pith. sign in

arxiv: 2509.11359 · v3 · submitted 2025-09-14 · ✦ hep-ph · nucl-th

Diffractive vector meson photo-production in oxygen-oxygen and neon-neon ultraperipheral collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider

J. Cepila , J. G. Contreras , M. Matas , A. Ridzikova This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 16:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph nucl-th
keywords ultraperipheral collisionsvector meson productiongluon saturationlight nucleidiffractive photoproductionoxygenneonLHC
0
0 comments X

The pith

Incoherent vector-meson production in light-nucleus collisions signals the approach to gluon saturation.

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

The paper applies an energy-dependent hotspot model to compute cross sections for diffractive photo-production of ρ⁰ and J/ψ off oxygen and neon nuclei in ultraperipheral O-O and Ne-Ne collisions at the LHC. Two nuclear geometries are considered for each: Woods-Saxon profiles and structured shapes taken from the PGCM formalism (alpha clusters for oxygen, bowling-pin for neon). Cross sections are given versus photon-nucleus energy, Mandelstam t, and rapidity, separately for coherent and incoherent channels. A sympathetic reader would care because the incoherent channel is predicted to furnish a clean experimental handle on the onset of gluon saturation in light nuclei, while the joint ρ⁰ and J/ψ data set would discriminate between competing descriptions of nuclear structure.

Core claim

The energy-dependent hotspot model, when supplied with either Woods-Saxon or PGCM nuclear shapes, generates predictions for coherent and incoherent vector-meson photoproduction in γO and γNe systems. The incoherent channel supplies a measurable signature of the approach to the gluon-saturation regime, and the simultaneous extraction of ρ⁰ and J/ψ rates in both channels supplies a strong constraint on the nuclear geometries of oxygen and neon.

What carries the argument

Energy-dependent hotspot model for the nuclear gluon distribution, combined with two alternative nuclear shape prescriptions (Woods-Saxon and PGCM cluster configurations) to compute coherent and incoherent diffractive amplitudes.

If this is right

  • Incoherent cross sections are expected to increase relative to coherent ones as gluon saturation is approached at higher energies.
  • The two nuclear-shape prescriptions produce distinguishable differences in the t-spectra and rapidity distributions of both mesons.
  • Combined ρ⁰ and J/ψ data from O-O and Ne-Ne collisions would tightly bound the parameters of nuclear-structure models for light nuclei.
  • Rapidity distributions of the ultra-peripheral cross sections become directly testable against existing and forthcoming LHC data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Light nuclei may act as cleaner saturation probes than heavy nuclei because multiple-scattering corrections are smaller.
  • The same modeling framework could be applied to carbon or magnesium collisions to test consistency across the light-nuclear range.
  • Precision measurements of the incoherent-to-coherent ratio could expose limitations of hotspot models calibrated only on protons or heavy ions.
  • Linking these predictions to small-x evolution equations would clarify how saturation scales behave in systems with few nucleons.

Load-bearing premise

The energy-dependent hotspot model previously tuned on heavier nuclei or protons remains accurate for the lighter oxygen and neon nuclei when their specific Woods-Saxon or PGCM shapes are inserted.

What would settle it

An LHC measurement in which the incoherent-to-coherent ratio fails to rise with photon energy or in which the two nuclear-shape models produce indistinguishable t or rapidity distributions would falsify the central predictions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.11359 by A. Ridzikova, J. Cepila, J. G. Contreras, M. Matas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A hotspot configuration for the cluster model of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Nuclear thickness functions, normalised to 1 at zero impact parameter, for the four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Predictions of the energy-dependent hotspot model for the Mandelstam- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Predictions of the energy-dependent hotspot model for the energy dependence of coherent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Predictions of the energy-dependent hotspot model for the energy dependence at fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Predictions of the energy-dependent hotspot model for the Mandelstam- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Predictions of the energy-dependent hotspot model for the energy dependence of coherent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Fluxes, computed with the Woods-Saxon nuclear densities to estimate the nuclear overlap, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Predictions of the energy-dependent hotspot model for the rapidity dependence of coherent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The energy-dependent hotspot model is used to predict cross sections for vector-meson diffractive photo-nuclear production off oxygen ($\gamma$O) and neon ($\gamma$Ne) that can be extracted from ultra-peripheral O--O and Ne--Ne collisions, recently recorded at the LHC. In both cases, two models are used to describe the nuclear shapes. Woods-Saxon prescriptions for O and Ne as well as an alpha-cluster description of O and a bowling-pin-like shape for Ne, according to the PGCM formalism. Predictions are presented for the dependence on the centre-of-mass energy of the photon--nucleus system, as well as on Mandelstam-$t$, of the cross sections for the coherent and the incoherent photo-nuclear production of $\rho^{0}$ and J/$\psi$ vector mesons. Furthermore, the rapidity dependence of the ultra-peripheral cross section is reported for all cases. It is found that the incoherent process provides a measurable signature for the approach to the gluon-saturation regime, and that the simultaneous determination of $\rho^{0}$ and J/$\psi$ coherent and incoherent production provides a strong constraint on nuclear models for both O and Ne.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the energy-dependent hotspot model to predict coherent and incoherent cross sections for ρ⁰ and J/ψ diffractive photoproduction off oxygen and neon nuclei. Predictions are extracted from O-O and Ne-Ne ultraperipheral collisions at LHC energies, using both Woods-Saxon and PGCM (alpha-cluster for O, bowling-pin for Ne) nuclear geometries. Results are shown for W_γA, |t|, and rapidity dependence; the abstract states that incoherent production supplies a measurable gluon-saturation signature and that combined ρ⁰/J/ψ coherent+incoherent data will strongly constrain nuclear models for these light systems.

Significance. If the hotspot parametrization remains reliable for A≈16–20 systems, the predictions could serve as useful benchmarks for upcoming LHC analyses of small-system saturation and nuclear clustering. The explicit comparison between Woods-Saxon and PGCM shapes is a constructive element. However, because all hotspot parameters and saturation criteria are taken from earlier fits without new validation or uncertainty propagation, the work functions primarily as an application study rather than an independent theoretical advance.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model section] Model section (energy-dependent hotspot implementation): The hotspot size and energy-dependence parameters are inherited from prior proton/heavy-nucleus fits; no re-calibration, variation, or explicit test of transferability to the PGCM cluster geometries of O and Ne is provided. This directly affects the claimed saturation diagnostic via incoherent production, as the nuclear thickness function changes substantially for these light, fluctuating systems.
  2. [Abstract and results] Abstract and results/discussion: The statement that simultaneous ρ⁰ and J/ψ coherent+incoherent measurements 'provide a strong constraint on nuclear models' is not quantified. No error bands, sensitivity scans, or overlap metrics between Woods-Saxon and PGCM predictions are shown, so the discriminating power remains qualitative rather than demonstrated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results figures] The t-range displayed in the differential cross-section plots should be explicitly linked to the kinematic acceptance of the LHC detectors for vector-meson reconstruction.
  2. [Model section] A short table summarizing the numerical values of the inherited hotspot parameters and their sources would improve traceability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and the constructive comments. We address the major points below, clarifying the scope of the work as an application of the established energy-dependent hotspot model while incorporating revisions to improve transparency on model assumptions and the strength of the conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model section] Model section (energy-dependent hotspot implementation): The hotspot size and energy-dependence parameters are inherited from prior proton/heavy-nucleus fits; no re-calibration, variation, or explicit test of transferability to the PGCM cluster geometries of O and Ne is provided. This directly affects the claimed saturation diagnostic via incoherent production, as the nuclear thickness function changes substantially for these light, fluctuating systems.

    Authors: The hotspot parameters are taken from earlier global fits to proton and heavy-nucleus data, consistent with the model's design as a transferable framework for gluon saturation effects. The present study isolates the role of nuclear geometry by comparing Woods-Saxon and PGCM shapes while holding the hotspot parameters fixed. We agree that an explicit re-calibration or variation study tailored to the PGCM geometries of O and Ne would be desirable to further test robustness. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in the model section that discusses the transferability assumption, its motivation from prior work, and the possible influence on the incoherent cross section as a saturation diagnostic for these light systems. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and results] Abstract and results/discussion: The statement that simultaneous ρ⁰ and J/ψ coherent+incoherent measurements 'provide a strong constraint on nuclear models' is not quantified. No error bands, sensitivity scans, or overlap metrics between Woods-Saxon and PGCM predictions are shown, so the discriminating power remains qualitative rather than demonstrated.

    Authors: The claim rests on the substantial differences between the Woods-Saxon and PGCM predictions that are visible across the presented observables, especially in the incoherent channels and at larger |t|. These differences originate from the distinct nuclear thickness functions. We acknowledge that the original text did not supply quantitative measures of separation. In the revised version we have moderated the abstract wording to 'can provide a strong constraint' and added a short discussion paragraph that describes the magnitude of the differences between the two geometries for both vector mesons, thereby making the basis for the statement more explicit while remaining within the scope of the existing calculations. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; model application yields independent predictions

full rationale

The paper applies the energy-dependent hotspot model (an established input) together with Woods-Saxon and PGCM nuclear shape prescriptions to compute coherent and incoherent cross sections for ρ⁰ and J/ψ production in γO and γNe systems. These calculations produce new predictions for energy, t, and rapidity dependence in O-O and Ne-Ne UPCs. The claims that incoherent production signals the approach to saturation and that combined coherent+incoherent data constrain nuclear models are direct outputs of the model evaluations rather than tautologies or redefinitions of the inputs. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation, or ansatz that is equivalent to the reported results. The work is a standard forward application of prior models to new light-nucleus systems and remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on the energy-dependent hotspot model whose parameters were fitted elsewhere, plus two standard nuclear density prescriptions whose accuracy for light nuclei is an open question.

free parameters (1)
  • hotspot size and energy dependence parameters
    Inherited from prior fits to heavier nuclei or proton data; required to generate the cross-section numbers.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The energy-dependent hotspot model correctly captures the transition toward gluon saturation in light nuclei.
    Invoked to interpret the incoherent cross section as a saturation signature.
  • domain assumption Woods-Saxon and PGCM cluster shapes are adequate representations of O and Ne ground states for diffractive processes.
    Used to generate the two families of predictions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5764 in / 1389 out tokens · 37296 ms · 2026-05-18T16:28:10.637232+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Nuclear structure and saturation effects from diffractive vector meson production

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Predictions for vector meson production in light-nucleus UPCs show t-differential observables sensitive to nuclear structure models and saturation suppression that grows with nuclear mass and collision energy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 15 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Brewer, A

    J. Brewer, A. Mazeliauskas, W. van der Schee, Opportunities of OO andpO collisions at the LHC, in: Opportunities of OO and pO collisions at the LHC, 2021.arXiv:2103.01939

    work page arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Acharya, et al., ALICE physics projections for a short oxygen-beam run at the LHC, Tech

    S. Acharya, et al., ALICE physics projections for a short oxygen-beam run at the LHC, Tech. Rep. ALICE-PUBLIC-2021-004 (2021). URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/2765973

    work page arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Adriani, et al., LHCf plan for proton-oxygen collisions at LHC, PoS ICRC2021 (2022) 348

    O. Adriani, et al., LHCf plan for proton-oxygen collisions at LHC, PoS ICRC2021 (2022) 348. doi:10.22323/1.395.0348

    work page doi:10.22323/1.395.0348 2022

  4. [4]

    Summerfield, B.-N

    N. Summerfield, B.-N. Lu, C. Plumberg, D. Lee, J. Noronha-Hostler, A. Timmins, 16O 16O collisions at energies available at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider and at the CERN Large Hadron Collider comparingαclustering versus substructure, Phys. Rev. C 104 (4) (2021) L041901.arXiv:2103.03345,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.104.L041901

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.104.l041901 2021

  5. [5]

    Svetlichnyi, S

    A. Svetlichnyi, S. Savenkov, R. Nepeivoda, I. Pshenichnov, Clustering in Oxygen Nuclei and Spectator Fragments in 16O–16O Collisions at the LHC, MDPI Physics 5 (2) (2023) 381–390. doi:10.3390/physics5020027

    work page doi:10.3390/physics5020027 2023

  6. [6]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Chen, G. Giacalone, S. Huang, J. Jia, Y.-G. Ma, Ab-initio nucleon-nucleon correlations and their impact on high energy 16O+16O collisions, Phys. Lett. B 862 (2025) 139322.arXiv:2404.08385,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139322

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139322 2025

  7. [8]

    Gebhard, A

    J. Gebhard, A. Mazeliauskas, A. Takacs, No-quenching baseline for energy loss signals in oxygen-oxygen collisions, JHEP 04 (2025) 034.arXiv:2410.22405,doi:10.1007/ JHEP04(2025)034

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [9]

    Prasad, N

    S. Prasad, N. Mallick, R. Sahoo, G. G. Barnaf¨ oldi, Anisotropic flow fluctuation as a possible signature of clustered nuclear geometry in O–O collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Lett. B 860 (2025) 139145.arXiv:2407.15065,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139145

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139145 2025

  9. [12]

    R. Katz, C. A. G. Prado, J. Noronha-Hostler, A. A. P. Suaide, System-size scan ofDmeson RAA andv n using PbPb, XeXe, ArAr, and OO collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 102 (4) (2020) 041901.arXiv:1907.03308,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevC.102.041901

    work page arXiv 2020

  10. [13]

    M. D. Sievert, J. Noronha-Hostler, CERN Large Hadron Collider system size scan predictions for PbPb, XeXe, ArAr, and OO with relativistic hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. C 100 (2) (2019) 024904.arXiv:1901.01319,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.100.024904

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.100.024904 2019

  11. [14]

    Paakkinen, Light-nuclei gluons from dijet production in proton-oxygen collisions, Phys

    P. Paakkinen, Light-nuclei gluons from dijet production in proton-oxygen collisions, Phys. Rev. D 105 (3) (2022) L031504.arXiv:2111.05368,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.L031504

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.l031504 2022

  12. [15]

    Giacalone et al

    G. Giacalone, et al., Exploiting Ne20 Isotopes for Precision Characterizations of Collectivity in Small Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (1) (2025) 012302.arXiv:2402.05995,doi:10.1103/ k8rb-jgvq

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [16]

    S. H. Lim, J. Carlson, C. Loizides, D. Lonardoni, J. E. Lynn, J. L. Nagle, J. D. Orjuela Koop, J. Ouellette, Exploring New Small System Geometries in Heavy Ion Collisions, Phys. Rev. C 99 (4) (2019) 044904.arXiv:1812.08096,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.99.044904

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.99.044904 2019

  14. [17]

    Loizides, Glauber predictions for oxygen and neon collisions at LHC, (2025), arXiv: 2507.05853 [nucl-th]

    C. Loizides, Glauber predictions for oxygen and neon collisions at LHC (7 2025).arXiv: 2507.05853. 15

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [18]

    V. P. Goncalves, B. D. Moreira, L. Santana, Exclusiveρand J/Ψ photoproduction in ultrape- ripheral pO and OO collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 107 (5) (2023) 055205.arXiv:2210.11911,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.055205

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.107.055205 2023

  16. [19]

    K. J. Eskola, C. A. Flett, V. Guzey, T. L¨ oyt¨ ainen, H. Paukkunen, Next-to-leading order perturbative QCD predictions for exclusive J/ψphotoproduction in oxygen-oxygen and lead- lead collisions at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 107 (4) (2023) 044912, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 108, 069901 (2023)].arXiv:2210.16048,doi:10. 11...

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [20]

    M¨ antysaari, B

    H. M¨ antysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen, W. Zhao, Multiscale Imaging of Nuclear Deformation at the Electron-Ion Collider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (6) (2023) 062301.arXiv:2303.04866, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.062301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.062301 2023

  18. [22]

    Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report

    R. Abdul Khalek, et al., Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report, Nucl. Phys. A 1026 (2022) 122447.arXiv:2103.05419,doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2022.122447

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2022.122447 2022

  19. [23]

    M. G. Ryskin, Diffractive J / psi electroproduction in LLA QCD, Z. Phys. C 57 (1993) 89–92. doi:10.1007/BF01555742

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01555742 1993

  20. [24]

    J. G. Contreras, J. D. Tapia Takaki, Ultra-peripheral heavy-ion collisions at the LHC, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30 (2015) 1542012.doi:10.1142/S0217751X15420129

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x15420129 2015

  21. [25]

    S. R. Klein, H. M¨ antysaari, Imaging the nucleus with high-energy photons, Nature Rev. Phys. 1 (11) (2019) 662–674.arXiv:1910.10858,doi:10.1038/s42254-019-0107-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-019-0107-6 2019

  22. [26]

    Acharya, et al., The ALICE experiment: a journey through QCD, Eur

    S. Acharya, et al., The ALICE experiment: a journey through QCD, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (8) (2024) 813.arXiv:2211.04384,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12935-y

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12935-y 2024

  23. [27]

    M. L. Good, W. D. Walker, Diffraction disssociation of beam particles, Phys. Rev. 120 (1960) 1857–1860.doi:10.1103/PhysRev.120.1857

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.120.1857 1960

  24. [28]

    H. I. Miettinen, J. Pumplin, Diffraction Scattering and the Parton Structure of Hadrons, Phys. Rev. D 18 (1978) 1696.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.18.1696

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.18.1696 1978

  25. [29]

    Evidence of strong proton shape fluctuations from incoherent diffraction

    H. M¨ antysaari, B. Schenke, Evidence of strong proton shape fluctuations from incoherent diffraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (5) (2016) 052301.arXiv:1603.04349,doi:10.1103/ 16 PhysRevLett.117.052301

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [30]

    M¨ antysaari, Review of proton and nuclear shape fluctuations at high energy, Rept

    H. M¨ antysaari, Review of proton and nuclear shape fluctuations at high energy, Rept. Prog. Phys. 83 (8) (2020) 082201.arXiv:2001.10705,doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aba347

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aba347 2020

  27. [31]

    L. V. Gribov, E. M. Levin, M. G. Ryskin, Semihard Processes in QCD, Phys. Rept. 100 (1983) 1–150.doi:10.1016/0370-1573(83)90022-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-1573(83)90022-4 1983

  28. [32]

    A. H. Mueller, Small x Behavior and Parton Saturation: A QCD Model, Nucl. Phys. B 335 (1990) 115–137.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90173-B

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90173-b 1990

  29. [33]

    Morreale, F

    A. Morreale, F. Salazar, Mining for Gluon Saturation at Colliders, Universe 7 (8) (2021) 312. arXiv:2108.08254,doi:10.3390/universe7080312

    work page doi:10.3390/universe7080312 2021

  30. [34]

    Energy dependence of dissociative $\mathrm{J/}\psi$ photoproduction as a signature of gluon saturation at the LHC

    J. Cepila, J. G. Contreras, J. D. Tapia Takaki, Energy dependence of dissociative J/ψphoto- production as a signature of gluon saturation at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B766 (2017) 186–191. arXiv:1608.07559,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.063

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.12.063 2017

  31. [35]

    Dissociative production of vector mesons at electron-ion colliders

    D. Bendova, J. Cepila, J. G. Contreras, Dissociative production of vector mesons at electron- ion colliders, Phys. Rev. D 99 (3) (2019) 034025.arXiv:1811.06479,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.99.034025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [36]

    Mass dependence of vector meson photoproduction off protons and nuclei within the energy-dependent hot-spot model

    J. Cepila, J. G. Contreras, M. Krelina, J. D. Tapia Takaki, Mass dependence of vector meson photoproduction off protons and nuclei within the energy-dependent hot-spot model, Nucl. Phys. B934 (2018) 330–340.arXiv:1804.05508,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2018.07.010

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2018.07.010 2018

  33. [37]

    Coherent and incoherent vector meson electroproduction in the future electron-ion colliders: the hot-spot predictions

    M. Krelina, V. P. Goncalves, J. Cepila, Coherent and incoherent vector meson electroproduc- tion in the future electron-ion colliders: the hot-spot predictions, Nucl. Phys. A 989 (2019) 187–200.arXiv:1905.06759,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2019.06.009

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2019.06.009 2019

  34. [38]

    Cepila, J

    J. Cepila, J. G. Contreras, M. Matas, A. Ridzikova, Incoherent J/ψproduction at large|t| identifies the onset of saturation at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 852 (2024) 138613.arXiv: 2312.11320,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138613

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138613 2024

  35. [39]

    S. Acharya, et al., Coherent photoproduction ofρ 0 vector mesons in ultra-peripheral Pb–Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV, JHEP 06 (2020) 035.arXiv:2002.10897,doi:10.1007/ JHEP06(2020)035

    work page arXiv 2020

  36. [40]

    Acharya, et al., First measurement of coherentρ0 photoproduction in ultra-peripheral Xe–Xe collisions at sNN=5.44 TeV, Phys

    S. Acharya, et al., First measurement of coherentρ0 photoproduction in ultra-peripheral Xe–Xe collisions at sNN=5.44 TeV, Phys. Lett. B 820 (2021) 136481.arXiv:2101.02581, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136481

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136481 2021

  37. [41]

    A. Tumasyan, et al., Probing small Bjorken-xnuclear gluonic structure via coherent J/ψ 17 photoproduction in ultraperipheral PbPb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV (3 2023).arXiv: 2303.16984

    work page arXiv 2023

  38. [42]

    S. Acharya, et al., Energy dependence of coherent photonuclear production of J/ψmesons in ultra-peripheral Pb-Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.02 TeV, JHEP 10 (2023) 119.arXiv: 2305.19060,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2023)119

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2023)119 2023

  39. [43]

    Acharya, et al., Evidence for J/ψsuppression in incoherent photonuclear production (3 2025).arXiv:2503.18708

    S. Acharya, et al., Evidence for J/ψsuppression in incoherent photonuclear production (3 2025).arXiv:2503.18708

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [44]

    Exclusive diffractive processes at HERA within the dipole picture

    H. Kowalski, L. Motyka, G. Watt, Exclusive diffractive processes at HERA within the dipole picture, Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 074016.arXiv:hep-ph/0606272,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 74.074016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd 2006

  41. [45]

    A. G. Shuvaev, K. J. Golec-Biernat, A. D. Martin, M. G. Ryskin, Off diagonal distributions fixed by diagonal partons at small x and xi, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 014015.arXiv:hep-ph/ 9902410,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.014015

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.60.014015 1999

  42. [46]

    Scanning the BFKL pomeron in elastic production of vector mesons at HERA

    J. Nemchik, N. N. Nikolaev, B. G. Zakharov, Scanning the BFKL pomeron in elastic produc- tion of vector mesons at HERA, Phys. Lett. B 341 (1994) 228–237.arXiv:hep-ph/9405355, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)90314-X

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)90314-x 1994

  43. [47]

    Color dipole phenomenology of diffractive electroproduction of light vector mesons at HERA

    J. Nemchik, N. N. Nikolaev, E. Predazzi, B. G. Zakharov, Color dipole phenomenology of diffractive electroproduction of light vector mesons at HERA, Z. Phys. C 75 (1997) 71–87. arXiv:hep-ph/9605231,doi:10.1007/s002880050448

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/s002880050448 1997

  44. [48]

    J. R. Forshaw, R. Sandapen, G. Shaw, Color dipoles and rho, phi electroproduction, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 094013.arXiv:hep-ph/0312172,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.094013

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.69.094013 2004

  45. [49]

    K. J. Golec-Biernat, M. Wusthoff, Saturation effects in deep inelastic scattering at low Q**2 and its implications on diffraction, Phys. Rev. D59 (1998) 014017.arXiv:hep-ph/9807513, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.014017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.014017 1998

  46. [50]

    De Vries, C

    H. De Vries, C. W. De Jager, C. De Vries, Nuclear charge and magnetization density distri- bution parameters from elastic electron scattering, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 36 (1987) 495–536.doi:10.1016/0092-640X(87)90013-1

    work page doi:10.1016/0092-640x(87)90013-1 1987

  47. [51]

    Resolution of a long- standing discrepancy in the 17O+12C fusion excitation function

    D. Behera, N. Mallick, S. Tripathy, S. Prasad, A. N. Mishra, R. Sahoo, Predictions on global properties in O+O collisions at the Large Hadron Collider using a multi-phase trans- port model, Eur. Phys. J. A 58 (9) (2022) 175.arXiv:2110.04016,doi:10.1140/epja/ s10050-022-00823-6. 18

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/ 2022

  48. [53]

    Frosini, T

    M. Frosini, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, V. Som` a, Multi-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei: I. Novel PGCM-PT formalism, Eur. Phys. J. A 58 (4) (2022) 62.arXiv:2110. 15737,doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00692-z

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00692-z 2022

  49. [54]

    Frosini, T

    M. Frosini, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, B. Bally, T. Mongelli, T. R. Rodr´ ıguez, R. Roth, V. Som` a, Multi-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei: II. Ab initio study of neon isotopes via PGCM and IM-NCSM calculations, Eur. Phys. J. A 58 (4) (2022) 63.arXiv:2111.00797, doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00693-y

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00693-y 2022

  50. [55]

    Frosini, T

    M. Frosini, T. Duguet, J.-P. Ebran, B. Bally, H. Hergert, T. R. Rodr´ ıguez, R. Roth, J. Yao, V. Som` a, Multi-reference many-body perturbation theory for nuclei: III. Ab initio calculations at second order in PGCM-PT, Eur. Phys. J. A 58 (4) (2022) 64.arXiv:2111.01461,doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00694-x

    work page doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-022-00694-x 2022

  51. [57]

    J. G. Contreras, Gluon shadowing at smallxfrom coherent J/ψphotoproduction data at energies available at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. C 96 (1) (2017) 015203. arXiv:1610.03350,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.96.015203

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc.96.015203 2017

  52. [58]

    Exclusive Vector Meson Production in Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions

    S. Klein, J. Nystrand, Exclusive vector meson production in relativistic heavy ion colli- sions, Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 014903.arXiv:hep-ph/9902259,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC. 60.014903

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevc 1999

  53. [59]

    Elastic and Proton-Dissociative Photoproduction of J/psi Mesons at HERA

    C. Alexa, et al., Elastic and Proton-Dissociative Photoproduction of J/psi Mesons at HERA, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (6) (2013) 2466.arXiv:1304.5162,doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-013-2466-y. 19

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/ 2013