Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Description of di-hadron saturation signals within a universal nuclear parton distribution function approach

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that ordinary nuclear shadowing, encoded in modern nuclear PDFs, can describe most or all of the measured di-hadron and di-jet suppression in proton–nucleus collisions, while naturally explaining why the azimuthal…

desk verdict A careful, honest MC-based study showing modern nPDFs can explain most of the di-hadron/dijet suppression and the unmodified azimuthal width; the main caveat is the LO-to-NLO gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18347 v2 pith:LX5QYZ5L submitted 2025-01-30 nucl-th nucl-ex

Dennis V. Perepelitsa This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thnucl-ex
keywords nuclearpartondistributionfunctionsgluonsaturationdi-hadroncorrelationsdi-jetproton-nucleuscollisionsshadowingforwardrapidityper-triggeryield
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 tests whether forward di-hadron and di-jet suppression in p+A collisions, often read as evidence of gluon saturation, can instead be explained by nuclear shadowing as captured by modern nPDF sets. Using two recent measurements, one from ATLAS at the LHC and one from STAR at RHIC, the author simulates the measured kinematics with PYTHIA and reweights each event by the nPDF modification factor for the nuclear parton's Bjorken-x and Q2. The result is that nPDF effects reproduce all or most of the observed suppression of the per-trigger yield, and they naturally leave the width of the azimuthal correlation unchanged. If correct, this removes the strongest experimental motivation from these particular observables for identifying saturation phenomena on their own.

What carries the argument

The central object is the nuclear PDF modification factor $R_A^f(x_A,Q^2)$, applied as an event-level weight in PYTHIA simulations matched to the ATLAS and STAR kinematic selections. The reweighting is the only mechanism used: inclusive trigger events and coincidence pair events draw from different $(x_A,Q^2)$ distributions, so the suppression differs between the numerator and denominator of the per-trigger yield and does not fully cancel, while the azimuthal shape of each event remains untouched, yielding a naturally unmodified correlation width.

What would settle it

A next-to-leading-order calculation of forward di-hadron and di-jet production with the same nPDF sets at the measured kinematics that fails to reproduce the suppression, or a STAR measurement in the lowest associated-pT bin with uncertainties small enough to exclude the nPDF band, would undermine the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a collinear-factorization picture with universal nuclear parton distribution functions can describe the major features of forward di-hadron and di-jet data from p+Pb collisions at the LHC and p+Au and p+Al collisions at RHIC. The suppression in the per-trigger yield arises because inclusive trigger-jet or trigger-hadron events and coincidence pair events sample different (xA, Q2) regions, so the same shadowing factor does not cancel in the ratio; this differential suppression is sufficient without introducing any dynamics that alter inter-event correlations. The same mechanism explains why the measured azimuthal correlation width is unmodified, since individual events are only reweighted, not reshaped. The author concludes that these observables alone, as currently defined, may not provide a robust way to identify saturation phenomena, while emphasizing that saturation and nPDF pictures are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the leading-order PYTHIA event generators reproduce the true (xA, Q2) distributions and the coincidence-to-trigger yield ratio well enough that event-level reweighting by next-to-leading-order nPDF sets is a faithful proxy for a full NLO calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is correct, forward di-hadron and di-jet observables alone are not sufficient to establish gluon saturation, since their suppression can be reproduced by nPDF shadowing alone.
  • The unmodified azimuthal correlation width, previously in tension with saturation expectations, is a natural outcome of the nPDF picture.
  • The progressive suppression with nuclear size A^(1/3) seen in STAR data follows from A-dependent shadowing without extra dynamics.
  • Any remaining difference between data and nPDF predictions could be filled by additional dynamical QCD effects, but decisive statements require smaller experimental and nPDF uncertainties.
  • Isolating saturation would require finding the specific saturation scale Q_s at which the universality assumptions of the nPDF picture break down.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same reweighting logic could be applied to photon-hadron and photon-jet correlation measurements, where nPDF effects may similarly mimic saturation-like suppression patterns.
  • A direct extension would be to replace PYTHIA's leading-order kinematics with a full next-to-leading-order calculation and repeat the reweighting; any large disagreement would locate where nPDF universality fails.
  • If the nPDF explanation survives NLO scrutiny, the EIC di-hadron program should shift toward observables that discriminate between simple reweighting and genuine saturation, such as measurements across a range of Q_s values.
  • The paper implicitly suggests that the field needs multi-observable corroboration rather than a single correlation measurement to claim saturation discovery.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether nuclear shadowing as encoded in universal nPDF sets, applied as an event-level (xA,Q2)-dependent reweighting of LO Monte Carlo events, can reproduce the suppression of forward di-hadron and di-jet per-trigger yields measured in p+Pb collisions by ATLAS and in p+Au/p+Al collisions by STAR, while leaving the azimuthal correlation width unmodified. Three nPDF sets are used (EPPS21, nCTEQ15WZ+SIH, nNNPDF3.0). The central mechanism is the non-cancellation of the nPDF suppression between the broad xA distribution sampled by inclusive trigger events and the sharply peaked xA distribution sampled by coincidence events. The author finds that the EPPS21 central values account for roughly half of the nominal suppression in the most sensitive bins, with full compatibility achieved only after combining experimental and nPDF uncertainties, and concludes that these observables alone may not provide a robust way to identify saturation phenomena.

Significance. If the central claim were quantitatively secure, the paper would remove a major piece of experimental motivation for gluon saturation from di-hadron and di-jet correlation measurements and would sharpen the case for using nPDF baselines when interpreting such data. The study is constructive and reproducible in spirit: it uses public MC generators, public nPDF sets through LHAPDF, and a transparent reweighting procedure. It also draws a useful distinction between compatibility within uncertainties and a genuine quantitative description, although the manuscript does not always respect that distinction. The main limitation is that the quantitative result is an LO MC estimate with uncontrolled normalization uncertainties, and the strongest statement in the abstract and conclusion goes beyond what the figures actually demonstrate.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The abstract and conclusion claim that modern nPDF sets "can describe all or the majority" of the observed suppression, but the nominal EPPS21 values shown in Fig. 2 (ATLAS) and Fig. 5 (STAR) capture only about half of the central suppression in the most sensitive bins, with the rest recovered only after combining experimental and 90% nPDF uncertainties. The statement should be reframed as compatibility within uncertainties, or supported by a quantitative statement of how much of the central value is described.
  2. [Secs. II and III] The central quantitative mechanism is the difference between the broad xA distribution of the inclusive trigger sample and the sharply peaked xA distribution of the coincidence sample shown in Fig. 1. This difference is computed from PYTHIA LO event samples, reweighted by NLO-derived nPDF sets, and the paper acknowledges in Sec. II that PYTHIA is "not a true next-to-leading order generator" and in Sec. III that the STAR setup uses the LO CTEQ6L1 PDF. A NLO shift in the (xA,Q2) distributions of either sample would directly change the predicted ratio, so the magnitude of the predicted suppression is not yet quantitatively secure; at minimum, a NLO cross-check or a clear statement that the result is an LO estimate with uncontrolled normalization uncertainties is needed.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 5] The most sensitive STAR bin, the lowest passoc_T selection, probes Q2 values near 2 GeV^2, below the range where the nPDF fits are reliable; the paper itself notes that EPPS21 can evaluate to negative values at low Q2 and imposes an ad hoc floor of 1.8 GeV^2. This means the lowest-passoc_T point, where the nominal EPPS21 effect is only half the data, carries the largest model uncertainty, and the claim that the calculation is compatible with "the majority of the effect" in this bin is fragile.
  4. [Sec. III, Fig. 6] The "natural explanation" of the unmodified azimuthal width is to a large extent built into the implementation, because event-level reweighting changes only the overall weight of each event and not the final-state kinematics; moreover, the nCTEQ15 set in Fig. 6 gives a 5% broadening from the relative reweighting of event classes with different widths. The paper should distinguish between a genuine prediction and a property that follows by construction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1] The horizontal-axis label and tick labels in Fig. 1 are garbled and nearly unreadable; please regenerate the figure with a clear axis label such as "xA".
  2. [Figs. 2, 5, and 7] Uncertainty bands are shown only for EPPS21; a sentence stating whether nCTEQ15 and nNNPDF3.0 uncertainties were omitted for clarity would help the reader interpret the comparison.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 7] The A-dependence statement is based on only two data points, p+Al and p+Au; the text should explicitly acknowledge that a two-point trend provides limited discrimination between the nPDF sets.
  4. [Sec. III, footnote 44] The STAR simulation setup relies on a private communication [44]; providing the relevant PYTHIA6 tuning and process settings in an appendix or in a publicly available configuration would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central nPDF description of di-hadron/di-jet suppression is computed from external global fits and Pythia kinematics, not fit to the target observables.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The nPDF sets used (EPPS21, nCTEQ15WZ+SIH, nNNPDF3.0) are external global fits driven by inclusive data such as W/Z production and single inclusive hadron production, not by the di-hadron or di-jet conditional-yield observables that the paper claims to describe. The paper computes the non-cancellation between the inclusive trigger suppression and the coincidence suppression by weighting Pythia events with the universal (xA, Q2)-dependent nuclear modification factor; the resulting N12/N1 ratio is not an input to the nPDF fits, so the agreement shown in Figs. 2, 5, and 7 is not enforced by construction. The unmodified azimuthal width is a consequence of event-level reweighting, but it is still evaluated from the Pythia kinematics, and the paper notes a modest 5% width increase within nCTEQ15, showing the calculation is not tautological. The only self-citation, Ref. [37], is cited together with Refs. [35,36] for the peripheral point that the two measurements avoid multiplicity-selection biases; it is not load-bearing. The main weakness identified in the paper is the use of an LO Pythia setup as a proxy for NLO kinematics, which the paper itself flags in Secs. II and III; that is a validity or correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of collinear factorization at the probed scales, the fidelity of LO Pythia generators, and the assumption that event-level reweighting by nPDF ratios captures all nuclear effects. No new free parameters are fit by the author; the two listed parameters are modeling choices. The nPDF sets themselves are external global fits and are treated as inputs.

free parameters (2)
  • Pedestal fit parameters for STAR correlated yield (Gaussian width and constant) = Not specified; extracted per kinematic bin from simulated correlation functions
    The correlated yield N12 is defined via a Gaussian plus constant pedestal fit; the extracted area and width depend on the fit model, an unquantified modeling freedom.
  • EPPS21 Q2 floor = 1.8 GeV^2
    To avoid negative nPDF values at low Q2, reweighting uses max(Q2_hard, 1.8 GeV^2); this ad hoc threshold affects the suppression at low scales.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Collinear factorization with universal nPDFs is valid at the low Q2 scales probed by the measurements (down to about 1 to 2 GeV^2 for STAR).
    The paper explicitly assumes this while noting higher-twist effects become important and eventually violate the assumption (Sec. I, III).
  • domain assumption The event-level nPDF weight R_f^A(xA, Q2) applied at the Pythia hard-process scale fully captures nuclear effects on all final-state observables.
    This is the central modeling step in Sec. II and III; it excludes energy loss, coherent scattering, and other non-factorizable effects.
  • domain assumption The LO Pythia generators reproduce the p+p kinematics well enough that the xA and Q2 distributions, and the ratio N12/N1, are representative.
    The paper validates Pythia against p+p data but describes agreement as 'reasonable, not perfect' and notes the code is not NLO.
  • domain assumption The STAR simulation setup faithfully replicates the experimental event selection.
    The setup is taken from a private communication (Ref 44), so its correctness cannot be independently checked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Description of di-hadron saturation signals within a universal nuclear parton distribution function approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LX5QYZ5L

@misc{pith2026250118347,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Description of di-hadron saturation signals within a universal nuclear parton distribution function approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LX5QYZ5L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18347}
}
abstract

Di-hadron and di-jet correlation measurements in proton-nucleus ($p$+A) and electron--nucleus collisions are widely motivated as sensitive probes of novel, non-linear QCD saturation dynamics in hadrons, which are particularly accessible in the dense nuclear environment at low values of Bjorken-$x$ ($x_\mathrm{A})$. Current measurements at RHIC and the LHC observe a significant suppression in the per-trigger yield at forward rapidities compared to that in proton-proton collisions, nominally consistent with the "mono-jet" production expected in a saturation scenario. However, the width of the azimuthal correlation remains unmodified, in contradiction to the qualitative expectations from this physics picture. I investigate whether the construction of these observables leaves them sensitive to effects from simple nuclear shadowing as captured by, for example, universal nuclear parton distribution function (nPDF) analyses. I find that modern nPDF sets, informed by recent precision measurements sensitive to the shadowing of low-$x_\mathrm{A}$ gluon densities in LHC and other data, can describe all or the majority of the di-hadron/jet suppression effects in $p$+A data at both RHIC and the LHC, while giving a natural explanation for why the azimuthal correlation width is unmodified. Notably, this is achieved via a $(x_\mathrm{A},Q^2)$-differential suppression of overall cross-sections only, without requiring additional physics dynamics which alter the inter-event correlations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18347 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Distribution in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Ratio of the per-trigger forward di-jet yield in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Ratio of the forward di-jet azimuthal correla [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Per-trigger normalized correlation function for for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Ratio of the forward dihadron azimuthally [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Ratio of the forward dihadron azimuthal correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. A. Salgado et al., Proton-Nucleus Collisions at the LHC: Scientific Opportunities and Requirements, J. Phys. G 39, 015010 (2012), arXiv:1105.3919 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    C. A. Salgado and J. P. Wessels, Proton–Lead Collisions at the CERN LHC, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 66, 449 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    J. J. Ethier and E. R. Nocera, Parton Distributions in Nucleons and Nuclei, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70, 43 (2020), arXiv:2001.07722 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Qiu and I

    J.-w. Qiu and I. Vitev, Resummed QCD power correc- tions to nuclear shadowing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 262301 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0309094

    arXiv 2004

  5. [5]

    Qiu and I

    J.-w. Qiu and I. Vitev, Coherent QCD multiple scatter- ing in proton-nucleus collisions, Phys. Lett. B 632, 507 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0405068

    arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Computing quark and gluon distribution functions for very large nuclei, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2233 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9309289

    arXiv 1994

  7. [7]

    L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Gluon distribu- tion functions for very large nuclei at small transverse momentum, Phys. Rev. D 49, 3352 (1994), arXiv:hep- ph/9311205

    arXiv 1994

  8. [8]

    Gelis, E

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

    arXiv 2010

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Morreale and F

    A. Morreale and F. Salazar, Mining for Gluon Saturation at Colliders, Universe 7, 312 (2021), arXiv:2108.08254 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kharzeev, E

    D. Kharzeev, E. Levin, and L. McLerran, Jet azimuthal correlations and parton saturation in the color glass condensate, Nucl. Phys. A 748, 627 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0403271

    2005

  3. [11]

    Jalilian-Marian and Y

    J. Jalilian-Marian and Y. V. Kovchegov, Inclusive two- gluon and valence quark-gluon production in DIS and pA, Phys. Rev. D 70, 114017 (2004), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 71, 079901 (2005)], arXiv:hep-ph/0405266

    2004 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Marquet, Forward inclusive dijet production and az- imuthal correlations in p(A) collisions, Nucl

    C. Marquet, Forward inclusive dijet production and az- imuthal correlations in p(A) collisions, Nucl. Phys. A 796, 41 (2007), arXiv:0708.0231 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Stasto, B.-W

    A. Stasto, B.-W. Xiao, and F. Yuan, Back-to-Back Cor- relations of Di-hadrons in dAu Collisions at RHIC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 430 (2012), arXiv:1109.1817 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Kutak and S

    K. Kutak and S. Sapeta, Gluon saturation in dijet pro- duction in p-Pb collisions at Large Hadron Collider, 8 Phys. Rev. D 86, 094043 (2012), arXiv:1205.5035 [hep- ph]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    J. L. Albacete, G. Giacalone, C. Marquet, and M. Matas, Forward dihadron back-to-back correlations in pA colli- sions, Phys. Rev. D 99, 014002 (2019), arXiv:1805.05711 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Fujii, C

    H. Fujii, C. Marquet, and K. Watanabe, Comparison of improved TMD and CGC frameworks in forward quark dijet production, JHEP 12, 181, arXiv:2006.16279 [hep- ph]

    2006 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Caucal, F

    P. Caucal, F. Salazar, B. Schenke, T. Stebel, and R. Venugopalan, Back-to-Back Inclusive Dijets in Deep Inelastic Scattering at Small x: Complete NLO Results and Predictions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 081902 (2024), arXiv:2308.00022 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Accardi et al., Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all, Eur

    A. Accardi et al., Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 268 (2016), arXiv:1212.1701 [nucl-ex]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Zheng, E

    L. Zheng, E. C. Aschenauer, J. H. Lee, and B.-W. Xiao, Probing Gluon Saturation through Dihadron Correla- tions at an Electron-Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. D 89, 074037 (2014), arXiv:1403.2413 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Adams et al.(STAR), Forward neutral pion production in p+p and d+Au collisions at √sN N= 200 GeV, Phys

    J. Adams et al.(STAR), Forward neutral pion production in p+p and d+Au collisions at √sN N= 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 152302 (2006), arXiv:nucl-ex/0602011

    2006 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Braidot (STAR), Suppression of Forward Pion Corre- lations in d+Au Interactions at STAR, in 45th Rencon- tres de Moriond on QCD and High Energy Interactions (2010) pp

    E. Braidot (STAR), Suppression of Forward Pion Corre- lations in d+Au Interactions at STAR, in 45th Rencon- tres de Moriond on QCD and High Energy Interactions (2010) pp. 355–338, arXiv:1005.2378 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX), Suppression of back-to-back hadron pairs at forward rapidity in d+Au Collisions at√sN N= 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 172301 (2011), arXiv:1105.5112 [nucl-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J. L. Albacete and C. Marquet, Single and double in- clusive particle production in d+Au collisions at RHIC, leading twist and beyond, Nucl. Phys. A854, 154 (2011), arXiv:1009.3215 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Chiu (PHENIX), Cold nuclear matter physics at for- ward rapidities from d+Au collisions in PHENIX, J

    M. Chiu (PHENIX), Cold nuclear matter physics at for- ward rapidities from d+Au collisions in PHENIX, J. Phys. G 38, 124121 (2011), arXiv:1109.2133 [nucl-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Chu, Ongoing Efforts to Study Gluon Saturation at RHIC and at the LHC, https://indico.bnl.gov/ event/20727/contributions/93759/ (2024)

    X. Chu, Ongoing Efforts to Study Gluon Saturation at RHIC and at the LHC, https://indico.bnl.gov/ event/20727/contributions/93759/ (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Z.-B. Kang, I. Vitev, and H. Xing, Dihadron momen- tum imbalance and correlations in d+Au collisions, Phys. Rev. D 85, 054024 (2012), arXiv:1112.6021 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Armesto, H

    N. Armesto, H. Paukkunen, J. M. Pen ´ ın, C. A. Salgado, and P. Zurita, An analysis of the impact of LHC Run I proton–lead data on nuclear parton densities, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 218 (2016), arXiv:1512.01528 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, and H. Paukkunen, Non- quadratic improved Hessian PDF reweighting and ap- plication to CMS dijet measurements at 5.02 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 511 (2019), arXiv:1903.09832 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Abdul Khalek, J

    R. Abdul Khalek, J. J. Ethier, J. Rojo, and G. van Weelden, nNNPDF2.0: quark flavor separation in nuclei from LHC data, JHEP 09, 183, arXiv:2006.14629 [hep- ph]

    2006 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kusina et al., Impact of LHC vector boson production in heavy ion collisions on strange PDFs, Eur

    A. Kusina et al., Impact of LHC vector boson production in heavy ion collisions on strange PDFs, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 968 (2020), arXiv:2007.09100 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen, and C. A. Sal- gado, EPPS21: a global QCD analysis of nuclear PDFs, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 413 (2022), arXiv:2112.12462 [hep- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS), Dijet azimuthal correla- tions and conditional yields in pp and p+Pb collisions at sNN=5.02TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. C 100, 034903 (2019), arXiv:1901.10440 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Evidence for Nonlinear Gluon Effects in QCD and Their Mass Number Depen- dence at STAR, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 092501 (2022), arXiv:2111.10396 [nucl-ex]

    2022

  26. [34]

    Strikman and W

    M. Strikman and W. Vogelsang, Multiple parton in- teractions and forward double pion production in pp and dA scattering, Phys. Rev. D 83, 034029 (2011), arXiv:1009.6123 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Adare et al

    A. Adare et al. (PHENIX), Centrality categorization for Rp(d)+A in high-energy collisions, Phys. Rev. C 90, 034902 (2014), arXiv:1310.4793 [nucl-ex]

    2014

  28. [36]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (ALICE), Centrality dependence of par- ticle production in p-Pb collisions at √sNN= 5.02 TeV, Phys. Rev. C 91, 064905 (2015), arXiv:1412.6828 [nucl- ex]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    D. V. Perepelitsa, Contribution to differential π0 and γdir modification in small systems from color fluc- tuation effects, Phys. Rev. C 110, L011901 (2024), arXiv:2404.17660 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    van Hameren, P

    A. van Hameren, P. Kotko, K. Kutak, and S. Sapeta, Broadening and saturation effects in dijet azimuthal cor- relations in p-p and p-Pb collisions at √s = 5.02 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 795, 511 (2019), arXiv:1903.01361 [hep- ph]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys

    C. Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022, 8 (2022), arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Duwent¨ aster, L

    P. Duwent¨ aster, L. A. Husov´ a, T. Jeˇ zo, M. Klasen, K. Kovaˇ r ´ ık, A. Kusina, K. F. Muzakka, F. I. Olness, I. Schienbein, and J. Y. Yu, Impact of inclusive hadron production data on nuclear gluon PDFs, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094005 (2021), arXiv:2105.09873 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Abdul Khalek, R

    R. Abdul Khalek, R. Gauld, T. Giani, E. R. Nocera, T. R. Rabemananjara, and J. Rojo, nNNPDF3.0: evidence for a modified partonic structure in heavy nuclei, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 507 (2022), arXiv:2201.12363 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht, M. Sch¨ onherr, and G. Watt, LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 132 (2015), arXiv:1412.7420 [hep- ph]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hou et al., New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC, Phys

    T.-J. Hou et al., New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 103, 014013 (2021), arXiv:1912.10053 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Private communication, Xiaoxuan Chu

  37. [45]

    Sjostrand, S

    T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual, JHEP 05, 026, arXiv:hep- ph/0603175

  38. [46]

    P. Z. Skands, Tuning Monte Carlo Generators: The Perugia Tunes, Phys. Rev. D 82, 074018 (2010), arXiv:1005.3457 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Pumplin, D

    J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky, and W. K. Tung, New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCD analy- sis, JHEP 07, 012, arXiv:hep-ph/0201195

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Boussarie, A

    R. Boussarie, A. V. Grabovsky, D. Y. Ivanov, L. Szy- manowski, and S. Wallon, Next-to-Leading Order Com- putation of Exclusive Diffractive Light Vector Meson 9 Production in a Saturation Framework, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 072002 (2017), arXiv:1612.08026 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Boussarie, H

    R. Boussarie, H. M¨ antysaari, F. Salazar, and B. Schenke, The importance of kinematic twists and genuine satura- tion effects in dijet production at the Electron-Ion Col- lider, JHEP 09, 178, arXiv:2106.11301 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Armesto, T

    N. Armesto, T. Lappi, H. M¨ antysaari, H. Paukkunen, and M. Tevio, Signatures of gluon saturation from structure-function measurements, Phys. Rev. D 105, 114017 (2022), arXiv:2203.05846 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Schenke, H

    B. Schenke, H. M¨ antysaari, F. Salazar, C. Shen, and W. Zhao, Vector meson production in ultraperiph- eral heavy ion collisions, in 1st International Work- shop on the physics of Ultra Peripheral Collisions(2024) arXiv:2404.10833 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Cheung, Z.-B

    V. Cheung, Z.-B. Kang, F. Salazar, and R. Vogt, Direct quarkonium production in DIS from a joint CGC and NRQCD framework, Phys. Rev. D 110, 094039 (2024), arXiv:2409.04080 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Beni´ c, O

    S. Beni´ c, O. Garcia-Montero, and A. Perkov, Isolated photon-hadron production in high energy pp and pA col- lisions at RHIC and LHC, Phys. Rev. D 105, 114052 (2022), arXiv:2203.01685 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [2012]

    Notably, the LO PDF in this setup is used with nPDF sets extracted with respect to NLO PDFs

    [46] and the CTEQ6L1 [47] PDF set, and with low-pT production and semi-hard QCD 2 → 2 processes enabled. Notably, the LO PDF in this setup is used with nPDF sets extracted with respect to NLO PDFs. While a check of the impact of LO vs. NLO PDF sets in Pythia suggested that thi...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.