Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Summing large Pomeron loops in the saturation region: dipole-nucleus collision beyond nonlinear equations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Summing large Pomeron loops replaces the BK exponential decay of the dipole-nucleus S-matrix, $\exp(-z'^2/2\kappa)$, by the slower $\exp(-z'^2/4\kappa)$, so the BK equation is valid only for $z' \le 2\sqrt{\kappa c}A^{1/6}$.

desk verdict A checkable nuclear extension of Levin's dipole-dipole loop sum that yields a 1/(4κ) energy dependence and an A^{1/6} BK-validity bound — but the input densities in Eq. (17) are an imported, unproven ansatz, and the abstract oversells what the Conclusions concede. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01712 v2 pith:WSREHD3L submitted 2025-02-03 hep-ph

Eugene Levin (Tel Aviv U.) This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 13.60.Hb12.38.Cy
keywords PomeronloopsBKequationdipole-nucleusscatteringsaturationregionBFKLt-channelunitaritygeometricscalingenhanceddiagrams
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 confronts the Balitsky-Kovchegov (BK) equation, the standard nonlinear description of dipole-nucleus scattering in the saturation regime, with the contribution of large BFKL Pomeron loops that BK leaves out. Its central claim is that after summing these enhanced loop diagrams through $t$-channel unitarity, the $S$-matrix for dipole-nucleus scattering decays with rapidity as $\exp(-z'^2/(4\kappa))$ — the same energy dependence as the dipole-dipole amplitude — rather than the BK form $\exp(-z'^2/(2\kappa))$. Because the loop-summed amplitude falls more slowly, it overtakes the BK amplitude at $z'\approx 2\sqrt{\kappa c}A^{1/6}$; beyond that point the BK equation no longer captures the scattering. The conclusion matters because it delimits where the otherwise successful BK framework can be trusted, and it makes the asymptotic dipole-nucleus amplitude as universal as the dipole-dipole one.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the $t$-channel unitarity representation (Eq. 1) of the scattering amplitude as a sum over dipole densities $\rho^P_n$ and $\rho^T_n$, together with the specific projectile densities of Eq. (17), taken from the author's earlier paper, which are engineered so that the fan sum (Eq. 23a) reproduces the analytic BK solution. For the nucleus, each nucleon develops its own dipole cascade, giving the product structure of Eq. (26)-(27); introducing the integral representation $\Gamma(\omega+k)=\int_0^\infty dt\,t^{\omega+k-1}e^{-t}$ turns the combinatorial sums over $k_i$ into closed-form $\beta$-function terms (Eqs. 39-41, 46). The load-bearing step is the saddle-point evaluation of the $\omega$-integrals: a configuration with $j$ nucleon cascades, of which $j'$ actually meet the projectile dipoles, contributes $\exp[-(j'/(j'+1))z'^2/(2\kappa)]$, and the steepest descent selects $j'=1$.

What would settle it

Compute the projectile dipole densities $\rho^P_n$ of Eq. (17) directly from a numerical solution of the full evolution hierarchy without assuming the specific $\Gamma(\omega+n)/\Gamma(\omega)$ form, and check whether the summed $S$-matrix still switches from the BK-like $\exp(-z'^2/(2\kappa))$ at intermediate energies to $\exp(-z'^2/(4\kappa))$ at large $z'$; if the factorial moments of the density deviate from the assumed form, the predicted exponent and crossover shift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that the summed large-Pomeron-loop $S$-matrix for a dipole on a nucleus factorizes as $S(z')=C S_A(b)\exp(-C S_A(b))\exp(-z'^2/(4\kappa))$ in the rough cylindrical model, with the same Gaussian-in-$z'$ exponent as the dipole-dipole amplitude. The derivation splits the target into $j$ nucleon cascades; the general term (Eq. 49a) contains exponentials $\exp[-(j'/(j'+1))z'^2/(2\kappa)]$ from the saddle points, and the term with $j'=1$ — one nucleon cascade meeting the projectile, all others contributing single dipoles — dominates at large $z'$. This yields the exponent $1/(4\kappa)$. The BK fan-diagram sum, by contrast, corresponds to $j'=j$ and gives $\exp(-z'^2/(2\kappa))$; the two amplitudes cross at $z'\approx 2\sqrt{\kappa c}A^{1/6}$. Since the loop contribution stays larger, BK cannot describe the energy dependence at ultrahigh energy.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the projectile dipole densities of Eq. (17), imported from the author's earlier paper, are the true QCD dipole densities beyond the BK approximation; if they misrepresent multi-Pomeron fluctuations, the claimed change from a $1/(2\kappa)$ to a $1/(4\kappa)$ energy exponent does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At ultrahigh energies the dipole-nucleus $S$-matrix decays as $\exp(-z'^2/(4\kappa))$, staying larger than the BK prediction, so the BK equation underestimates the amplitude beyond $z'\approx 2\sqrt{\kappa c}A^{1/6}$.
  • The BK equation remains trustworthy only in the limited range $z' \le 2\sqrt{\kappa c}A^{1/6}$; for heavy nuclei this bound is roughly $18+\ln(Q^2 R_N^2)$, beyond currently accessible energies, so BK stays usable in practice at existing colliders.
  • The enhanced Pomeron-loop contribution, not the fan diagrams, controls the ultrahigh-energy regime; saturation physics must include loop resummation to maintain $s$-channel unitarity.
  • The asymptotic dipole-nucleus amplitude acquires the same energy dependence as the dipole-dipole amplitude, so the rare-fluctuation exponent $1/(4\kappa)$ is universal at very high rapidity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the density ansatz is right, the dominance of the $j'=1$ configuration suggests that the single-nucleon-fluctuation channel, rather than the many-nucleon average, controls the asymptotic energy dependence; this may imply a universal high-energy amplitude for any target with the same exponent.
  • The crossover scale $A^{1/6}$ implies that heavier nuclei delay the breakdown of BK to higher rapidities; an electron-ion collider could look for an $A$-dependent turnover in the energy dependence of the cross section.
  • The paper does not derive Eq. (17) from first principles; supplying such a derivation, or computing the fate of the assumption that $C^j(z)$ tends to a constant, would be the natural next step and would also open the same method to gluon production and exclusive final states.
  • One testable consequence of the $j'=1$ dominance is that the contribution of configurations with more than one interacting nucleon cascade is exponentially suppressed at large $z'$; measuring final-state multiplicities or azimuthal correlations might expose which cascade configuration actually dominates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper addresses the summation of large BFKL Pomeron loops in dipole-nucleus scattering in the saturation region. Starting from the t-channel unitarity representation of the scattering amplitude and using dipole densities introduced in the author's previous work (Ref. [58]), the paper computes the S-matrix for configurations with j nucleons at the target, performs a saddle-point evaluation for general j, and sums over j to obtain S(z') = C S_A e^{-C S_A} e^{-z'^2/(4\kappa)}. Comparing with the BK asymptotic S_BK(z') = \pi R_A^2 C e^{-z'^2/(2\kappa)}, it concludes that the loop-summed amplitude has the same energy dependence as dipole-dipole scattering and that BK applies only for z' <= 2\sqrt{\kappa c} A^{1/6}. The analytic manipulations for j=1,2,3 and the general saddle point are presented in detail.

Significance. If the result were established, it would be an important step in understanding Pomeron-loop effects in high-energy QCD: it would show that the BK equation misses the dominant loop contribution and that dipole-nucleus and dipole-dipole amplitudes share the same energy dependence in the saturation region, with a quantitative bound on the BK validity range. The paper is transparent about its limitations, and the analytic derivations are sufficiently detailed to be checked. Its main limitation is that the entire construction inherits the multi-dipole factorial moments of Eq. (17) from a previous paper without a derivation here, and the final sum over nucleons relies on an additional unproven smoothness/constancy assumption; until these are justified, the claimed exponent and crossover are conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [II.B, Eq. (17); III.E, Eq. (50)] The projectile dipole densities in Eq. (17) are imported from Ref. [58] and are not derived in this manuscript. The check in Eq. (23a) only shows that the combination with a single \gamma^n insertion reproduces the known BK solution (5); it does not validate the individual factorial moments \Gamma(\omega+n)/\Gamma(\omega) that determine the multi-Pomeron correlations entering the target densities (27) and, through the saddle point (48)-(49a), the final exponent z'^2/(4\kappa). Since the central claim that the dipole-nucleus amplitude has the same energy dependence as dipole-dipole scattering depends entirely on this ansatz, the paper should either derive Eq. (17) from QCD evolution equations for dipole densities or provide an independent test of the higher factorial moments.
  2. [IV, Conclusions; Eq. (50)] The closed-form result S = C S_A e^{-C S_A} e^{-z'^2/(4\kappa)} is obtained by summing Eq. (49b) over j, which the author explicitly justifies by two unproven assumptions stated in the Conclusions: that the smooth function is C^j(z)=C^j and that C^j(z) tends to a constant at large z. These assumptions are load-bearing: without them the sum over j cannot be performed and the nuclear factor e^{-C S_A}, and therefore the crossover estimate z' \le 2\sqrt{\kappa c} A^{1/6}, do not follow. The manuscript should state these as explicit hypotheses and provide either a derivation or a controlled estimate of the error incurred by replacing C^j(z) by C^j.
  3. [III.E, Eqs. (48)-(50)] The large-z saddle-point evaluation is performed for fixed j, and Eq. (49b) retains only the j'=1 term. The subsequent summation over j requires uniformity of this asymptotic approximation in j, because the alternating series has terms growing like (C S_A)^j/(j-1)! before cancellation. No uniformity argument is provided, so the exponential e^{-C S_A} in Eq. (50) is not rigorously controlled. The author should specify the domain of validity in (j,z') or justify interchanging the large-z and large-j limits.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II.B and III.E, notation] The constant C in Eq. (17) is treated as a normalization of dipole densities, but Eq. (51) states that C has dimension of cross section; please clarify the dimensions and relations between the various C and C' constants.
  2. [II.C, Eq. (26)] The summation limits in Eq. (26) are difficult to parse; please define the ranges of k_1,...,k_j more transparently and state explicitly that each k_i runs at least from 1 to n-j+1 with the constraint \sum k_i = n.
  3. [III.C, Eq. (40)] Eq. (40) contains \Gamma(\omega_3) although only \omega_1 and \omega_2 are introduced for the j=2 case; this appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  4. [III.E, Eqs. (51)-(52)] The transition from the cylindrical-model expression in Eq. (51) to the simplified form in Eq. (52) should define c in terms of A and R_A explicitly, since the notation c is otherwise new.
  5. [Abstract and Eq. (34)] The abstract uses z \le 2\sqrt{\kappa C} A^{1/6}, while the body of the paper uses z' and the coefficient c; please align the notation between the abstract and the main text.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central 1/(4κ) exponent is inherited from the author's own ansatz densities of Eq. (17) (Ref. [58]); the final dipole-nucleus S-matrix is the Ref. [58] dipole-dipole result times a nuclear factor, although the multi-nucleon dominance argument adds some independent content.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Sec. II.B, Eq. (17), with the consistency check in Eq. (23a)]
    "In Ref.[58] we found the dipole densities for the projectile (fast dipole with size r). They are equal to [Eq. (17)] ... Eq. (17), as it is shown in Ref.[58], stems from our attempts to reconcile the exact solution to the Balitsky-Kovchegov (BK) equation, which describes the rare fluctuation in the dipole-target scattering, with the fact that this equation sums the ’fan’ Pomeron diagrams."

    Eq. (17) is imported from the author's own Ref. [58] and is not derived in this paper. The only check offered is that one weighted projection, Eq. (23a), reproduces the known BK solution. That check constrains only the combination Σ (−1)^n/n! Γ(ω+n)/Γ(ω) (G/N0)^n, not the individual n-dipole factorial moments that enter the target density Eq. (27) and control the saddle-point evaluation leading to exp(−z'^2/4κ). The central claim therefore rests on an unproven ansatz supplied by self-citation.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Secs. III.B and III.E, Eqs. (37) and (50)]
    "The resulting S(z′) takes the form which has been found in Ref.[58]: S(z′) = S_A(b) C′^2 exp(− z′^2/4κ) (37) ... S (z; b) = C S_A (b) exp (−C S_A (b)) exp (− z′^2/4κ) (50)."

    The final dipole-nucleus S-matrix Eq. (50) is, by the paper's own equations, the dipole-dipole result of Eq. (37) — already 'found in Ref.[58]' — multiplied by the nuclear factor C S_A exp(−C S_A). The claimed main result, 'same energy dependence as the dipole-dipole amplitude,' is therefore not an independent prediction; it is the input dipole-dipole amplitude dressed with nuclear combinatorics. The only new content is the demonstration that the j′=1 term dominates at large z.

full rationale

The paper's central result is not a circular identity in the narrow sense: given the projectile densities of Eq. (17), the sum over nucleon configurations and the saddle-point dominance of the j′=1 term are nontrivial and yield the stated 1/(4κ) exponent. However, those densities are the author's own previous ansatz, constructed to reproduce the BK solution rather than derived from QCD, and the final dipole-nucleus amplitude is exactly the Ref. [58] dipole-dipole amplitude times a nuclear factor. Thus the energy dependence that the paper presents as its main finding is inherited from a self-cited, unproven input. The paper's own conclusion concedes that the quantitative estimates rely on assumptions 'which we cannot prove.' This warrants a partial circularity score: the combinatorial and saddle-point work is real, but the headline prediction reduces to the prior ansatz.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All quantitative output rests on the BFKL Pomeron calculus, the t-channel unitarity representation (Eq. 1), a dipole-density ansatz taken from the author's previous paper (Eq. 17), a dilute-nucleus Glauber assumption (Eq. 26), and a set of large-z approximations (pole dominance, steepest descent, constant C^j). The two order-one parameters C and c control the final BK-validity bound.

free parameters (2)
  • C (overall normalization of dipole densities) = not determined (order 1)
    Appears in rho^P_n (Eq. 17) and in the final S-matrix S = C S_A e^{-C S_A} e^{-z'^2/(4 kappa)}; the result depends exponentially on C, and the paper explicitly assumes C^j(z) tends to a constant.
  • c (cylinder-model coefficient) = ~1 for numerical estimates
    In S = C A exp(-c A^{1/3}) exp(-z'^2/(4 kappa)); the quoted bound z' <= 2 sqrt(kappa c) A^{1/6} scales with sqrt(c).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption BFKL Pomeron calculus and t-channel unitarity representation of the scattering amplitude (Eq. 1)
    The whole calculation is done in the BFKL Pomeron calculus with reggeized gluons; Eq. (1) is taken from earlier literature [20,28,55].
  • ad hoc to paper The projectile dipole densities rho^P_n of Ref. [58] (Eq. 17) are the correct densities beyond BK
    The densities are constructed to reproduce the BK solution (Eq. 23) and are imported from the author's own previous paper; no independent derivation is given.
  • domain assumption A nucleus is a dilute set of non-interacting dipoles, each nucleon developing an independent BFKL cascade (Eq. 20 and Eq. 26)
    Standard Glauber-type approximation; ignores nucleon-nucleon correlations and interactions between cascades before Y0.
  • standard math Large-z asymptotic approximations: pole dominance of the Gamma-function contour integral and steepest descent for omega integrals (Sec. III.E)
    Formal manipulations typical in this literature; the neglected poles are argued to be exponentially suppressed.
  • ad hoc to paper The smooth function C(z) is a constant, i.e. C^j(z) tends to C^j at large z (Sec. IV)
    Explicitly stated as an unproven assumption in the Conclusions; needed to sum Eq. (49b) into the exponential e^{-C S_A}.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Summing large Pomeron loops in the saturation region: dipole-nucleus collision beyond nonlinear equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WSREHD3L

@misc{pith2026250201712,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Summing large Pomeron loops in the saturation region: dipole-nucleus collision beyond nonlinear equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WSREHD3L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01712}
}
abstract

In this paper we found the dipole-nucleus scattering amplitude at high energies by summing large Pomeron loops. It turns out that the energy dependence of this amplitude is the same as for dipole-dipole scattering. It means that the Balitsky-Kovchegov (BK) equation, which has been derived to describe this scattering, can be trusted only in the limited range of energies: $z \,\leq\, \sqrt{2\,\kappa\,C}A^{1/6} $

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01712 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Fig. 1-a: The example of ‘fan’ BFKL Pomeron diagrams that lead to non-linear BK equation. Fig. 1-b: The example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Summing large Pomeron loops for dipole-nucleus scattering. The wavy lines denote the BFKL Pomeron exchanges. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Summing large Pomeron loops for dipole-nucleus scattering. Fig. 3-a: the dipole cascade of the fast dipole interacts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

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. 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.

  3. Summing large Pomeron loops in the saturation region: nucleus-nucleus collision

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The nucleus-nucleus scattering amplitude deep in the saturation region reduces to the single nucleon-nucleon term and therefore has the same energy dependence as dipole-dipole scattering.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [58]

    Kovner and M

    A. Kovner and M. Lublinsky, Phys. Rev. D71 (2005), 085004 [arXiv:hep-ph/0501198 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2005

  2. [1]

    ρ1 (Y0; r′, 0, b′ 1, r′ 1)(16a) = 1 4 π2 Z d2r1 r4 1 d2b′ GI P(Y − Y0, r, r1; b − b′) GI P(Y0, r′, r1; b′) (16b) The first equation is derived in Ref.[5] (see also Refs.[24, 42]) while the second in Ref.[63]. B. ρP n (r, b,{ri, bi}) for projectile (fast dipole) In Ref.[58] we found the dipole densities for the projectile (fast dipole with sizer). They are...

    work page

  3. [2]

    3: Summing large Pomeron loops for dipole-nucleus scattering

    Γ (ω + n) Γ (ω) Γ (ω1 + n) Γ (ω1) Z d2rid2r′ id2bid2b′ i nY i=1 GI P(zi) N0 γBA (ri, r′ i, δb) GI P(z′ i) N0 Y 0 = rri rr’i Y0 r r’ nucleus nucleus dipole dipole r r’ a) b) n n nucleus dipole c)n r r’ j−1 FIG. 3: Summing large Pomeron loops for dipole-nucleus scattering. Fig. 3-a: the dipole cascade of the fast dipole interacts with one dipole from the ea...

    work page

  4. [3]

    (11) wherer and r1 are replaced byr and r′, respectively

    Γ (ω + n) Γ (ω) Γ (ω1 + n) Γ (ω1) GI P(z′) N0 n (33) with z′ = ¯ αS χ (¯γ) ¯γ Y + ξr,r′ (34) ξr,r′ is equal toξr,r1 of Eq. (11) wherer and r1 are replaced byr and r′, respectively. Plugging Eq. (28) into Eq. (34) we obtain: S (z′) = C 2 SA (b) ∞X n=0 (−1)n n! ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω 2 π i ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω1 2 π ie ¯γ2 κ 2 (ω2+ω2 1) ∞Z 0 dt e−ttω1−1 Γ (ω + n) Γ (ω) Γ (ω...

    work page

  5. [4]

    1 Γ (ω1) ∞Z 0 dte−t 1 + t GI P(z′) N0 −ω tω1−1 GI P(z′) ≫ 1 − − − − − − − →C 2SA (b) ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω 2 π i ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω1 2 π ie ¯γ2 κ 2 (ω2+ω2

    work page

  6. [5]

    1 Γ (ω1) ∞Z 0 dte−t exp −ω ln GI P(z′) N0 tω1−ω−1 = C 2SA (b) ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω 2 π i ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω1 2 π ie ¯γ2 κ 2 (ω2+ω2

    work page

  7. [6]

    Γ (ω1 − ω) Γ (ω1) exp −ω ln GI P(z′) N0 (36) Closing contour of integration overω1 on the poles of Γ (ω − ω1) one can see that the main contribution gives the pole ω − ω1 while all other poles lead to the amplitude that decreases asexp (−¯γ n z′) for the poleω1 = ω − n. Taking integral overω we obtain: The resultingS (z′) takes the form which has been fou...

    work page

  8. [7]

    (16a) and replacingΓ functions by the integrals overti (see Eq

    Γ (ω + n) Γ (ω) n−1X k=1 n! k!(n − k)! Γ (ω1 + k) Γ (ω1) Γ (ω2 + n − k) Γ (ω2) Z d2rid2r′ id2bid2b′ i nY i=1 GI P(zi) N0 γBA (ri, r′ i, δb) GI P(z′ i) N0 (38) Using Eq. (16a) and replacingΓ functions by the integrals overti (see Eq. (28)) we obtain S (z) = 1 2 S2 A (b) C ∞X n=0 GI P(z′) N0 n (−1)n n! ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω 2 π i ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω1 2 π i ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω2...

    work page

Show all 72 references
  1. [8]

    Γ (ω + n) Γ (ω) Γ (ω1) Γ (ω2) Z ∞ 0 dt1 Z ∞ 0 dt2e−t1−t2 n−1X k=1 n! k! (n − k)! tω1+k−1 1 tω1+n−k−1 2 | {z } (t1+t2)n−tn 1 −tn 2 (39) Summing over n we obtain: S (z) = 1 2 S2 A (b) C ∞X n=0 ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω 2 π i ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω1 2 π i ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω2 2 π ie ¯γ2 κ 2 (ω2+ω2 1 +ω2

  2. [9]

    (40) to the form: S (z) = 1 2 S2 A (b) C ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω 2 π i ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω1 2 π i ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω2 2 π ie ¯γ2 κ 2 (ω2+ω2 1 +ω2

    1 Γ (ω1) Γ (ω2) Γ (ω3) exp −ω ln GI P(z′) N0 ∞Z 0 dt1 ∞Z 0 dt2 e−t1−t2 ( tω1−1 1 tω2−1 2 (t1 + t2)−ω − tω1−ω−1 1 tω−1 2 − tω2−ω−1 2 tω2−1 1 ) (40) 9 Taking integrals overt1 and t2 we reduce Eq. (40) to the form: S (z) = 1 2 S2 A (b) C ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω 2 π i ϵ+i∞Z ϵ−i∞ dω1 2 π i ϵ...

  3. [10]

    j = 3 From Eq

    exp −ω ln GI P(z′) N0 ( Γ (ω1 + ω2 − ω) Γ (ω1 + ω2)| {z } I − Γ (ω1 − ω) Γ (ω1)| {z } II − Γ (ω2 − ω) Γ (ω2)| {z } III ) (41a) = 1 2 S2 A (b) C ( C ′ exp − z′2 3κ | {z } I − C ′ exp − z′2 4κ | {z } II − C ′ exp − z′2 4κ | {z } III ) (41b) z′≫1 − − − → −S2 A (b) C ′ exp − z′2 4...

  4. [11]

    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

  5. [12]

    L. V. Gribov, E. M. Levin and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Rept.100, 1 (1983). 13

    1983

  6. [13]

    E. M. Levin and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Rept.189, 267 (1990)

    1990

  7. [14]

    A. H. Mueller and J. Qiu, Nucl. Phys.B268 (1986) 427

    1986

  8. [15]

    A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B415 (1994) 373; Nucl. Phys. B 437 (1995) 107, [hep-ph/9408245] A. H. Mueller and B. Patel, Nucl. Phys. B 425, 471, 1994

    1994 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Balitsky, Phys

    I. Balitsky, Phys. Rev.D60, 014020 (1999),[arXiv:hep-ph/9812311]

    1999 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Y. V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev.D60, 034008 (1999),[arXiv:hep-ph/9901281]

    1999 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Bartels, Z

    J. Bartels, Z. Phys. C60 (1993), 471-488 ; J. Bartels and M. Wusthoff, Z. Phys. C66 (1995), 157-1801; J. Bartels and C. Ewerz, JHEP09 (1999), 026 [arXiv:hep-ph/9908454]; C. Ewerz, JHEP 0104 (2001) 031, [hep-ph/0103260]

    1993 arXiv

  12. [19]

    M. A. Braun, Phys. Lett. B483, 115 (2000), [hep-ph/0003004]; Eur. Phys. J. C33, 113 (2004),[hep-ph/0309293];Phys. Lett. B 632, 297 (2006)

    2000 arXiv

  13. [20]

    M. A. Braun, Eur. Phys. J.C16 (2000) 337, [arXiv:hep-ph/0001268]; M. A. Braun and G. P. Vacca, Eur. Phys. J.C6 (1999) 147,[arXiv:hep-ph/9711486]; J. Bartels, M. Braun and G. P. Vacca, Eur. Phys. J. C40, 419 (2005), [arXiv:hep-ph/0412218], J. Bartels, L. N. Lipatov and G. P. Va...

    2000 arXiv

  14. [21]

    McLerran and R

    L. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev.D49 (1994) 2233, Phys. Rev.D49 (1994), 3352; D50 (1994) 2225; D59 (1999) 09400

    1994

  15. [22]

    Jalilian-Marian, A

    J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov and H. Weigert , Nucl. Phys.B504 (1997) 415–431, [ arXiv:hep-ph/9701284]

    1997 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Jalilian-Marian, A

    J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov and H. Weigert , Phys.Rev.D59 (1998) 014014, [arXiv:hep-ph/9706377 [hep- ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Kovner, J

    A. Kovner, J. G. Milhano and H. Weigert , Phys. Rev.D62 (2000) 114005, [ arXiv:hep-ph/0004014]

    2000 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Iancu, A

    E. Iancu, A. Leonidov and L. D. McLerran ,Nucl. Phys.A692 (2001) 583–645, [ arXiv:hep-ph/0011241]

    2001 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Iancu, A

    E. Iancu, A. Leonidov and L. D. McLerran , Phys. Lett.B510 (2001) 133–144, [ arXiv:hep-ph/0102009]

    2001 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Ferreiro, E

    E. Ferreiro, E. Iancu, A. Leonidov and L. McLerran , Nucl. Phys.A703 (2002) 489–538, [ arXiv:hep-ph/0109115]

    2002 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Weigert, Nucl

    H. Weigert, Nucl. Phys. A703 (2002), 823-860 [arXiv:hep-ph/0004044 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Kovner and J

    A. Kovner and J. G. Milhano, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000), 014012 [arXiv:hep-ph/9904420 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Levin and M

    E. Levin and M. Lublinsky, Nucl. Phys. A730 (2004), 191-211,[hep-ph/0308279 [hep-ph]; Phys. Lett. B607 (2005) 131, [hep-ph/0411121 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  24. [31]

    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

  25. [32]

    Kovner, E

    A. Kovner, E. Levin, M. Li and M. Lublinsky, JHEP09 (2020), 199 [arXiv:2006.15126 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Kovner, E

    A. Kovner, E. Levin, M. Li and M. Lublinsky, JHEP10 (2020), 185 [arXiv:2007.12132 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [34]

    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/9509353]

    1996 arXiv

  28. [35]

    E.LevinandK.Tuchin,Nucl.Phys.B 573,833(2000)[hep-ph/9908317]; Nucl.Phys.A 691,779(2001)[hep-ph/0012167]; 693, 787 (2001) [hep-ph/0101275]

    2000 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Levin and M

    E. Levin and M. Lublinsky, Nucl. Phys. A763 (2005) 172, [hep-ph/0501173 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  30. [37]

    L. N. Lipatov, Sov. Phys. JETP63, 904 (1986) [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.90, 1536 (1986)]

    1986

  31. [38]

    Y. V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005), 094009, [arXiv:hep-ph/0508276]

    2005 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Rembiesa and A

    P. Rembiesa and A. M. Stasto, Nucl. Phys. B725 (2005) 251, [hep-ph/0503223]

    2005 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A. I. Shoshi and B. W. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 094014, [hep-ph/0512206]

    2006 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Kozlov and E

    M. Kozlov and E. Levin, Nucl. Phys. A779 (2006) 142, [hep-ph/0604039]

    2006 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Armesto, S

    N. Armesto, S. Bondarenko, J. G. Milhano and P. Quiroga, JHEP 0805 (2008) 103, arXiv:0803.0820 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Levin and A

    E. Levin and A. Prygarin, Eur. Phys. J. C53 (2008) 385, [hep-ph/0701178]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. D. Le, A. H. Mueller and S. Munier, Phys. Rev. D104, 034026 (2021), [arXiv:2103.10088 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Levin, Phys

    E. Levin, Phys. Rev. D104, no.5, 056025 (2021), [arXiv:2106.06967 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    A. H. Mueller and D. N. Triantafyllopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B640 (2002) 331, [hep-ph/0205167]

    2002 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Munier and R

    S. Munier and R. B. Peschanski, Phys. Rev. D69 (2004), 034008 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.034008 [arXiv:hep-ph/0310357 [hep-ph]]; Phys. Rev. Lett.91 (2003), 232001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.232001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0309177 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Iancu, K

    E. Iancu, K. Itakura and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A708 (2002) 327, [hep-ph/0203137]

    2002 arXiv

  42. [50]

    L. N. Lipatov, Phys. Rept.286 (1997) 131, [hep-ph/9610276]

    1997 arXiv

  43. [51]

    L. N. Lipatov, Nucl. Phys. B365, 614 (1991), Nucl. Phys. B452, 369 (1995), [arXiv:hep-ph/9502308]; R. Kirschner, L. N. Lipatov and L. Szymanowski, Nucl. Phys. B425, 579 (1994), [arXiv:hep-th/9402010]; Phys. Rev. D 51, 838 (1995), [arXiv:hep-th/9403082]

    1991 arXiv

  44. [52]

    G. P. Salam, Nucl. Phys. B461, 512 (1996); [hep-ph/9509353]

    1996 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Navelet and R

    H. Navelet and R. B. Peschanski, Nucl. Phys. B507 (1997), 353-366 [arXiv:hep-ph/9703238]

    1997 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bartels, Nucl

    J. Bartels, Nucl. Phys.B175, 365 (1980); J. Kwiecinski and M. Praszalowicz, Phys. Lett.B94, 413 (1980)

    1980

  47. [55]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and E. Levin, Nucl. Phys. B577 (2000) 221, [hep-ph/9911523]

    2000 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Kovner and M

    A. Kovner and M. Lublinsky, JHEP02 (2007), 058, [arXiv:hep-ph/0512316 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Altinoluk, A

    T. Altinoluk, A. Kovner, E. Levin and M. Lublinsky, JHEP04 (2014), 075 [arXiv:1401.7431 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Kovner and M

    A. Kovner and M. Lublinsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 181603 (2005), [hep-ph/0502119]

    2005 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Balitsky, Phys

    I. Balitsky, Phys. Rev. D72, 074027 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0507237. 14

    2005 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Hatta, E

    Y. Hatta, E. Iancu, L. McLerran, A. Stasto and D. N. Triantafyllopoulos, Nucl. Phys. A764, 423 (2006),[arXiv:hep- ph/0504182]

    2006

  53. [62]

    Kovner, M

    A. Kovner, M. Lublinsky and U. Wiedemann, JHEP06 (2007), 075 [arXiv:0705.1713 [hep-ph]]; T. Altinoluk, A. Kovner, M. Lublinsky and J. Peressutti, JHEP0903, 109 (2009), [arXiv:0901.2559 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Kovner and M

    A. Kovner and M. Lublinsky Nucl. Phys. A767, 171-188 (2006),[arXiv:hep-ph/0510047]

    2006 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Kormilitzin, E

    A. Kormilitzin, E. Levin and A. Prygarin, Nucl. Phys. A813 (2008), 1-13 [arXiv:0807.3413 [hep-ph]]; E. Levin and A. Prygarin, Eur. Phys. J. C53 (2008), 385-399 [arXiv:hep-ph/0701178 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  56. [65]

    Levin, Phys

    E. Levin, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) no.5, 054012 [arXiv:2209.07095 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Scattering amplitude in QCD: summing large Pomeron loops,

    E. Levin, “Scattering amplitude in QCD: summing large Pomeron loops,” [arXiv:2403.10364 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  58. [67]

    Levin, Nucl

    E. Levin, Nucl. Phys. A763 (2005), 140-171, [arXiv:hep-ph/0502243 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Levin, Phys

    E. Levin, Phys. Rev. D110, no.11, 116021 (2024), [arXiv:2409.00761 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Bartels, E

    J. Bartels, E. Levin, Nucl. Phys.B387 (1992) 617-637; A. M. Stasto, K. J. Golec-Biernat, J. Kwiecinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 596-599, [hep-ph/0007192]; L. McLerran, M. Praszalowicz, Acta Phys. Polon.B42 (2011) 99, [arXiv:1011.3403 [hep-ph]] B41 (2010) 1917-1926, [arXiv:1...

    1992 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Iancu and A

    E. Iancu and A. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. A730 (2004), 494-513 [arXiv:hep-ph/0309276 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Iancu and A

    E. Iancu and A. Mueller Nucl. Phys. A730 (2004), 460-493 [arXiv:hep-ph/0308315]

    2004 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Table of Integrals, Series, and Products

    I. Gradstein and I. Ryzhik,“ Table of Integrals, Series, and Products”, Fifth Edition, Academic Press, London, 1994

    1994

  64. [73]

    Contreras, E

    C. Contreras, E. Levin and M. Sanhueza, Phys. Rev. D104 (2021) no.11, 116020, [arXiv:2106.06214 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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