Saturation in Diffractive Deep Inelastic Scattering

K. Golec-Biernat; M. Wusthoff

REVIEW

Saturation in Diffractive Deep Inelastic Scattering

K. Golec-Biernat, M. Wusthoff

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 15 Mar 1999 · 32 references

Pith's verdict: The diffractive companion to the Golec-Biernat–Wüsthoff saturation fit: the parameter-free diffractive normalization is a real result, but the agreement is shown only by eye and the 'no further parameters' line is softer than the abstract suggests.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 29, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 7 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/9903358 (version 2)

Pith IDFC7S772A, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationK. Golec-Biernat, M. Wusthoff. "Saturation in Diffractive Deep Inelastic Scattering." arXiv:hep-ph/9903358 (1999). https://pith.science/paper/FC7S772A

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is the diffractive companion to the Golec-Biernat–Wüsthoff inclusive saturation fit, and it holds up. The three dipole parameters are fixed on inclusive F2; the diffractive normalization then comes out without a diffractive fit. That is the real content, and it is worth your time. The reader's CONDITIONAL verdict is about right, though I'd weight the framework more positively than the score suggests — the stress-test's factor-of-2 worry is a correction to a cited prior derivation, not a tuning knob, and the authors are upfront about the structural parts of their claim. What's new: the explicit qqbar and qqbar-g momentum-space formulae (Eqs. 20, 21, 23), the impact-parameter reformulation (Eqs. 30–39), and the confrontation with H1 and ZEUS across beta, x_P, Q^2, the effective intercept, and the diffractive-to-inclusive ratio. The three-component decomposition — qqbar-g at small beta, transverse qqbar in the middle, longitudinal at large beta — is wave-function physics and the authors say so; it is a useful organizing picture regardless of the model. Soft spots, in order of how much they matter. The 'no further parameters' line in the abstract is a bit generous. B_D is an input, and they lower it from the measured 7.1 to 6 GeV^-2 on an unquantified double-dissociation estimate — roughly an 18% upward shift in the predicted normalization. alpha_s is pinned at 0.2. Neither is fitted to the diffractive shape, so the shape prediction stands, but the normalization claim is softer than the abstract implies. The comparison is visual throughout: no chi-squared, no error treatment, no theory band. For a paper whose selling point is quantitative agreement, that is the biggest gap. Eq. (23) is leading-log with strong transverse ordering, and the authors flag it themselves ('the true kinematical constraints are not exactly fulfilled'). It dominates at small beta, where the agreement is weakest. The factor-of-2 history in footnotes 3 and 4 is a correction to a prior derivation, not a knob, but it does mean the small-beta normalization deserves an independent cross-check. The constant ratio is structural — Eq. (14) drops out of inserting the saturated ansatz — and the authors present it that way. Read it as a consistency check, not a prediction. Who it's for: anyone working on small-x dipole models, diffraction, or as a baseline for non-linear evolution. It is a standard reference for a reason. Recommendation: send it out. The physics is sound and the parameter-free diffractive normalization is a real result; a referee should push on the error treatment and the B_D choice, not on the framework.

Referee report

Significance

If it holds, the result is a genuine prediction of the diffractive normalization from a dipole cross section fixed entirely on inclusive data, which is a strong statement that one density-dependent object controls both inclusive and diffractive small-x scattering. The near-constant ratio of diffractive to inclusive cross sections is a falsifiable structural prediction that distinguishes the saturation picture from triple-Regge expectations, and the impact-parameter reformulation together with the Appendix derivation is useful reference material. Credit is due for the transparency about the leading-log approximation and about the phenomenological character of the model, and for the breadth of the data comparison (beta, x_Pomeron, Q^2, effective intercept, and the cross-section ratio).

Major objections (3)

[Abstract; Section 5] The abstract states that 'No further parameters are needed', but the diffractive normalization is proportional to sigma_0^2/(8 pi B_D) (Eqs. 8-9 and 20-21), and B_D is an external input rather than a prediction. In Section 5 the authors take B_D = 6 GeV^-2, 'somewhat lower' than the measured 7.1 GeV^-2 [21], justified only qualitatively by an unquantified double-dissociation estimate; this raises the predicted normalization by about 18%. The fixed alpha_s = 0.2 enters the quark-antiquark-gluon component linearly (Eq. 23). The claim is therefore better stated as 'no new fitted parameters, with the overall diffractive normalization fixed by the measured B_D'. Please qualify the abstract accordingly and state explicitly the normalization uncertainty implied by the B_D choice (6 versus 7.1 GeV^-2) and by alpha_s.
[Section 5, Figs. 7-12] The conclusion rests on visual comparison: Figs. 7-12 show curves against H1 and ZEUS points but no chi-squared, no error treatment, and no statement of which data or which normalization the comparison is most sensitive to. Because the normalization is precisely the quantity the model predicts, a quantitative statement is needed to support 'successfully describe' (abstract:s0). A table of chi-squared, or at least a pull distribution, per data set and per beta region, with the normalization uncertainty from B_D folded in, would make the claim checkable. This is a request for quantification, not an assertion that the comparison is wrong.
[Section 4, Eq. (23); Section 5, Figs. 7 and 9] The quark-antiquark-gluon term dominates at small beta, which is where the agreement with ZEUS and H1 is weakest; the authors themselves note good agreement 'especially in the region of moderate and large values of beta'. This term is derived in a leading-log(Q^2), strongly ordered approximation, and the authors acknowledge in Section 4 that 'the true kinematical constraints are not exactly fulfilled' and that the approximation 'introduces uncertainties besides those related to the choice of alpha_s'. What remains unresolved is the size of that uncertainty: the normalization of this component has been revised by explicit factors of 2 relative to Ref. [13] (footnote 3), and a missing factor of 1/2 was inserted in Eq. (39) (footnote 4). Please state the estimated residual normalization uncertainty of Eq. (23) and, if feasible, show that the small-beta comparison is stable under a factor-of-2 variation of that component. The acknowledgement is appropriate; the missing piece is quantification.

Minor objections (7)

[Eq. (19) and Section 2] Eq. (19) gives xG approximately equal to (3/(4 pi^2 alpha_s)) sigma_0 R_0^2(x) for Q^2 R_0^2 much greater than 1, but carrying out the integral of Eq. (18) gives (3/(4 pi^2 alpha_s)) sigma_0 / R_0^2(x); Section 2 itself states that 'the gluon density G(x) is proportional to 1/R_0^2(x)'. The displayed prefactor in Eq. (19) appears to be inverted. This does not affect the numerical results, which use Eq. (18) directly, but it should be corrected.
[Eq. (14) and Fig. 12] The near-constancy of the diffractive-to-inclusive ratio follows from the shared R_0^2(x) scaling of both cross sections (Eqs. 13-14), so Fig. 12 is a consistency check of the model's structure rather than an independent prediction. The text says as much in Section 5 ('a particular feature of our saturation model'), but one explicit sentence at Fig. 12 would prevent the reader from over-reading it.
[Section 5, effective Pomeron intercept] Section 5 relates the logarithmic x_Pomeron slope n of x_Pomeron F^D to the effective intercept through n = 1 - 2 alpha_Pomeron(eff). With the standard flux normalization x_Pomeron^{1-2 alpha} this relation does not obviously reproduce the values shown in Fig. 11; please state the convention used for n and for alpha_Pomeron(eff) so that the relation can be checked.
[Section 5, flavour content] Section 5 uses three light flavours only. At the smallest x and beta, charm could be a non-negligible part of the diffractive cross section, and the paper defers this to Ref. [32]. A sentence estimating the size of the neglected charm contribution would help the reader judge the comparison at small beta.
[Eqs. (11)-(13)] Eqs. (11)-(13) are order-of-magnitude estimates obtained with the Theta-function approximation of Eq. (10), and their numerical coefficients differ from a careful treatment by factors of order unity. Since Eq. (14) is described as 'similar to the exact result', the reader should be told explicitly that these are parametric estimates rather than accurate formulae.
[References] Refs. [22], [25] and [32] are cited as 'to be published' or 'in preparation'. None is load-bearing for the central claim, but the comparison to [22] in Section 5 would be easier to assess if the relevant result were stated in the text rather than left to the unpublished reference.
[Presentation] There are several typographical errors: 'seperation' and 'mulitple' in Section 2, 'This grows is eventually tamed' in Section 2, 'diffractve' in Section 3, and 'Fig. 40' in the Appendix, which should read Fig. 4. The brace in Eq. (2) separating the transverse and longitudinal wave functions is garbled in the present version and should be reformatted.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The same dipole cross section that fits inclusive small-$x$ scattering, with its three parameters already fixed, also accounts for HERA's diffractive deep inelastic data without any new fit — and it predicts that the diffractive and the dif

The reading

Deep inelastic scattering at small $x$ can be pictured as the virtual photon splitting into a quark–antiquark pair well before it reaches the proton, with the pair then scattering off the proton as a color dipole. In an earlier paper the authors proposed a dipole cross section $hat{sigma}(x,r^2) = sigma_0[1-exp(-r^2/4R_0^2(x))]$ that stops growing once the dipole separation $r$ exceeds a radius $R_0(x)$ which shrinks as $x$ falls; the three numbers in it were fixed on inclusive $F_2$ data alone. This paper takes that same object, unchanged, and computes diffractive deep inelastic scattering, where the proton stays intact and a large rapidity gap appears. The claim is that the diffractive data from H1 and ZEUS are described at the right normalization, and that the ratio of diffractive to inclusive cross sections comes out roughly constant in $x$ and $Q^2$ rather than rising like a triple-Regge prediction. If that holds, one density-dependent object controls both channels, and diffraction stops looking like a separate soft Pomeron exchange and starts looking like the same saturation physics seen through a different window.

What carries the argument

The saturating dipole cross section $hat{sigma}(x,r^2) = sigma_0{1-exp[-r^2/(4R_0^2(x))]}$ with $R_0(x) = (x/x_0)^{lambda/2}$ GeV$^{-1}$, together with its Fourier-conjugate unintegrated gluon distribution $alpha_s F(x,l_t^2) = (3sigma_0/4pi^2) R_0^2(x), l_t^2 e^{-R_0^2(x)l_t^2}$. The Gaussian form in $l_t^2$ is what makes every $l_t$ integral in the diffractive formulae converge without an external cutoff, and it is the same exponent that supplies the $e^{-Q^2R_0^2}$ factor in the gluon distribution $xG(x,Q^2)$. The diffractive cross section is then built from $hat{sigma}^2$ at zero momentum transfer, divided by the slope $B_D$, with the $t$-dependence assumed exponential.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors argue that diffractive deep inelastic scattering is dominated by the saturation region of the dipole cross section, while inclusive scattering at large $Q^2$ is dominated by the color-transparency region $r sim 2/Q$. Because the diffractive integrand peaks at $r sim 2R_0(x)$, where $hat{sigma}$ has already flattened to $sigma_0$, the diffractive cross section is cut off by the saturation scale itself rather than by an arbitrary infrared cutoff. Working through the small-$r$ approximation of the photon wave function, they obtain $sigma^D/sigma approx (sigma_0/8pi B_D), 1/ln[R_0^2(x)Q^2]$, i.e. an approximately constant ratio, in contrast to the $x^{-2lambda}$ behavior that a non-saturated $hat{sigma} propto r^2$ ansatz would give. Numerically they evaluate three contributions — transverse $qbar q$, longitudinal $qbar q$, and $qbar q g$ — using the parameters $sigma_0 = 23.03$ mb, $lambda = 0.288$, $x_0 = 3.04 imes 10^{-4}$ from the inclusive fit, with $B_D = 6$ GeV$^{-2}$ taken from HERA and $alpha_s = 0.2$ fixed, and compare to the H1 and ZEUS $x_{I P}F_2^D$ data in $beta$, in $x_{I P}$, and through the effective Pomeron intercept. They report agreement, in particular at moderate and large $beta$, and note that the relative size of the three contributions is set by QCD color factors rather than fitted.

Load-bearing premise

The small-$beta$ part of the prediction rests on the $qbar q g$ term computed in a leading-log$(Q^2)$ approximation with strongly ordered transverse momenta, an approximation the authors themselves say does not exactly satisfy the kinematic constraints and whose error is not quantified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The diffractive structure function's normalization is a prediction of the inclusive fit, so a discrepancy in overall size would be a failure of the model rather than a free parameter to absorb.
The ratio $sigma^D/sigma$ stays nearly flat in $W$ and $Q^2$ across the measured range, with only a mild rise at small diffractive mass from the longitudinal, higher-twist piece.
The effective Pomeron intercept extracted from the $x_{I P}$ slope rises with $Q^2$ and depends on the diffractive mass, tracking the longitudinal contribution at low mass and being pulled down at small $beta$ by the $ln(Q^2/k^2)$ in the $qbar q g$ term.
Soft contributions to diffraction are suppressed relative to hard ones, so a large fraction of the diffractive cross section comes from $r < 2R_0$ — the basis for calling diffractive deep inelastic scattering a semi-hard process.
Because the gluon distribution implied by the model scales rather than evolves, the $Q^2$ dependence of the data is claimed to be accounted for without adding DGLAP evolution, though the authors note evolution could be added and would give moderate improvement.

Reading between the lines

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

If the diffractive normalization really is fixed by the inclusive fit, then a future measurement of the diffractive-to-inclusive ratio at much smaller $x$ or higher $Q^2$ is a sharper test of saturation than $F_2$ itself, since the two channels weight different regions of the same dipole cross section.
The prediction that the average transverse momentum of the diffractive final state grows as $x$ falls is separable from the ratio test: an explicit measurement of the $k_t$ spectrum in diffraction would probe the mechanism rather than just the normalization.
The suppression of large dipoles by saturation suggests the same blackening argument should apply to diffractive vector-meson production and to single diffraction in hadron–hadron scattering, where the profile function in central collisions is the analogous quantity.
The authors leave diffractive charm production for later work; since charm masses change the wave-function weighting toward smaller $r$, a charm diffractive measurement would test whether the same $R_0(x)$ sets the scale for heavy quarks too.

Original abstract

We successfully describe the HERA-data on diffractive deep inelastic scattering using a saturation model which has been applied in our earlier analysis of the inclusive $ep$-scattering data. No further parameters are needed. Saturation already turned out to be essential in describing the transition from large to small values of $Q^2$ in inclusive scattering. It is even more important for diffractive processes and naturally leads to a constant ratio of the diffractive versus inclusive cross sections. We present an extensive discussion of our results as well as detailed comparison with data.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,154 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.05 · states limitation 0.07 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.06 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.12 · compares with prior results 0.82 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We successfully describe the HERA-data on diffractive deep inelastic scattering using a saturation model which has been applied in our earlier analysis of the inclusive $ep$-scattering data. No further parameters are needed. Saturation already turned out to be essential in describing the transition from large to small values of $Q^2$ in inclusive scattering. It is even more important for diffractive processes and naturally leads to a constant ratio of the diffractive versus inclusive cross sections. We present an extensive discussion of our results as well as detailed comparison with data.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We successfully describe the HERA-data on diffractive deep inelastic scattering using a saturation model which has been applied in our earlier analysis of the inclusive $ep$-scattering data.	contribution 0.60	0.92	0.54	asserted 1.00
s1	No further parameters are needed.	result 0.72	0.70	0.10	asserted 1.00
s2	Saturation already turned out to be essential in describing the transition from large to small values of $Q^2$ in inclusive scattering.	background 0.67	0.60	0.14	asserted 1.00
s3	It is even more important for diffractive processes and naturally leads to a constant ratio of the diffractive versus inclusive cross sections.	interpretation 0.78	0.68	0.49	asserted 1.00
s4	We present an extensive discussion of our results as well as detailed comparison with data.	contribution 0.96	0.77	0.04	asserted 0.73

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.86 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.99.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** The integrand of the inclusive cross section σT in (1) (solid lines) after the integration over α and the azimuthal angle, plotted for two values of Q2 . The dotted lines show the dipole cross section (4). The dashed vertical lines correspond to the characteristic scales r = 2R0 and r = 2/Q. The values for 2R0 at a fixed energy W = 245 GeV are: 0.36 fm for Q2 = 10 GeV2 and 0.25 fm for Q2 = 0.8 GeV2 . Saturation is characterized by a ‘critical line’1 in the (x, Q2 )-plane given by the equation Q2 = 1/R2 0 (x) [1, 2, 4]. It is important to note that at very small x saturation effec

**Figure 2.** The integrands of the inclusive (Inc) and diffractive (DD) cross sections at Q2 = 10 GeV 2 for the following two cases: (a) saturation according to Eq. (4) (dotted line) and (b) no saturation, i.e. σˆ ∼ r 2 . soft contribution is suppressed due to saturation (blackness of the nucleon). The relative fraction of hard contributions (r < 2R0) is enhanced to almost 50%, making diffractive deep inelastic scattering a semi-hard process. A related issue is the smallness of the profile function in central collisions in pp¯ scattering and its consequence for single diffraction. The following

**Figure 3.** Diffractive production of a qq¯-pair (left) and the emission of an additional gluon (right). first approximation and assume that the transverse momenta of the quarks compared to the gluon are much larger. For a detailed discussion of the derivation of the following formulae we refer to Ref. [13] and only quote the result: xIP F D {t,qq¯} (Q 2 , β, xIP ) = 1 96BD X f e 2 f Q2 1 − β Z 1 0 dα [α 2 + (1 − α) 2 ] (20) ×    Z dl2 t l 2 t αsF(xIP , l2 t )  1 − 2β + l 2 t − (1 − 2β) k 2 q [l 2 t + k 2 ] 2 − 4(1 − β) l 2 t k 2     

**Figure 5.** Effective triple gluon couplings. To summarize, the leading twist approach allows to factorize off the qq¯-system analogously to the conventional leading order DGLAP-scheme whereas in the lower part the ktfactorization theorem is applicable. All together, a local vertex may be extracted describing the transition between the lower Pomeron exchange and the upper QCD-radiation. It is useful to rewrite Eq. (44) in terms of transverse polarization vectors ǫt defined as g ρσ t = − X pol ǫ ρ t ǫ σ t (45) (ǫt)i · (ǫt)j = −δij . The sum has to be taken over the two helicity or pola

**Figure 6.** The results (solid lines) of the fit to the inclusive HERA data o

**Figure 7.** The diffractive structure function xIP F D(xIP , β, Q2 ) for xIP = 0.0042 as a function of β. The dashed lines show the qq¯ contribution for transverse photons (20), the dot-dashed lines correspond to the contribution from longitudinal photons (21) and the dotted lines illustrate the qqg¯ component (23). The solid line is the total contribution and the data are from ZEUS. 27

**Figure 8.** The same comparison as in Fig. 7 but with H1 data. Only the to

**Figure 9.** The diffractive structure functions xIP F D(xIP , β, Q2 ) as measured by ZEUS plotted as a function of xIP for different values of β and Q2 (in units of GeV 2 ). 29

**Figure 10.** The same as in Fig. 9 but for H1 data

**Figure 11.** The effective Pomeron slope as defined in the text as a fun

**Figure 12.** The ratio of the diffractive versus the inclusive cross sec

Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/9903358 by the authors.

References

Works cited (32)

[1]

K. Golec-Biernat, M. W¨ usthoﬀ, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 014017

View on Pith 1999
[21]

ZEUS Collab., J. Breitweg et al., Eur. Phys. J. C1 (1998) 81. 24

View on Pith 1998
[13]

M. W¨ usthoﬀ, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 4311

View on Pith 1997
[2]

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

View on Pith 1983
[3]

A. H. Mueller, Nucl.Phys. B335 (1990) 115

View on Pith 1990
[4]

A. L. Ayala, M. B. Gay Ducati, E. M. Levin, Nucl.Phys. B493 (1997) 305

View on Pith 1997
[5]

J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov, H. Weigert, Phys. Rev . D59 (1999) 034007

View on Pith 1999
[6]

A.H. Mueller, Eur. Phys. J. A1 (1998) 19; Proceedings of the 6 th International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and QCD (DIS 98), Brussels , Belgium, 4-8 Apr. 1998

View on Pith 1998
[7]

H1 Collab., C. Adloﬀ et al., Z. Phys. C76 (1997) 613

View on Pith 1997
[8]

ZEUS Collab., J. Breitweg et al., Eur. Phys. J. C6 (1999) 43

View on Pith 1999
[9]

N.Nikolaev, B.G.Zakharov, Z. Phys. C49 (1990) 607

View on Pith 1990
[10]

J.R. Forshaw and D.A. Ross, QCD and the Pomeron , Cambridge University Press, 1996

View on Pith 1996
[11]

N.Nikolaev, B.G.Zakharov, Z. Phys. C53 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[12]

J. Bartels, H. Jung, M. W¨ usthoﬀ, hep-ph/9903265, preprint DESY-99-027, DTP/99/10, LUNFD6/(NFFL-7166)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[14]

F. Hautmann, Z. Kunszt, D.E. Soper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 3333

View on Pith 1998
[15]

M.G. Ryskin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 52 (1990) 529

View on Pith 1990
[16]

N.N. Nikolaev, B.G. Zakharov, KF A-IKP(Th)-1993-17

View on Pith 1993
[17]

E. Levin, M. W¨ usthoﬀ, Phys.Rev. D50 (1994) 4306

View on Pith 1994
[18]

E. Gotsman, E. Levin, U. Maor, Nucl. Phys. B493 (1997) 354

View on Pith 1997
[19]

H1 Collab., S. Aid et al., Nucl. Phys. B470 (1996) 399; H1 Collab., C. Adloﬀ et al., Nucl. Phys. B497 (1997) 3

View on Pith 1996
[20]

ZEUS Collab., M. Derrick et al., Z. Phys. C72 (1996) 399; ZEUS Collab., M. Derrick et al., preprint DESY-98-121

View on Pith 1996
[22]

J. Bartels, J. Ellis, H. Kowalski, M. W¨ usthoﬀ, hep-ph/9803497, to be published in Eur. Phys. J. C

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[23]

A.H. Mueller and B. Patel, Nucl. Phys. B425 (1994) 471

View on Pith 1994
[24]

A. Bialas, R. Peschanski, Phys. Lett. B378 (1996) 302

View on Pith 1996
[25]

D.Yu. Ivanov, M. W¨ usthoﬀ, hep-ph/9808455, to be published in Eur. Phys. J. C

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[26]

W. Buchm¨ uller, T. Gehrmann and A. Hebecker, Nucl. Phys. B537 (1999) 477

View on Pith 1999
[27]

C. Ewerz, PhD-thesis, preprint DESY-THESIS-1998-025

View on Pith 1998
[28]

G. Ingelman and P. Schlein, Phys. Lett. B152 (1985) 256; A. Capella et al., Phys. Lett. B343 (1995) 403; K. Golec-Biernat and J. Kwiecinski, Phys. Lett. B353 (1995) 329; T. Gehrmann and W.J. Stirling, Z. Phys. C70 (1996) 89

View on Pith 1985
[29]

M. W¨ usthoﬀ, PhD-thesis, preprint DESY-95-166

View on Pith
[30]

Y.V. Kovchegov, hep-ph/9901281; Y.V. Kovchegov and L. McLerran, hep-ph/9903246

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[31]

J. Forshaw, G. Kerley and G. Shaw, hep-ph/9903341

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[32]

K. Golec-Biernat, M. W¨ usthoﬀ, preprint in preparation. 25 H1/ZEUS F2 Q2=1.5 GeV2 Q2=2 Q2=2.5 Q2=3.5 Q2=4.5 Q2=5 Q2=6.5 GeV2 Q2=8.5 Q2=10 Q2=12 Q2=15 Q2=18 Q2=20 GeV2 Q2=22 Q2=25 Q2=27 Q2=35 Q2=45 Q2=60 GeV2 Q2=70 Q2=90 Q2=120 Q2=150 Q2=200 Q2=250 GeV2 Q2=350 Q2=450 Q2=650 Q2=800 H1(94/95) ZEUS(94) x 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 ...

View on Pith 1994

Forward citations

Cited by 36 Pith papers

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

Transport of hard probes in the glasma
hep-ph 2026-10 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Jets and heavy quarks acquire large, anisotropic momentum broadening in the glasma, larger than in the quark-gluon plasma, and this measurably decorrelates back-to-back charm-anticharm pairs.
Production of quarkonium pairs via the fragmentation mechanism
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Using NRQCD and the Color Glass Condensate, the authors derive a perturbative dihadron fragmentation function for heavy quarks and find that dihadron fragmentation contributes to inclusive quarkonium pair production a...
Emergent Local Phase-Space Scaling in Small-x Gluon Evolution
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

In the fixed-coupling SO(3)-BK model, Q_s-adaptive coarse graining of the gluon Husimi distribution produces collapse of conditional momentum distributions onto k/Q_s and unit-slope growth of conditional entropy with ...
TMD factorization in diffractive heavy-quark production in photon-nucleus collisions
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

TMD factorization holds for diffractive massive quark-antiquark-gluon production in the correlation limit, with a new mass-dependent quark diffractive TMD in the antiquark-gluon hard pair case.
Sub-eikonal Structure of High-Energy Deep-Inelastic Scattering
hep-ph 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

Sub-eikonal corrections to dipole structure functions F_L, F_T and the g1-related asymmetry are derived in a gauge-invariant dipole operator basis, with F_L shown to be finite and the others logarithmically divergent.

Show 31 more citing papers

Diffractive deep inelastic scattering in the dipole picture: the $q\bar{q}g$ contribution in exact kinematics
hep-ph 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

Exact q qbar g contribution to diffractive DIS structure functions in the dipole model shows prior high-Q2 and high-MX2 approximations are inadequate and that soft quark terms are comparably important at high Q2.
Unitarity at small Bjorken x
hep-ph 2000-04 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Balitsky's small-x evolution reduces to Brownian motion on SU(N_c) with a positive semidefinite Fokker-Planck Hamiltonian, so the small-x fixed point is attractive and the statistical weight becomes uniform.
Initial momentum anisotropies in the kT-factorization of the CGC I: Gradient Expansion
hep-ph 2026-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Single-inclusive gluon production in the dilute-dilute CGC is shown to be the leading term of a gradient expansion whose next orders generate initial momentum anisotropy and energy-momentum tensor components that stan...
Saturation effects in exclusive vector meson production in DIS
hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A dense-limit CGC hotspot calculation shows saturation mildly suppresses exclusive vector meson cross sections in ep, with suppression growing at higher color-charge density.
Diffractive Dijet Production and Wigner Distributions from the Color Glass Condensate
hep-ph 2019-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Gluon Wigner and Husimi distributions computed from JIMWLK evolution predict a percent-level elliptic modulation in coherent diffractive dijet production at a future Electron-Ion Collider, decreasing with collision en...
The hadronic interaction model Sibyll-2.3c and inclusive lepton fluxes
hep-ph 2018-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

An updated cosmic-ray interaction model, with new treatments of leading-particle and charm production, reproduces fixed-target and LHC data and yields atmospheric muon and neutrino fluxes that agree with other post-LH...
On the one loop $\gamma^{(*)}\to q\bar{q}$ impact factor and the exclusive diffractive cross sections for the production of two or three jets
hep-ph 2016-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The authors compute the one-loop photon-to-quark-antiquark impact factor in arbitrary kinematics and derive an infrared-finite cross section for exclusive diffractive two-jet production.
Impact factor for high-energy two and three jets diffractive production
hep-ph 2014-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A tree-level derivation gives the gamma* to q qbar g impact factor with an arbitrary number of t-channel gluons, without soft or collinear approximations, enabling diffractive dijet and trijet predictions.
A Large Hadron Electron Collider at CERN: Report on the Physics and Design Concepts for Machine and Detector
physics.acc-ph 2012-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A design study arguing that adding a 60 GeV electron beam to the LHC would enable precision deep-inelastic scattering over a kinematic range roughly twenty times larger than HERA's, at about a hundred times HERA's int...
JIMWLK evolution in the Gaussian approximation
hep-ph 2011-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A Gaussian mean-field approximation to the JIMWLK equations, valid at any number of colors, computes all n-point Wilson-line correlators from the dipole S-matrix alone.
Higher-point correlations from the JIMWLK evolution
hep-ph 2011-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Dropping the 'real' terms of the large-Nc JIMWLK evolution yields explicit expressions for the color quadrupole and sextupole as functionals of the dipole amplitude, claimed valid in both the dilute and saturated regimes.
Wilson line correlator in the MV model: relating the glasma to deep inelastic scattering
hep-ph 2007-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

The Wilson line correlator computed with the standard glasma lattice prescription gives Qs approximately 0.6 g squared mu, revising the gluon liberation coefficient to c approximately 1.1.
Saturation effects in diffractive deep inelastic scattering
hep-ph 2026-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Saturation models predict a factor 2 higher fraction of diffractive heavy quark events in LHC ultra-peripheral collisions compared to nuclear shadowing models.
Dilepton angular distributions in the color-dipole $S$-matrix framework
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

First derivation of Z and W helicity density matrix elements in the color-dipole S-matrix framework, with forward-rapidity predictions at 14 TeV linking the Lam-Tung violation to the UGD tail.
Constraining hot and cold nuclear matter properties from heavy-ion collisions and deep-inelastic scattering
nucl-th 2025-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

Global analysis of HERA DIS and ALICE Pb+Pb data using saturation initial-state model determines early-time non-equilibrium η/s of QGP.
Precise determination of pomeron intercept via scaling entropy analysis
hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Measuring the entropy of final-state hadron multiplicities in H1 data gives a Pomeron intercept of 0.322 ± 0.007, consistent with the value from inclusive DIS cross-section scaling.
Momentum transfer squared dependence of exclusive quarkonia photoproduction in UPCs
hep-ph 2020-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A dipole-model calculation with potential-model wave functions yields differential cross sections for exclusive quarkonia photoproduction, matching HERA J/psi data and predicting LHC nuclear rates.
In depth analysis of the combined HERA data in the dipole models with and without saturation
hep-ph 2018-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Fitting a saturation model and its linearized (non-saturating) counterpart to the same combined HERA data yields equally good descriptions, so saturation effects are not resolvable in existing electron-proton data but...
Collinearly-improved BK evolution meets the HERA data
hep-ph 2015-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A resummed small-x QCD evolution equation, with double and single collinear logarithms plus running coupling, describes the HERA reduced cross-section at roughly one chi-squared per data point with four free parameters.
Evaluating the ratio of the exclusive vector meson photoproduction to inclusive hadron/jet production cross section in ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions
hep-ph 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

Color dipole calculations of the ratio of exclusive vector meson to inclusive jet/hadron photoproduction cross sections in UPC pA and AA collisions at LHC Run 4, including the double ratio R_UPC proposed for saturatio...
Predictions for dimuon production in high-energy neutrino-proton collisions using the color dipole model
hep-ph 2024-12 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

A color-dipole-based Monte Carlo generator interfaced with Pythia8 predicts larger transverse momenta and higher yields of angularly separated dimuons in neutrino-proton collisions than standard Pythia.
TMDlib and TMDplotter: library and plotting tools for transverse-momentum-dependent parton distributions
hep-ph 2014-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The paper releases TMDlib, a C++ library plus web plotter that place several published transverse-momentum-dependent parton distribution fits behind a single callable interface.
Evolution at small x_bj: The Color Glass Condensate
hep-ph 2005-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

The review organizes the Color Glass Condensate and JIMWLK evolution, and shows a structural analogy between small-x QCD evolution and jet evolution equations.
Physics of the Electron-Ion Collider in China
hep-ph 2026-08 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

A review of the EicC physics case argues that the proposed Chinese electron-ion collider, at 15-20 GeV collision energy, can complement the US EIC with high-precision measurements of sea-quark spin structure, proton m...
Coherent photoproduction of light vector mesons off nuclear targets in the dipole picture
hep-ph 2023-10 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

A suppression factor R_G=0.85 is tuned to F2 and rho photoproduction data and used to predict observables for rho(2S), omega, and phi states via holographic wave functions in the dipole picture.
Hadron structure in high-energy collisions
hep-ph 2019-05 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A review of parton distribution fitting that supplies a battery of goodness-of-fit tests and shows that all four major NNLO PDF sets fail them, so nominal Hessian uncertainties need tolerance inflation.
The CCFM Monte Carlo generator CASCADE 2.2.0
hep-ph 2010-08 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

CASCADE 2.2.0 is released and documented: a CCFM-based hadron-level Monte Carlo for ep, gamma-p, pp and p-pbar collisions, adding timelike initial-state showering, forward Drell-Yan, and J/psi and chi production.
Mining for Gluon Saturation at Colliders
hep-ph 2021-08 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

Gluon saturation remains unconfirmed: existing proton data cannot separate saturated from unsaturated models, and the authors argue a future electron-ion collider is needed to decide.
Gluon saturation and initial conditions for relativistic heavy ion collisions
hep-ph 2014-01 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

The review argues that a single saturation-based framework consistently describes small-x data from electron-proton through nucleus-nucleus collisions and supplies the initial conditions for hydrodynamic models of the...
Effective theories for nuclei at high energies
hep-ph 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

This paper reviews the Color Glass Condensate effective theory, covering its foundations, its role in deep inelastic scattering, and its use in setting initial conditions for heavy-ion collisions.
The Colour Glass Condensate
hep-ph 2026-11 unverdicted

A pedagogical review of the Colour Glass Condensate effective theory and its applications to gluon saturation in high-energy QCD.

How later papers used it

92 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 91 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 26 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 13 of the 177 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

4 later papers by other authors are listed below: 1 used its method or tool and 3 used its data or values.

Uses its method or tool 1 of 11 papers with this label

Interpolated between the small beta, large Nc formula used in another work and the finite beta, large Q2 form used in this paper.

Diffractive structure functions in nuclei (2009) · 0.97 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

Uses its data or values 3 of 5 papers with this label

The kinematic dependence of $Q_F$ is given phenomenologically by the relation [ref] [equation] where $Q_p,0^2 = 0.152$GeV$^2$, $λ=0.215$, $σ_0≡2πB_G$ denotes the effective transverse area of the nucleon, with $B_G = 0.156$ fm$^2$ .

Baryon stopping and charge deposition in heavy-ion collisions due to gluon saturation (2024) · Parametrical formula · 0.85
Used this paper's value of sigma_0 = 23.03 mb together with its R_0(x) expression.

Higgs Hadroproduction at Large Feynman x (2007) · 0.95 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Superimposed the saturation scale from the GBW model and this paper onto its contour plots to illustrate sensitivity to saturation effects.

Unitarity Constraints on Semi-hard Jet Production in Impact Parameter Space (2008) · 0.80 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

85 arXiv papers cite this in 170 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 103 sentences without a confident label

Contests it 1 paper

Note that the form eq:dip-adjoint differs from the one used in Ref. [ref] , where the adjoint dipole does not have the right saturation limit.

Nuclear enhancement and suppression of diffractive structure functions at high energies · Computing the diffractive structure function · contest 0.74

Builds on it 4 papers

The model was extended to describe diffraction in [ref] .

A unitarized model of inclusive and diffractive DIS with Q2-evolution · Introduction · 0.85
We first consider a simple impact parameter dependent generalization of the Golec-Biernat Wusthoff (GBW) model [ref] , where the fundamental dipole gluon distribution is given by [equation]

The McDIPPER: A novel saturation-based 3+1D initial state model for Heavy Ion Collisions · GBW Model · 0.96
In particular, we first study the Golec-Biernat Wusthoff (GBW) model [ref] , extended to include a spatially dependent target and angular correlations.

Diffractive dijet production in impact parameter dependent saturation models · Introduction · 0.96

Uses its method or tool 11 papers

In different works this component has been evaluated in different limits, we shall here use the approach of [ref] and interpolate between the small $β$, large $N_c$ formula used in [ref] and the finite $β$, large $Q^2$ form used in [ref] .

Diffractive structure functions in nuclei · Method · 0.97
To keep the model as simple as possible, we have chosen the form of the dipole amplitude $N(x,r)$ given by the Golec-Biernat and Wusthoff model [ref] ,

Dissociative production of vector mesons at electron-ion colliders · Dipole-target cross section · 0.99
For this, we will use the simplest model available, the Golec-Biernat Wusthoff (GBW) model [ref] , where the fundamental dipole gluon distribution is given by a Gaussian distribution around the saturation scale,

Baryon stopping and charge deposition in heavy-ion collisions due to gluon saturation · Parametrical formula · 0.94

Uses its data or values 4 papers

The kinematic dependence of $Q_F$ is given phenomenologically by the relation [ref] [equation] where $Q_p,0^2 = 0.152$GeV$^2$, $λ=0.215$, $σ_0≡2πB_G$ denotes the effective transverse area of the nucleon, with $B_G = 0.156$ fm$^2$ .

Baryon stopping and charge deposition in heavy-ion collisions due to gluon saturation · Parametrical formula · 0.85
Here $R_0(x)=0.4(x/x_0)^0.144$ fm (with $x_0 = 3 ×10^-4$), and $σ_0 = 23.03$ mb [ref] .

Higgs Hadroproduction at Large Feynman x · The Unintegrated Gluon Density · 0.95
A simple starting point for our estimate is the GBW fit [ref] , where the proton saturation scale (in the fundamental representation, which is convenient for DIS) is parametrized as [equation] The result of the fit including charm quarks gives $λ= 0.277$ and $x_0 = 0.41 ·10^-4$, with the one redundant parameter chosen as $Q_0 = 1$, while the fit without charm makes $$ approximately 30% larger.

Wilson line correlator in the MV model: relating the glasma to deep inelastic scattering · Discussion · 0.93

Compares with it 10 papers

By also recalling the expression of the Pomeron UGD, that is, pomugddef with the scalar function $G(K_⊥,x,Y_ℙ)$ from Gscalarnew, one can check that our above result for the $qq̅g$ contribution to the diffractive structure function is indeed equivalent (up to an overall normalisation factor, due to the different conventions) to that originally obtained in [ref] (see Eq. (39) in [ref] ).

Gluon dipole factorisation for diffractive dijets · The gluon contribution to the diffractive structure function · 1.00
As we explain in detail in Appendix [ref], we also find agreement with the results of Refs. [ref] , although in the gluon case there is an overall factor 2 difference due to an inconsistent parameterization of the dipole S-matrix in the adjoint representation in [ref] , see also the discussion in [ref] .

Semi-inclusive Diffractive Deep Inelastic Scattering at Small-$x$ · Unpolarized DPDFs in a saturation model · 0.85
The contribution of exclusive dijets to the diffractive structure function is obtained by integrating 2jetTMD over $K_⊥^2$ up to the maximally allowed value of order $∼Q^2$, cf. K2max: [equation] The r.h.s. features the quark diffractive PDF $xq_ℙ(x, x_ℙ, Q^2)$, as obtained from the color dipole picture after isolating the leading-twist contribution: [equation] It is easy to verify that the structure of the integrand, that can be read from Eqs. [ref] and [ref], is fully consistent with the respective results in [ref] (see e.g. Eq. (25) in [ref] ).

TMD factorisation for diffractive jets in photon-nucleus interactions · Multiple scattering and parton saturation in the Pomeron · 0.97

Cites it as background 20 papers

The (2+1)–jet process with a semi-hard gluon has been discussed in detail in [ref] (see also Refs. [ref] for earlier related work), with results that will be briefly summarised in the next subsection.

TMD factorisation for diffractive jets in photon-nucleus interactions · Diffractive (2+1)–jets with a soft quark · 0.88
One prominent example is the Impact Parameter Saturation (IPSat) model [ref] , which is based on the particularly simple Golec-Biernat and Wusthoff (GBW) [ref] dipole saturation model, but contains on one hand, a DGLAP extension towards higher $Q$ [ref] and, on the other hand, an impact parameter dependence in the dipole dynamics.

Forward dijet production at the LHC within an impact parameter dependent TMD approach · Introduction · 0.86
This wave function has been discussed in [ref] .

Unitarity bound for gluon shadowing · Gluon shadowing from the Balitsky-Kovchegov (BK) equation. · 0.95

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

K. Golec-Biernat, M. W¨ usthoﬀ, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 014017

View on Pith 1999

[2] [21]

ZEUS Collab., J. Breitweg et al., Eur. Phys. J. C1 (1998) 81. 24

View on Pith 1998

[3] [13]

M. W¨ usthoﬀ, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 4311

View on Pith 1997

[4] [2]

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

View on Pith 1983

[5] [3]

A. H. Mueller, Nucl.Phys. B335 (1990) 115

View on Pith 1990

[6] [4]

A. L. Ayala, M. B. Gay Ducati, E. M. Levin, Nucl.Phys. B493 (1997) 305

View on Pith 1997

[7] [5]

J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov, H. Weigert, Phys. Rev . D59 (1999) 034007

View on Pith 1999

[8] [6]

A.H. Mueller, Eur. Phys. J. A1 (1998) 19; Proceedings of the 6 th International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and QCD (DIS 98), Brussels , Belgium, 4-8 Apr. 1998

View on Pith 1998

[9] [7]

H1 Collab., C. Adloﬀ et al., Z. Phys. C76 (1997) 613

View on Pith 1997

[10] [8]

ZEUS Collab., J. Breitweg et al., Eur. Phys. J. C6 (1999) 43

View on Pith 1999

[11] [9]

N.Nikolaev, B.G.Zakharov, Z. Phys. C49 (1990) 607

View on Pith 1990

[12] [10]

J.R. Forshaw and D.A. Ross, QCD and the Pomeron , Cambridge University Press, 1996

View on Pith 1996

[13] [11]

N.Nikolaev, B.G.Zakharov, Z. Phys. C53 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[14] [12]

J. Bartels, H. Jung, M. W¨ usthoﬀ, hep-ph/9903265, preprint DESY-99-027, DTP/99/10, LUNFD6/(NFFL-7166)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[15] [14]

F. Hautmann, Z. Kunszt, D.E. Soper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 3333

View on Pith 1998

[16] [15]

M.G. Ryskin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 52 (1990) 529

View on Pith 1990

[17] [16]

N.N. Nikolaev, B.G. Zakharov, KF A-IKP(Th)-1993-17

View on Pith 1993

[18] [17]

E. Levin, M. W¨ usthoﬀ, Phys.Rev. D50 (1994) 4306

View on Pith 1994

[19] [18]

E. Gotsman, E. Levin, U. Maor, Nucl. Phys. B493 (1997) 354

View on Pith 1997

[20] [19]

H1 Collab., S. Aid et al., Nucl. Phys. B470 (1996) 399; H1 Collab., C. Adloﬀ et al., Nucl. Phys. B497 (1997) 3

View on Pith 1996

[21] [20]

ZEUS Collab., M. Derrick et al., Z. Phys. C72 (1996) 399; ZEUS Collab., M. Derrick et al., preprint DESY-98-121

View on Pith 1996

[22] [22]

J. Bartels, J. Ellis, H. Kowalski, M. W¨ usthoﬀ, hep-ph/9803497, to be published in Eur. Phys. J. C

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[23] [23]

A.H. Mueller and B. Patel, Nucl. Phys. B425 (1994) 471

View on Pith 1994

[24] [24]

A. Bialas, R. Peschanski, Phys. Lett. B378 (1996) 302

View on Pith 1996

[25] [25]

D.Yu. Ivanov, M. W¨ usthoﬀ, hep-ph/9808455, to be published in Eur. Phys. J. C

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[26] [26]

W. Buchm¨ uller, T. Gehrmann and A. Hebecker, Nucl. Phys. B537 (1999) 477

View on Pith 1999

[27] [27]

C. Ewerz, PhD-thesis, preprint DESY-THESIS-1998-025

View on Pith 1998

[28] [28]

G. Ingelman and P. Schlein, Phys. Lett. B152 (1985) 256; A. Capella et al., Phys. Lett. B343 (1995) 403; K. Golec-Biernat and J. Kwiecinski, Phys. Lett. B353 (1995) 329; T. Gehrmann and W.J. Stirling, Z. Phys. C70 (1996) 89

View on Pith 1985

[29] [29]

M. W¨ usthoﬀ, PhD-thesis, preprint DESY-95-166

View on Pith

[30] [30]

Y.V. Kovchegov, hep-ph/9901281; Y.V. Kovchegov and L. McLerran, hep-ph/9903246

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[31] [31]

J. Forshaw, G. Kerley and G. Shaw, hep-ph/9903341

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[32] [32]

K. Golec-Biernat, M. W¨ usthoﬀ, preprint in preparation. 25 H1/ZEUS F2 Q2=1.5 GeV2 Q2=2 Q2=2.5 Q2=3.5 Q2=4.5 Q2=5 Q2=6.5 GeV2 Q2=8.5 Q2=10 Q2=12 Q2=15 Q2=18 Q2=20 GeV2 Q2=22 Q2=25 Q2=27 Q2=35 Q2=45 Q2=60 GeV2 Q2=70 Q2=90 Q2=120 Q2=150 Q2=200 Q2=250 GeV2 Q2=350 Q2=450 Q2=650 Q2=800 H1(94/95) ZEUS(94) x 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 0.5 ...

View on Pith 1994