Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

A new analysis of exclusive J/ψ photoproduction at HERA claims that the proton's small-x gluon distribution has a two-component transverse shape: a perturbative Gaussian core of about 0.105 fm and a nonperturbative exponential halo of about

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 00:36 UTC pith:V6YS3HXJ

load-bearing objection Solid fit and clean analytics, but the core+halo result is built into the assumed form factor, not measured from HERA data. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14955 v2 pith:V6YS3HXJ submitted 2026-07-16 hep-ph

Precise Determination of the Proton's Gluon Cloud Geometry from HERA data

Tobias Toll , Nahid Vasim This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords gluon cloudproton structureexclusive J/psi photoproductionhotspot modelcoherent diffractionincoherent diffractionsmall-x gluonscore-halo structure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that the transverse shape of the proton's small-x gluon distribution can be extracted from exclusive J/ψ photoproduction data at HERA, and that the shape consists of a perturbative Gaussian core of radius about 0.105 fm surrounded by an exponential halo of range about 0.220 fm. The authors derive analytic expressions for coherent and incoherent cross sections in the hotspot model, enabling a global fit to all 104 available data points without Monte Carlo event generation. If true, this would give a precise determination of the gluon cloud's geometry and connect it to QCD vacuum properties and lattice flux-tube structure. The shape is claimed to be independent of the momentum fraction x_IP and of the assumed number of hotspots.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the gluon distribution inside the proton is not a simple Gaussian but a composite: a perturbative Gaussian core of size √(2B_hs) = 0.105(2) fm plus a nonperturbative exponential halo of range λ = 0.220(15) fm, obtained by fitting analytic leading-twist expressions to all 104 H1 and ZEUS exclusive J/ψ photoproduction data points across three decades of momentum transfer |t|. The fit quality is χ²/ndf = 0.77, and the geometry remains stable when the number of hotspots or the x_IP dependence is varied. The incoherent cross section at small |t| is dominated by shot-noise fluctuations at the level of about one gluon per hotspot.

What carries the argument

The central object is the proton's thickness function T_p(b) in the hotspot model, built from independent hotspots with a profile given by the convolution of a Gaussian of width √(2B_hs) and a modified Bessel function K0(r/λ). This convolution yields the analytic form factor ˆT(t) = e^{-B_hs|t|/2}/(1+λ²|t|), which combines a Gaussian core with a Lorentzian tail and produces the core-halo structure. Analytic Good–Walker expressions for coherent and incoherent cross sections, including a center-of-mass correction and log-normal saturation-scale fluctuations, allow a direct fit to the data without averaging over thousands of hotspot configurations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hotspot thickness function has the assumed Gaussian-convolved-K0 profile (Eqs. 21–22); the extracted 'core' and 'halo' are parameters of that assumed shape, not independent measurements, and the paper does not compare against alternative functional forms.

What would settle it

A fit of the same 104-point data set with a single-Gaussian hotspot profile (form factor e^{-B|t|}) that yields a comparable χ² would falsify the claim that the data resolve a distinct exponential halo; alternatively, a measurement of the incoherent cross section at |t| > 5 GeV² that follows an exponential rather than the predicted power-law tail (1+λ²|t|)^{-2} would invalidate the core-halo extraction.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the core-halo geometry is real, the proton's small-x gluon distribution has a well-defined transverse shape that is largely frozen in x_IP, with only a slow diffusion of the hotspot centres.
  • The extracted halo range of about 0.220 fm matches the gluon-field correlation length of the QCD vacuum and the flux-tube core-halo structure seen on the lattice, suggesting a universal nonperturbative scale.
  • The fitted effective pomeron slope α'_eff ≈ 0.046 GeV⁻² is smaller than previous HERA Regge extractions but consistent with running-coupling BFKL expectations, affecting how the gluon cloud expands with energy.
  • The interpretation of the small-|t| incoherent cross section as shot-noise from roughly one gluon per hotspot constrains event-by-event fluctuations of the saturation scale.
  • The analytic expressions provide a fast, Monte-Carlo-free framework for interpreting future Electron-Ion Collider measurements of exclusive vector meson production.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the assumed hotspot profile is correct, the core and halo sizes are parameters of that functional form, not model-independent measurements; a direct test would be to refit the same data with alternative smooth profiles (e.g., a single Gaussian or a different tail index) and compare the fit quality.
  • The result suggests that the Gaussian core and exponential halo might reflect two distinct physical regimes: perturbative bremsstrahlung near the hotspot center and nonperturbative vacuum screening at larger distances. One could test whether the halo scale λ tracks the string tension or the lightest glueball mass as the photon virtuality Q² varies.
  • If the geometry is truly frozen in x_IP, the energy dependence of exclusive production enters primarily through the DGLAP-evolved gluon density and the diffusion of hotspot centres, not through the shape of individual hotspots. This would simplify initial-state modelling for heavy-ion collisions: the fluctuating gluon profile can be generated once and evolved by simple diffusion.
  • The shot-noise interpretation (about one gluon per hotspot) is an inference from the fitted log-normal fluctuation width; a direct measurement of the variance of the incoherent cross section at even smaller |t|, where the geometric variance vanishes, could confirm or rule out this picture.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents an analytic treatment of coherent and incoherent exclusive J/psi photoproduction in the dipole model with a hotspot proton structure. Using the Good-Walker formalism, the authors derive closed-form expressions for the first and second moments of the hotspot thickness function, including a center-of-mass correction and log-normal saturation-scale fluctuations. They fit the resulting model to 104 H1 and ZEUS data points and report chi^2/ndf = 0.77. The main physics claim is that the gluonic hotspots have a resolved transverse structure of a perturbative Gaussian core (radius ~0.105 fm) surrounded by an exponential halo of range ~0.220 fm, independent of x_IP and of the number of hotspots, and consistent with lattice QCD studies of vacuum flux tubes. They also extract a small effective pomeron slope alpha'_eff ~0.046 GeV^-2.

Significance. The analytic derivation is a useful technical advance: it removes the need for Monte Carlo averaging over hotspot configurations and allows a global fit to the full coherent and incoherent t-spectra. The fit quality is good, and the simultaneous description of coherent and incoherent HERA data is a nontrivial success. The connection to lattice-gauge-theory correlation lengths is suggestive. However, the central 'resolved core-halo' claim is not model-independent: the Gaussian-circle?K0 profile is imposed before fitting, and no alternative functional forms are tested. If reframed as a parameter extraction under a specific assumed hotspot profile, the paper is a solid phenomenological contribution; as stated, the abstract overstates the uniqueness of the extracted geometry. The shot-noise interpretation in the abstract is also not derived from data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and 'The Model' (Eqs. 21-23)] The central claim that the data resolve a 0.105 fm Gaussian core and a 0.220 fm exponential halo is not supported as a model-independent measurement. The hotspot profile is assumed to be a convolution of a Gaussian and K0 before fitting (Eqs. 21-22), which fixes the factorized form Eq. (23). At small |t| the coherent cross section constrains essentially the combination B_hs/2 + lambda^2 (together with B_qc), while the separation into a core and a halo is controlled by the assumed analytic form and by the particular 1/(lambda^2|t|) tail. No alternative shapes (e.g., two Gaussians, a power-law form factor, or a single broader Gaussian) are compared. A chi^2/ndf=0.77 shows consistency, not uniqueness. Please either add a model-selection comparison or explicitly present the result as the parameterization of the assumed Gaussian x K0 profile.
  2. ['Comparisons to HERA data', sigma_S paragraph and Abstract] The statement that the small-|t| incoherent cross section is dominated by shot-noise fluctuations of order one gluon per hotspot is not a result of the fit. sigma_S is a fitted parameter controlling the variance of a log-normal fluctuation xi_i. The observation that Var[xi_i]/<xi_i>^2 ~ 1 is a reparameterization of this fitted variance, not an independent measurement. The actual number of gluons per hotspot never enters the calculation. This interpretive claim should be removed or clearly labeled as an analogy, not a determination.
  3. ['Comparisons to HERA data' (Fit 2 and Fit 3) and Conclusions] The conclusion that the hotspot shape is 'frozen in x_IP' overstates the sensitivity. Fits 2 and 3 add one parameter each and improve chi^2 by only about 2 and 0.5, respectively. This means the HERA data are consistent with no x_IP dependence, but they do not positively establish that no dependence exists. Please phrase the result as a null test with an upper bound (e.g., beta' and delta_N limits) and state the sensitivity of the extracted B_hs and lambda to plausible x_IP variations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I and text] The text says six free parameters are fitted, but Table I lists only five parameter rows (the overall normalization is mentioned in the text but not tabulated). Please include the normalization factor in the table or explicitly state why it is omitted.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract and conclusions mention independence of 'hotspot repulsion', but the only treatment is the short ad-hoc statement in Conclusions about a 30% reduction of coincident hotspots over 0.3 fm with Delta chi^2=1. No details or fit plots are given. Either provide the analysis or remove this claim from the abstract.
  3. [Introduction, lattice comparison] The lattice comparison is somewhat confusing: the flux-tube penetration depth quoted in the Introduction is ~0.1 fm, while the extracted lambda=0.220(2) fm is compared to the vacuum correlation length. The abstract says the halo agrees with the 'core-halo structure of flux tubes', but the numerical agreement is with a different quantity. Please clarify which lattice prediction is being compared and what the quoted uncertainties are.
  4. [General] There are several typos and OCR artifacts (e.g., 'Mandelstamt', 'IPsat' vs 'IPnonsat' spacing, 'Bessel function' consistency). A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Core–halo 'resolution' restates the assumed Gaussian×K0 hotspot profile rather than being independently derived from the data.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract; 'The Model' Eqs. (21)-(23); 'Conclusions and Outlook']
    "The gluonic hotspots are resolved into a perturbative Gaussian core of size 0.105(2) fm surrounded by a nonperturbative exponential halo of range 0.220(15) fm. ... we model the hotspot thickness as a convolution of a Gaussian and a Bessel function: Ths(b)=∫d²b' TG(b−b') TK0(b') (21) ... Then the hotspot formfactor becomes: T̂(t)=e^{−Bhs|t|/2}/(1+λ²|t|) (23). ... We assumed that the hotspot shapes are a convolution between a Gaussian and a K0 Bessel function, resulting in hotspots with hard Gaussian cores surrounded by soft exponential halos."

    The two-component core+halo structure is imposed before any fit: Eq. (21)-(22) define the hotspot profile as a convolution of a Gaussian (width Bhs) and a K0 Bessel function (range λ), and Eq. (23) is its Fourier transform. The fit returns Bhs and λ, and the abstract's 'resolved into ... Gaussian core ... exponential halo' is exactly the assumed functional form with those fitted parameters (√(2Bhs)=0.105 fm; λ=0.220 fm). No alternative single- or multi-component profiles are compared, so the data can constrain the parameters of the imposed shape but cannot test whether the true hotspot is actually a Gaussian core plus exponential halo. The qualitative claim is therefore definitionally inherited from the ansatz, not an unbiased resolution.

full rationale

The central numerical results (Bhs, λ, α′, σS) come from a genuine six-parameter fit to 104 HERA points with χ²/ndf=0.77, and the analytic Good-Walker/IPnonsat derivation in Eqs. (9)-(20) is self-contained rather than circular. The only exhibited reduction is the interpretation of the fitted Bhs and λ as a data-driven 'resolution' into a Gaussian core and exponential halo: those components are literally the elements of Eq. (21)-(22), so the abstract's wording restates the model's input. This is partial circularity at the level of the qualitative claim, while the quantitative stability across Nhs and x_IP, and the external comparison of λ with the lattice flux-tube scale, retain independent content. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: reference [8] (same author as this paper) is used only to motivate and then reject a 1/|t| hotspot-evolution model, and the lattice-motivated K0 profile is external input rather than a uniqueness theorem. The paper is transparent in the body that the shape is assumed ('we model', 'We assumed'), which lowers the severity; the overstatement is concentrated in the abstract and conclusion. Overall score 4: one central claim reduces by construction, but the fit and external consistency checks are not themselves circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The only inputs from outside the fit are the standard dipole-model machinery and the lattice-motivated choice of the Gaussian-K0 profile. All geometric numbers quoted as results are free parameters fitted to the same HERA dataset; the agreement with lattice is consistency, not an independent prediction.

free parameters (8)
  • B_hs0 (hotspot Gaussian width) = 0.137(8) GeV^-2 (Fit 1, N_hs=4); weighted 0.142(3)
    Controls the size of the perturbative Gaussian core; a free parameter of the assumed Gaussian+K0 profile.
  • λ (hotspot halo range) = 0.239(5) fm (Fit 1); weighted 0.220(2) fm
    Controls the exponential/Bessel halo; the central 'halo' result is this fitted value.
  • B_qc0 (hotspot center distribution width) = 3.89(8) GeV^-2
    Sets the transverse size of the proton's hotspot configuration.
  • α' (pomeron slope of B_qc) = 0.063(25) GeV^-2 (Fit 1); α'_eff derived as 0.047(19)
    Determines the x_IP-dependence of the hotspot center distribution; the reported slow transverse diffusion.
  • σ_S (saturation-scale fluctuation width) = 1.967(64)
    Controls the log-normal hotspot normalization fluctuations; interpreted as shot-noise in hotspot occupancy.
  • Overall normalization = ~1.3
    Multiplicative factor absorbing wave-function, charm-mass, and experimental normalization uncertainties; does not affect t-shape.
  • β' (x_IP-dependence of B_hs) = 0.018(10) GeV^-2 (Fit 2)
    Additional free parameter testing whether the hotspot width changes with x_IP; consistent with zero.
  • δ_N (x_IP-dependence of N_hs) = 0.068(66) (Fit 3)
    Additional free parameter testing whether the hotspot number changes with x_IP; consistent with zero.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Good-Walker picture: coherent cross section is the square of the averaged amplitude, incoherent is the variance (Eqs. 3-4).
    Standard diffractive formalism; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The dipole amplitude is linear in the proton thickness (IPnonsat, Eq. 6), i.e., leading twist with negligible saturation for HERA kinematics.
    Relies on prior IPsat studies [8,29-31]; if saturation is not negligible, the extracted geometry is biased.
  • domain assumption Hotspot centers are i.i.d. draws from a Gaussian distribution Tc with width B_qc (Eq. 12).
    Basis for the analytic characteristic-function factorization; non-Gaussian or correlated centers would change the t-dependence.
  • ad hoc to paper Each hotspot's transverse profile is the convolution of a Gaussian and a K0 Bessel function (Eqs. 21-22).
    This specific core-halo form is motivated by lattice results [19,20] but is assumed before fitting; the central 'Gaussian core + exponential halo' conclusion is conditioned on this ansatz.
  • domain assumption Event-by-event saturation-scale fluctuations are log-normal with ⟨ξ_i⟩=1 and ⟨ξ_i²⟩=exp(4λ_g²σ_S²).
    Follows [5,33]; the measured σ_S and the shot-noise interpretation depend on this distributional assumption.
  • domain assumption The vector-meson wave function is the Boosted Gaussian and the gluon density/α_s are taken from prior IPsat fits [24,25,30].
    Standard inputs; normalisation factor absorbs residual uncertainties.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 10106 in / 21231 out tokens · 206466 ms · 2026-08-02T00:36:05.523319+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The transverse shape of the proton's small-$x$ gluon distribution is determined from exclusive $J/\psi$ photoproduction at HERA. We derive analytic expressions for the coherent and incoherent diffractive cross sections in the hotspot model at leading twist, enabling a global fit to all 104 available H1 and ZEUS data points, spanning three decades in $t$, with $\chi^2/{\rm ndf}=0.77$. The gluonic hotspots are resolved into a perturbative Gaussian core of size 0.105(2) fm surrounded by a nonperturbative exponential halo of range 0.220(15) fm, in agreement with the gluon-field correlation length of the QCD vacuum and with the core-halo structure of flux tubes recently determined on the lattice. This shape is independent of $x_{I\!\!P}$ and of the assumed number of hotspots or hotspot repulsion. The gluonic geometry evolve only through a slow transverse diffusion of the hotspot centres with $\alpha'_{\rm eff.}=0.046(28)~{\rm GeV}^{-2}$, while the incoherent cross section at small $|t|$ is dominated by shot-noise fluctuations at the order of one gluon per hotspot.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14955 by Nahid Vasim, Tobias Toll.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The fit results as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison between Fit 1 with parameters from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 30 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    This amplitude saturates at large gluon densities, large dipole sizes, and at a large proton thickness

    The proton’s thickness functionT p is the main focus of this paper. This amplitude saturates at large gluon densities, large dipole sizes, and at a large proton thickness. We use the parameter values from [30]. It has been shown that for HERA measurements, both inclusive and exclusive [8, 29–31], the leading twist ex- pansion of the IPsat model can descri...

  2. [2]

    Schenke, P

    B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 252301 (2012), arXiv:1202.6646 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Schenke, P

    B. Schenke, P. Tribedy, and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. C86, 034908 (2012), arXiv:1206.6805 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  4. [4]

    We also show as Fit 2 the result from letting the hotspot size vary asB hs =B hs0 + 2β′ log (x0/xI P). We see that the gain in overall fit quality ∆χ 2 = 1, which 5 2 −101 −101 ) 2|t| (GeV1 10 2 103 104 105 10) 2 /dt (nb/GeV coh σ d 0 1.8×W = 45 GeV 2 1.8×W = 65 GeV 4 1.8×W = 78 GeV 6 1.8×W = 95 GeV 8 1.8×W = 119 GeV 10 1.8×W = 181 GeV 11 1.8×W = 251 GeV ...

    2022

  5. [5]

    M¨ antysaari, B

    H. M¨ antysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen, and P. Tribedy, Phys. Lett. B772, 681 (2017), arXiv:1705.03177 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    M¨ antysaari and B

    H. M¨ antysaari and B. Schenke, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 052301 (2016), arXiv:1603.04349 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    M¨ antysaari and B

    H. M¨ antysaari and B. Schenke, Phys. Rev.D94, 034042 (2016), arXiv:1607.01711 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Cepila, J

    J. Cepila, J. G. Contreras, and J. D. Tapia Takaki, Phys. Lett. B766, 186 (2017), arXiv:1608.07559 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    Kumar and T

    A. Kumar and T. Toll, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 837 (2022), arXiv:2106.12855 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    Kumar and T

    A. Kumar and T. Toll, arXiv:2403.13631 [hep-ph] (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Demirci, T

    S. Demirci, T. Lappi, and S. Schlichting, Phys. Rev. D 106, 074025 (2022), arXiv:2206.05207 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev.D49, 2233 (1994). 6

    1994

  13. [13]

    L. D. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D49, 3352 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9311205

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  14. [14]

    Jalilian-Marian, A

    J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov, and H. Weigert, Phys. Rev.D59, 014014 (1998)

    1998

  15. [15]

    Jalilian-Marian, A

    J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, and H. Weigert, Phys. Rev.D59, 014015 (1999)

    1999

  16. [16]

    Weigert, Nucl

    H. Weigert, Nucl. Phys.A703, 823 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0004044 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2002

  17. [17]

    Iancu, A

    E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, and L. D. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A692, 583 (2001)

    2001

  18. [18]

    Iancu, A

    E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Lett. B510, 133 (2001)

    2001

  19. [19]

    Di Giacomo and H

    A. Di Giacomo and H. Panagopoulos, Phys. Lett. B285, 133 (1992)

    1992

  20. [20]

    D’Elia, A

    M. D’Elia, A. Di Giacomo, and E. Meggiolaro, Phys. Lett. B408, 315 (1997), arXiv:hep-lat/9705032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  21. [21]

    Amorosso, S

    R. Amorosso, S. Syritsyn, and R. Venugopalan, JHEP12 (12), 177, arXiv:2410.00112 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    Amorosso, S

    R. Amorosso, S. Syritsyn, and R. Venugopalan, arXiv:2601.17199 [hep-lat] (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    C. J. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, Phys. Rev. D60, 034509 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9901004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  24. [24]

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

    1991

  25. [25]

    A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys.B415, 373 (1994)

    1994

  26. [26]

    Kowalski, L

    H. Kowalski, L. Motyka, and G. Watt, Phys. Rev.D74, 074016 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0606272 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  27. [27]

    Nemchik, N

    J. Nemchik, N. N. Nikolaev, and B. G. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. B341, 228 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9405355

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  28. [28]

    M. L. Good and W. D. Walker, Phys. Rev.120, 1857 (1960)

    1960

  29. [29]

    Kowalski and D

    H. Kowalski and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev.D68, 114005 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0304189 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  30. [30]

    A. H. Rezaeian and I. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D88, 074016 (2013), arXiv:1307.0825 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  31. [31]

    M¨ antysaari and P

    H. M¨ antysaari and P. Zurita, Phys. Rev.D98, 036002 (2018), arXiv:1804.05311 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Sambasivam, T

    B. Sambasivam, T. Toll, and T. Ullrich, Phys. Lett. B 803, 135277 (2020), arXiv:1910.02899 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Lappi and H

    T. Lappi and H. Mantysaari, Phys. Rev. C83, 065202 (2011), arXiv:1011.1988 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  34. [34]

    A. G. Shuvaev, K. J. Golec-Biernat, A. D. Martin, and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Rev. D60, 014015 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9902410

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  35. [35]

    McLerran and P

    L. McLerran and P. Tribedy, Nucl. Phys. A945, 216 (2016), arXiv:1508.03292 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  36. [36]

    Aktaset al.(H1), Eur

    A. Aktaset al.(H1), Eur. Phys. J.C46, 585 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0510016 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  37. [37]

    Alexaet al.(H1), Eur

    C. Alexaet al.(H1), Eur. Phys. J.C73, 2466 (2013), arXiv:1304.5162 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  38. [38]

    Aktaset al.(H1), Phys

    A. Aktaset al.(H1), Phys. Lett. B568, 205 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0306013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  39. [39]

    Chekanovet al.(ZEUS), Eur

    S. Chekanovet al.(ZEUS), Eur. Phys. J. C26, 389 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0205081

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  40. [40]

    Chekanovet al.(ZEUS), JHEP05(5), 085, arXiv:0910.1235 [hep-ex]

    S. Chekanovet al.(ZEUS), JHEP05(5), 085, arXiv:0910.1235 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Frankfurt and M

    L. Frankfurt and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. D66, 031502 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0205223 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  42. [42]

    Lotter,Properties of the QCD Pomeron, Ph.D

    H. Lotter,Properties of the QCD Pomeron, Ph.D. the- sis, University of Hamburg (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9705288 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  43. [43]

    Chekanovet al.(ZEUS), Eur

    S. Chekanovet al.(ZEUS), Eur. Phys. J.C24, 345 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0201043 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002