the final-state distribution differs in shape from the initial-state UTM parton distribution, despite the entropy equality, and that this picture contradicts the saturon/black-hole correspondence.

Significance. If the derivations are completed, the paper would provide an explicit solvable-model implementation of the AGK-based framework for final-state multiplicities and entropy, including a closed-form distribution whose KNO scaling explains the Y-independent entropy constant. Strengths of the manuscript include the analytic closed forms for sigma_n, the explicit n=1 verification of the evolution equation in Section IV, and the use of KNO scaling to separate the ln(mean multiplicity) term from the constant. The main weakness is that the Poisson form for the dressed Pomeron is asserted after computing only the first enhanced diagram; since Eqs. (28), (22), (33), and (66) all depend on that assumption, the central distribution and entropy results stand or fall on it.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B 3, Eqs. (B15)-(B16)] The claim that the dressed Pomeron has the same Poisson multiplicity distribution as the bare Pomeron is load-bearing but not derived. Eq. (B15) computes only the first enhanced diagram, and Eq. (B16) then asserts that the sum of all enhanced diagrams remains Poisson without a combinatorial or generating-function argument. Because Eq. (28) convolves sigma_k^AGK with the k-fold Poisson distribution and Eqs. (22), (33), and hence the entropy Eq. (66) depend on this convolution, the paper needs a derivation, or at least an explicit demonstration for the next orders in the enhanced-diagram series, that the factorial cumulants beyond the mean vanish.
  2. [Section IV B 4, Eq. (61)] The general-n evolution equation is not verified for arbitrary n. For n=1 the substitutions in Eqs. (55)-(57) are shown, but for general n the text only states that Eq. (61) follows. This equation is the basis for the claim that the parton evolution reproduces the AGK cutting rules for all n, which is one of the paper's main results. Please provide the substitution of Eqs. (59) and (60) into Eq. (61) for general n, or derive Eq. (61) from the Hamiltonian, to establish the equivalence beyond the n=1 case.
  3. [Section V A, text after Eq. (64) and Eq. (66)] The entropy computation replaces the convolution in Eq. (28) by a delta function in the produced-particle distribution, stating that the Poisson distribution 'plays no role.' This is not self-evident: the convolution changes the effective distribution and can modify the Y-independent constant in S_E, including the quoted +1.5. Please provide a quantitative estimate of the correction from the finite width of the Poisson factor, or perform the convolution and show that the entropy constant is unchanged at the accuracy claimed.
  4. [Abstract and Conclusions vs. Section V A, Eq. (68)] The abstract and Conclusions state that the entropy of the produced dipoles is the same as the entropy of the dipoles in the wave function, but Section V A and Eq. (68) state that S_E for the produced particles differs from S_UTM^E = ln N_UTM for the initial-state UTM distribution, as illustrated in Fig. 6. As written this is an internal contradiction. Please clarify which wave function is meant (e.g., the BFKL/DIS wave function whose mean multiplicity is xG) and adjust the abstract and Conclusions so that the claim matches the quantitative result in Eq. (68).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (22)] The Tricomi function argument uses k in U(k+1,1,1/(2 gamma N)) while the left-hand side is sigma_n; the index convention should be made consistent or explicitly defined.
  2. [Eq. (34)] The saddle-point equation contains k in the square root while the text and Fig. 3 refer to n; this appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  3. [Text near Eq. (34)] The sentence 'Using Eq. (23) for U ... we can take the integral over j in Eq. (34)' should refer to Eq. (33), not Eq. (34).
  4. [Appendix B heading] The heading 'Multiplicity distribution for the dresssed Pomeron' contains a typo: 'dresssed' should be 'dressed'.
  5. [Eq. (66)] The numerical value of the integral -1.5 should be substantiated, either by a reference or by a short derivation, since it determines the claimed entropy constant.
  6. [Section III A and Appendix B] The Borel-image quantities such as b^{(0)}_{d+d}(tau, N_j) are used before being defined; a short definition would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: the final-state multiplicity and entropy are computed from the UTM S-matrix via AGK rules and KNO scaling; the main caveat is an acknowledged and unproven Poisson assumption for the dressed Pomeron, which is a correctness gap rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The central chain is: take the UTM S-matrix (Eqs. 7, 13, 17) and the BFKL production property (Eq. 26 and Appendix A), apply AGK combinatorics (Eqs. 19-22), convolve with the Poisson distribution of k cut Pomerons (Eq. 28), and evaluate the entropy of the resulting KNO-scaled distribution (Eqs. 64-70). None of these steps re-inserts the target result as an input: Eq. 22 is a transform of the S-matrix coefficients C_k, and Eq. 66 follows from the KNO form of that transform, not from the definition of xG. The paper relies on the author's own prior work for the model (Refs. [15-17]) and for the parton-approach production proof (Refs. [77,78,80]), but those are parameter-free model-building derivations with stated assumptions that do not include the claimed multiplicity distribution; the BFKL Poisson property is also rederived in Appendix A. The strongest caveat is Appendix B.3: the paper states 'In section 3.2 we assumed that the dressed Pomeron has the same Poisson distribution of the produced dipoles as the bare Pomeron', and Eq. B16 then asserts that summing all enhanced diagrams preserves the Poisson form without exhibiting the sum. This is an omitted proof and a load-bearing premise, but it is an explicit assumption rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, so it is a correctness risk rather than a circular step. The modest score 2 reflects the self-citation reliance without any equation that is equivalent to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to data. The model parameters Delta and gamma are inherited from the UTM literature and are not introduced ad hoc for this paper. The central claims rest on the AGK cutting rules, the Poisson emission from a cut dressed Pomeron, the BFKL unitarity form, and the continuous/KNO approximation; these are stated or cited rather than proven here. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the 'dressed Pomeron' is an existing composite object, and the saturon appears only as the target of criticism.

free parameters (2)
  • Pomeron intercept Delta = input (0.2 in figures)
    Sets the rapidity scale Delta Y = ln xG; inherited from BFKL/UTM literature, not fitted to data.
  • dipole-dipole Born coupling gamma = input (0.025 in figures)
    Controls unitarity corrections and the shape of sigma_n; standard UTM parameter, not fitted to data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption s-channel unitarity for the BFKL Pomeron gives 2 Im G_BFKL(Y) = sigma_in^BFKL(Y) with Poisson multiplicity of mean Delta Y (Eq. 1, Refs [81,82]).
    Basis for the master formula Eq. (2); not rederived here.
  • domain assumption AGK cutting rules give sigma_n^k = C_k (-2)^{k-n} k! / ((k-n)! n!) (sigma_in^BFKL)^n (Eq. 19).
    Taken from Ref [75] and applied to the UTM without an independent proof.
  • ad hoc to paper The dressed Pomeron has the same Poisson distribution of produced dipoles as the bare BFKL Pomeron (Eq. B16).
    Shown for the first enhanced diagram only; the generalization to all enhanced diagrams is asserted.
  • domain assumption Only partons present in the wave function at t = -infinity can be produced at t = +infinity and measured (Refs [77-80]).
    Used in Section IV to justify replacing AGK rules by evolution equations for sigma_n.
  • domain assumption Continuous/KNO approximations: P_n - P_{n-1} is replaced by dP/dn and sigma_n/sigma_in has KNO scaling (Eqs. 14, 69).
    Used for the entropy calculation; corrections are claimed to be subleading but are not quantified.
  • standard math The Borel-type resummation in Eq. (10) is a valid way to sum the asymptotic series for S(Y).
    Nonstandard summation prescription taken from Ref [17]; central to all arbitrary-Y formulas.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Particle production in the toy world: multiplicity distribution and entropy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JDVJRZLY

@misc{pith2026241202504,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Particle production in the toy world: multiplicity distribution and entropy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JDVJRZLY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02504}
}
abstract

In this paper we found the multiplicity distribution of the produced dipoles in the final state for dipole-dipole scattering in the zero dimension toy models. This distribution shows the great differences from the distributions of partons in the wave function of the projectile. However, in spite of this difference the entropy of the produced dipoles turns out to be the same as the entropy of the dipoles in the wave function. This fact is not surprising since in the parton approach only dipoles in the hadron wave function which can be produced at $t = +\infty$ and measured by the detectors. We can also confirm the result of Kharzeev and Levin that this entropy is equal to $S_E = \ln\bigl(xG(x)\bigr)$, where we denote by $xG$ the mean multiplicity of the dipoles in the deep inelastic scattering. The evolution equations for $\sigma_n$ are derived.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02504 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The sketch of dipole-dipole interaction in the parton approach. The lines denote pertons (dipoles), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The contours of integrations in complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: A comparison of calculations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The graphic form of Eq. (39a) - Eq. (39d). The vertical lines notations are the same as in Fig. 4. The Pomeron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Entropy comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The mean multiplicities in the UTM versus Y. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The first Pomeron diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The typical Pomeron diagrams in the UTM. Fig. 10-a: the diagrams for two Pomeron Green’s function. Fig. 10-b: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: The multiplicity distribution for the first enhanced diagram in the ’dressed’ Pomeron. The wavy line denotes the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Dipole-dipole scattering at high energy in the Pomeron field theory with Braun Hamiltonian and beyond

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Deep in saturation, Braun-Hamiltonian pomeron calculus predicts S_dd = (S_BK)^4 for dipole-dipole scattering, four powers of the standard estimate, but the paper's own unitary toy model contradicts this prediction.

  2. Quantum entanglement within quarkonium

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Quark-antiquark entanglement entropy in quarkonium is derived from light-front wave functions, reduces to the Shannon entropy of TMDs, and shows strong polarization dependence for spin-1 mesons.

  3. Dipole-dipole scattering: summing large Pomeron loops in non-linear evolution with leading twist kernel

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In a leading-twist kernel, matching the BK solution to fan-diagram series yields KNO multiplicity distributions and gluon entropy S_E = ln(xG) for dipole-nucleus and dipole-dipole scattering.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Elastic amplitude 11

  2. [2]

    Single diffraction 12

  3. [3]

    INTRODUCTION Zero transverse dimension toy models can be viewed as a realization of the Pomeron calculus or more generally of Reggeon Field Theory (RFT)

    Multiplicity distribution for the ’dresssed’ Pomeron 20 References 21 I. INTRODUCTION Zero transverse dimension toy models can be viewed as a realization of the Pomeron calculus or more generally of Reggeon Field Theory (RFT). Over the years they have been intensively used to model high energy collisions in QCD. These models[1–17] encode various fundament...

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Entropy of produced particles 14 A

    σn 13 V. Entropy of produced particles 14 A. Continuous approximation 14 B. Arbitrary Y 15 VI. Conclusions 16 A. Distribution of the produced gluons in the BFKL Pomeron 16 B. The Pomeron calculus of the UTM 17

  5. [5]

    The first Pomeron diagrams 18

  6. [6]

    Summing enhanced diagrams 19

  7. [7]

    production

    Cn (γ) = exp n(n+1) 2 γ . The scattering amplitude for dipole-dipole scattering takes the form[17]: S ˜Y = Z e−γ, ˜Y = ∞X n=0 Cn (γ) Φn e−γ, γ e∆n ˜Y (7) where we use Eq. (6). For smallγ Cn Φn (1 − γ, γ) = ( −γ)n n! + O γn+1 , leading to S ˜Y = ∞X n=0 (−γ)n n! e∆n ˜Y ( 1 + O (γ) ) (8) Eq. (8) has natural interpretation in the Pomeron calculus (see appendi...

  8. [8]

    (39a) for the elastic amplitude

    Elastic amplitude Let us start from Eq. (39a) for the elastic amplitude. We can findd S(Y ) d Y using Eq. (3) forY0 = 0 since in this model S-matrix does not depend onY0. In doing so, we obtain the following equation for the scattering of two dipoles: d S(Y ) d Y = X n=1 e−γ ndP UTM n (Y ) d Y = ∆ γ (eγ − 1) X n=1 − e−γ nP UTM n (Y ) + e−2γ nP UTM n (Y ) ...

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    Single diffraction In Ref.[78] it is shown that the equation for the cross section of the diffraction dissociation for the BFKL cascade can be written in the form: d d ∆ Y SD d+d (Y ) = SD d+d (Y ) 2 − SD d+d (Y ) where SD = 1 − 2N0 + σsd (48) In the UTM it takes the following...

  2. [10]

    (57), Eq

    σ1 The equation forσ1 takes the following form in the UTM: d d ∆ Y σd+d 1 (Y ) = σd+2d 1 (Y ) − σd+d 1 (Y ) (54) This equation can be rewritten for the Borel images as follows: b(1) d+d (τ, Nj+1) − b(1) d+d (τ, Nj) = b(1) d+d (τ, Nj) + 2 b(1) d+d (τ, Nj) b(sd) d+d (τ, Nj) − 4 ...

  3. [11]

    (54), viz.: d d ∆ Y σd+d n (Y ) = σd+2d n (Y ) − σd+d n (Y ) (58) Using that from AGK cutting rules the Borel image ofσd+d n ( see Eq

    σn The equation forσn has the same general form as Eq. (54), viz.: d d ∆ Y σd+d n (Y ) = σd+2d n (Y ) − σd+d n (Y ) (58) Using that from AGK cutting rules the Borel image ofσd+d n ( see Eq. (33)) is equal to b(n) d+d (τ, Nj) = (2 τ γ Nj)n (1 + 2 τ γ Nj)n+1 (59) and the Borel i...

  4. [12]

    (A7) give the Poisson distribution

    Bearing this in mind we see that Eq. (A7) give the Poisson distribution. Appendix B: The Pomeron calculus of the UTM In this appendix we wish to review what we know about the Pomeron calculus in zero dimension models and, particularly in the UTM. We have to admit that the majo...

  5. [13]

    The first Pomeron diagrams The main features of the Pomeron calculus in the UTM can be seen just from the first diagrams (see Fig. 9). We will calculate them inω representation, which is defined as Z (u = 1 − t Y) = ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ d ω 2 π ieω ˜Y z (t, ω) (B3) Eq. (5) in this repre...

  6. [14]

    (13) can be derived for the verticesV n n = (eγ − 1)n (see Fig

    Summing enhanced diagrams In this section we demonstrate that the intercepts for the Pomeron Green’s function from Eq. (13) can be derived for the verticesV n n = (eγ − 1)n (see Fig. 10). The simplest case isG2I Pwhich is shown in Fig. 10-a. The bold wavy 20 lines denote the P...

  7. [15]

    Kovner, E

    A. Kovner, E. Levin and M. Lublinsky, JHEP08 (2016), 031

    2016

  8. [16]

    Multiplicity distribution for the ’dresssed’ Pomeron In section 3.2 we assumed that the ’dressed’ Pomeron has the same Poisson distribution of the produced dipoles as the ’bare’ Pomeron. Fig. 11 illustrates this point of view considering the first enhanced diagram for the ’dre...

  9. [17]

    we proposed the way of summing this asymptotic series

  10. [18]

    Amati, L

    D. Amati, L. Caneschi and R. Jengo, Nucl. Phys. B101 (1975) 397

    1975

  11. [19]

    Alessandrini, D

    V. Alessandrini, D. Amati and R. Jengo, Nucl. Phys. B108 (1976) 425

    1976

  12. [20]

    Jengo, Nucl

    R. Jengo, Nucl. Phys. B108 (1976) 447

    1976

  13. [21]

    Amati, M

    D. Amati, M. Le Bellac, G. Marchesini and M. Ciafaloni, Nucl. Phys. B112 (1976) 107

    1976

  14. [22]

    Ciafaloni, M

    M. Ciafaloni, M. Le Bellac and G. C. Rossi, Nucl. Phys. B130 (1977) 388

    1977

  15. [23]

    Ciafaloni, Nucl

    M. Ciafaloni, Nucl. Phys. B146 (1978) 427

    1978

  16. [24]

    A. H. Mueller and G. P. Salam, Nucl. Phys. B475, 293 (1996), [hep-ph/9605302]; G. P. Salam, Nucl. Phys. B461, 512 (1996), [hep-ph

    1996 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Rembiesa and A

    P. Rembiesa and A. M. Stasto, Nucl. Phys. B725 (2005) 251

    2005

  18. [26]

    A. I. Shoshi and B. W. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 094014

    2006

  19. [27]

    Kozlov and E

    M. Kozlov and E. Levin, Nucl. Phys. A779 (2006) 142

    2006

  20. [28]

    Bondarenko, L

    S. Bondarenko, L. Motyka, A. H. Mueller, A. I. Shoshi and B. W. Xiao, Eur. Phys. J. C50 (2007), 593-601, [arXiv:hep- ph/0609213 [hep-ph]]

    2007

  21. [29]

    Blaizot, E

    J.-P. Blaizot, E. Iancu and D. N. Triantafyllopoulos, Nucl. Phys. A784 (2007) 227

    2007

  22. [30]

    Armesto, S

    N. Armesto, S. Bondarenko, J. G. Milhano and P. Quiroga, JHEP 0805 (2008) 103

    2008

  23. [31]

    Levin and A

    E. Levin and A. Prygarin, Eur. Phys. J. C53 (2008) 385

    2008

  24. [32]

    Kovner, E

    A. Kovner, E. Levin and M. Lublinsky, JHEP05, 019 (2022) [arXiv:2201.01551 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    High energy scattering in the Unitary Toy Model,

    A. Kovner, E. Levin and M. Lublinsky„ JHEP10 (2024), 127 [arXiv:2406.12691 [hep-ph]]. “High energy scattering in the Unitary Toy Model,”[arXiv:2406.12691 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Andreevet al.[H1], Eur

    V. Andreevet al.[H1], Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021) no.3, 212 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08896-1 [arXiv:2011.01812 [hep- ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Multiplicity structure of the hadronic final state in diffractive deep inelastic scattering at HERA,

    C. Adloffet al. [H1], “Multiplicity structure of the hadronic final state in diffractive deep inelastic scattering at HERA,” Eur. Phys. J. C5 (1998), 439-452 doi:10.1007/s100529800963 [arXiv:hep-ex/9804012 [hep-ex]]

    1998 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Evolution of e p fragmentation and multiplicity distributions in the Breit frame,

    C. Adloffet al.[H1], “Evolution of e p fragmentation and multiplicity distributions in the Breit frame,”Nucl. Phys. B504 (1997), 3-23 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00585-3 [arXiv:hep-ex/9707005 [hep-ex]]

    1997 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Energy dependence of the charged multiplicity in deep inelastic scattering at HERA,

    S. Chekanovet al. [ZEUS], “Energy dependence of the charged multiplicity in deep inelastic scattering at HERA,”JHEP 06 (2008), 061 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/06/061 [arXiv:0803.3878 [hep-ex]]

    2008 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) no.9, 502 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4335-y [arXiv:1606.01133 [hep-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B758 (2016), 67-88 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.050 [arXiv:1602.01633 [hep-ex]]. 22

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    G.Aad et al.[ATLAS],Eur.Phys.J.C 76(2016)no.7,403doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4203-9[arXiv:1603.02439[hep-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], New J

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], New J. Phys.13 (2011), 053033 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/5/053033 [arXiv:1012.5104 [hep-ex]]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B688 (2010), 21-42 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.03.064 [arXiv:1003.3124 [hep-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kulchitsky and P

    Y. Kulchitsky and P. Tsiareshka, Study of the KNO scaling inpp collisions at √s from 0.9 to 13 TeV using results of the ATLAS at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C82 (2022) 462, arXiv: 2202.06697 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) no.9, 697 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6144-y [arXiv:1806.11245 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Khachatryan et al

    V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS], Phys. Lett. B 751 (2015), 143-163 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.10.004 [arXiv:1507.05915 [hep-ex]]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Khachatryanet al.[CMS], JHEP01 (2011), 079 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2011)079 [arXiv:1011.5531 [hep-ex]]

    V. Khachatryanet al.[CMS], JHEP01 (2011), 079 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2011)079 [arXiv:1011.5531 [hep-ex]]

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Khachatryanet al.[CMS], Phys

    V. Khachatryanet al.[CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett.105 (2010), 022002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.022002 [arXiv:1005.3299 [hep-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Khachatryanet al.[CMS], JHEP02 (2010), 041 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2010)041 [arXiv:1002.0621 [hep-ex]]

    V. Khachatryanet al.[CMS], JHEP02 (2010), 041 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2010)041 [arXiv:1002.0621 [hep-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Chatrchyan et al

    S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS and TOTEM], Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) no.10, 3053 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3053-6 [arXiv:1405.0722 [hep-ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Antchevet al

    G. Antchevet al. [TOTEM], Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) no.3, 126 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3343-7 [arXiv:1411.4963 [hep-ex]]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Aamodtet al.[ALICE], Eur

    K. Aamodtet al.[ALICE], Eur. Phys. J. C68 (2010), 89-108 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1339-x [arXiv:1004.3034 [hep- ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Aamodtet al.[ALICE], Eur

    K. Aamodtet al.[ALICE], Eur. Phys. J. C68 (2010), 345-354 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1350-2 [arXiv:1004.3514 [hep- ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Adamet al.[ALICE], Phys

    J. Adamet al.[ALICE], Phys. Lett. B753 (2016), 319-329 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.12.030 [arXiv:1509.08734 [nucl-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Adamet al.[ALICE], Eur

    J. Adamet al.[ALICE], Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) no.1, 33 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4571-1 [arXiv:1509.07541 [nucl- ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Acharyaet al

    S. Acharyaet al. [ALICE], Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) no.12, 852 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5412-6 [arXiv:1708.01435 [hep-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Acharyaet al

    S. Acharyaet al. [ALICE], Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) no.10, 857 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7350-y [arXiv:1905.07208 [nucl-ex]]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Eur

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014) no.5, 2888, [arXiv:1402.4430 [hep-ex]]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Eur

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012), 1947 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1947-8 [arXiv:1112.4592 [hep-ex]]

    2012 arXiv

  51. [59]

    EHS/NA22 Collaboration, Phase Space Dependence of the Multiplicity Distribution inπ+pand ppCollisions at 250-GeV/c, Z. Phys. C37 (1988) 215

    1988

  52. [60]

    UA1 Collaboration, A Study of the General Characteristics ofp¯p Collisions at √s = 0.2-TeV to 0.9-TeV, Nucl. Phys. B 335 (1990) 261

    1990

  53. [61]

    UA5Collaboration,AnInvestigationofMultiplicityDistributionsinDifferentPseudorapidityIntervalsinanti-ppReactions at a CMS Energy of 540-GeV, Phys. Lett. B160 (1985) 193

    1985

  54. [62]

    UA5 Collaboration, Charged Particle Multiplicity Distributions at 200-GeV and 900-GeV Center-Of-Mass Energy, Z. Phys. C 43 (1989) 357, ed. by R. Kotthaus and J. H. Kuhn

    1989

  55. [64]

    Aaltonen et al

    T. Aaltonen et al. [CDF], Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009), 112005 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010), 119903] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.112005 [arXiv:0904.1098 [hep-ex]]

    2009 arXiv

  56. [65]

    FERMILAB-PUB-89-201-E, p

    CDF Collaboration, Pseudorapidity distributions of charged particles produced in¯pp interactions at √s=630 GeV and 1800 GeV. FERMILAB-PUB-89-201-E, p. 119 (1989), ed. by J. Tran Thanh Van

    1989

  57. [66]

    Overview of ALICE results in pp, pA and AA collisions,

    R. Schicker [ALICE], “Overview of ALICE results in pp, pA and AA collisions,” EPJ Web Conf. 138 (2017), 01021 doi:10.1051/epjconf/201713801021 [arXiv:1701.04810 [nucl-ex]]

    2017

  58. [67]

    Kutak, Phys

    K. Kutak, Phys. Lett. B705 (2011), 217-221 [arXiv:1103.3654 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Peschanski, Phys

    R. Peschanski, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) no.3, 034042 [arXiv:1211.6911 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Kovner and M

    A. Kovner and M. Lublinsky, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) no.3, 034016 [arXiv:1506.05394 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Peschanski and S

    R. Peschanski and S. Seki, Phys. Lett. B758 (2016), 89-92 [arXiv:1602.00720 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  62. [71]

    D. E. Kharzeev and E. M. Levin, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) no.11, 114008 [arXiv:1702.03489 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Baker and D

    O. Baker and D. Kharzeev, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) no.5, 054007 [arXiv:1712.04558 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Berges, S

    J. Berges, S. Floerchinger and R. Venugopalan, JHEP04 (2018), 145 [arXiv:1712.09362 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Hagiwara, Y

    Y. Hagiwara, Y. Hatta, B. W. Xiao and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) no.9, 094029 [arXiv:1801.00087 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Armesto, F

    N. Armesto, F. Dominguez, A. Kovner, M. Lublinsky and V. Skokov, JHEP05 (2019), 025 [arXiv:1901.08080 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Gotsman and E

    E. Gotsman and E. Levin, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) no.5, 415 [arXiv:1902.07923 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Gotsman and E

    E. Gotsman and E. Levin, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) no.3, 034013 [arXiv:1905.05167 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Kovner, M

    A. Kovner, M. Lublinsky and M. Serino, Phys. Lett. B792 (2019), 4-15 [arXiv:1806.01089 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Neill and W

    D. Neill and W. J. Waalewijn, Phys. Rev. Lett.123 (2019) no.14, 142001 [arXiv:1811.01021 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Liu and I

    Y. Liu and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) no.4, 046005 [arXiv:1803.09157 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  72. [81]

    X. Feal, C. Pajares and R. Vazquez, Phys. Rev. C99 (2019) no.1, 015205 [arXiv:1805.12444 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Z. Tu, D. E. Kharzeev and T. Ullrich, Phys. Rev. Lett.124 (2020) no.6, 062001 [arXiv:1904.11974 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  74. [83]

    H. Duan, C. Akkaya, A. Kovner and V. V. Skokov, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) no.3, 036017 [arXiv:2001.01726 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  75. [84]

    On Entanglement Entropy of Maxwell fields in 3+1 dimensions with a slab geometry,

    C. Akkaya and A. Kovner, “On Entanglement Entropy of Maxwell fields in 3+1 dimensions with a slab geometry,” 23 [arXiv:2007.15970 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Hentschinski, K

    M. Hentschinski, K. Kutak and R. Straka, Eur.Phys.J.C 82(2022) 12, 1147, [arXiv:2207.09430 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Dvali and R

    G. Dvali and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D105, no.5, 056026 (2022), [arXiv:2106.11989 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  78. [87]

    Dvali, JHEP03, 126 (2021), [arXiv:2003.05546 [hep-th]]

    G. Dvali, JHEP03, 126 (2021), [arXiv:2003.05546 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Dvali, ‘Classicalization Clearly: Quantum Transition into States of Maximal Memory Storage Capacity,” [arXiv:1804.06154 [hep-th]]

    G. Dvali, ‘Classicalization Clearly: Quantum Transition into States of Maximal Memory Storage Capacity,” [arXiv:1804.06154 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  80. [89]

    A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B415 (1994) 373; Nucl. Phys. B437 (1995) 107; A. H. Mueller and B. Patel, Nucl. Phys. B 425, 471, 1994

    1994

  81. [90]

    Kovner and M

    A. Kovner and M. Lublinsky, Nucl. Phys. A767 171 (2006)

    2006

  82. [91]

    V. A. Abramovsky, V. N. Gribov and O. V. Kancheli, Yad. Fiz.18 (1973), 595, (Sov.J. Nucl.Phys. 18 (1974),308)

    1973

  83. [92]

    Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables

    M. Abramowitz and I. Stegun,“Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables”, United States Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards,1964

    1964

  84. [93]

    Quantum Chromodynamics at High Energies

    Yuri V. Kovchegov and Eugene Levin,“ Quantum Chromodynamics at High Energies", Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology, Cambridge University Press, 2012

    2012

  85. [94]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and E. Levin, Nucl. Phys. B 577 (2000), 221-239 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00125-5 [arXiv:hep- ph/9911523 [hep-ph]]

    2000

  86. [95]

    Chen and A

    Z. Chen and A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B451 (1995), 579-604 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00350-2

    1995 doi

  87. [96]

    Kormilitzin, E

    A. Kormilitzin, E. Levin and A. Prygarin, Nucl. Phys. A 813 (2008), 1-13 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2008.09.006 [arXiv:0807.3413 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  88. [97]

    V. S. Fadin, E. A. Kuraev and L. N. Lipatov, Phys. Lett.B60, 50 (1975); E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov and V. S. Fadin, Sov. Phys. JETP45, 199 (1977), [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.72,377(1977)]; I. I. Balitsky and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 28, 822 (1978), [Yad. Fiz.28,1597(1978)]

    1975

  89. [98]

    Levin, Phys

    E. Levin, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994), 4469-4480

    1994

  90. [99]

    Caneschi (ed.), Regge Theory of Low- p T Hadronic Interaction (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989)

    L. Caneschi (ed.), Regge Theory of Low- p T Hadronic Interaction (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989)

    1989

  91. [100]

    Polyakov, Zh

    A.M. Polyakov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.59, 542 (1970); Z. Koba, H.B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys.B40, 317 (1972); Z. Koba, in Proc. of the 1973 CERN School of Physics, p. 171, CERN Yellow Report CERN-73-12 (1973)

    1970

Pith tools

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