Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 71 references

High-energy dipole-dipole scattering saturates as (S_BK)^4, not sqrt(S_BK)

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

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

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.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A mathematically clean but physically unestablished claim: the paper derives S_dd = (S_BK)^4 from the Braun Hamiltonian, but the load-bearing choice of the (1,1) fixed point is never justified, and the paper's own unitary toy model suggests it may be wrong. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00506 v1 pith:TW467ZTB submitted 2026-08-01 hep-ph

Dipole-dipole scattering at high energy in the Pomeron field theory with Braun Hamiltonian and beyond

Eugene Levin (Tel Aviv University.) This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 13.60.Hb12.38.Cy
keywords dipole-dipole scatteringBFKL PomeronBraun HamiltonianBalitsky-Kovchegov equationPomeron loopss-channel unitaritysaturationfixed points
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that when two dipoles collide at very high energy, deep in the saturation region, the S-matrix for dipole-dipole scattering falls as exp(-2 z²/κ), where z measures rapidity and dipole-size logarithms. That is exactly the fourth power of the Balitsky-Kovchegov dipole-nucleus S-matrix, exp(-z²/2κ). Earlier approaches based on rare fluctuations or on summing large Pomeron loops had found only a square-root dependence, exp(-z²/4κ), meaning the new result approaches the unitarity limit much faster. The paper derives both dipole-dipole and dipole-nucleus answers in the same Braun-Hamiltonian framework, and it argues that summing large Pomeron loops can be trusted only up to rapidity Y ≤ 1/α_s^4. It also warns that the Braun Hamiltonian violates s-channel unitarity and that a one-dimensional unitary model has a different fixed-point structure, so the central result rests on a fixed-point assumption that may not survive in QCD.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is Eq. (1): deep in saturation, N_dd=1-exp(-2z²/κ), i.e. S_dd=(S_BK)^4. Here z=α_s χ(γ_cr)η+ξ_{r,r'} mixes rapidity and dipole-size logarithms, and κ, γ_cr are fixed by the BFKL eigenvalue equation. Solving the Braun-Hamiltonian equations near the (1,1) fixed point—both dipoles fully black—via Mellin transform and saddle point gives n(z)∝exp(-z²/κ); the on-shell action is negligible, so S_dd≈ΔΔ̄, yielding the fourth-power form. The comparison targets S_dd∝sqrt(S_BK) from rare fluctuations and large Pomeron loops, which the paper argues are unreliable beyond Y≤1/α_s^4.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Braun Hamiltonian for BFKL Pomeron interactions at leading 1/N_c, whose equations of motion for the fields Φ and Φ̄ (the dipole-target and dipole-projectile amplitudes) have four fixed points. The derivation operates in the saturation region near the fixed point (1,1), where both fields are close to one, written Φ=1-Δ and Φ̄=1-Δ̄. After a linearization and Mellin transform, the key identity is the saddle-point solution n(z)∝exp(-z²/κ) for n=LΔ; the on-shell action is negligible, so the S-matrix factorizes as ΔΔ̄, giving S_dd∝exp(-2z²/κ). A one-dimensional unitarity-preserving model is used to test when large-Pomeron-loop sums can be trusted.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation depends on the assumption that, at infinite energy, both the projectile and target dipoles become completely black and sit at the (1,1) fixed point; if a unitarity-respecting Hamiltonian moves that fixed point, the claimed exp(-2z²/κ) form fails.

What would settle it

Calculate the exact asymptotic S-matrix of the paper's one-dimensional unitarity-preserving model at Y>1/α_s^4; the paper's own equations give fixed points (1,α) and (α,1) rather than (1,1), so comparing that exact result with exp(-2z²/κ) directly tests whether the fixed-point assumption behind the central claim survives in a unitary theory.

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

If this is right

  • If Eq. (1) is correct, the dipole-dipole amplitude reaches the black-disk limit much faster than rare-fluctuation or large-Pomeron-loop estimates, so saturation sets in at lower rapidity for dipole-dipole collisions than previously expected.
  • The same framework that yields the BK dipole-nucleus result now yields a distinct dipole-dipole result; a future unitary QCD Hamiltonian must reproduce one or the other, giving a sharp discriminator.
  • Large-Pomeron-loop summation is reliable only for Y≤1/α_s^4; beyond that, small Pomeron loops of size δY∼Δ_BFKL change the intercepts of multi-Pomeron exchanges, so extrapolating loop sums to infinite energy is not justified.
  • In the paper's unitary one-dimensional model the asymptotic S∼Δ²(Y) matches the functional form that Eq. (41) would give if the (1,1) fixed point existed, even though the model's fixed points are (1,α) and (α,1).

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own toy model shows fixed-point structure is Hamiltonian-dependent; if a unitary QCD Hamiltonian moves the fixed points away from (1,1), the exponent -2z²/κ would not be the true asymptotic, though an S∼Δ² form could survive.
  • A direct next step is to repeat the saddle-point calculation with the full BFKL kernel instead of the leading-twist kernel used for the prefactor estimate; the paper only guarantees the smooth prefactor Ψ is under control for Ψ<exp(-z²/κ).
  • The factor-of-four gap between exp(-2z²/κ) and exp(-z²/4κ) is large enough that dense-dense small-x observables in the saturation regime could distinguish the alternatives, provided the rapidity reach exceeds the claimed loop-summation validity bound Y≤1/α_s^4.
  • The paper leaves the failure of the rare-fluctuation approach unexplained; constructing a unitary s-channel Hamiltonian would simultaneously test the fixed-point assumption and clarify whether rare fluctuations were computed in a regime where they should not apply.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies dipole-dipole scattering in the Braun Hamiltonian for BFKL Pomeron interactions at leading 1/N_c. Linearizing the equations of motion around the fully saturated fixed point (Φ,Φ̄)=(1,1), the author obtains a Mellin representation and a saddle-point estimate, leading to the S-matrix S_dd = exp(-2z^2/κ) = (S_BK)^4, Eq. (1). This is contrasted with the rare-fluctuation and large-Pomeron-loop result S_dd ~ sqrt(S_BK). The paper also analyzes the alternative fixed point (1,0), recovering the BK result, and uses an exactly solvable one-dimensional unitary toy model (UTM) to argue that large-loop summation is reliable for Y ≲ 1/α_s^4 and to illustrate how the fixed-point structure depends on the Hamiltonian. The algebraic steps around Eqs. (27)-(34) are internally consistent, but the physical selection of the (1,1) fixed point is not derived, and the paper itself contains explicit statements that undermine the derivation of Eq. (41).

Significance. If Eq. (1) were established, it would be a striking and important result: dipole-dipole scattering would unitarize parametrically faster than the standard fluctuation/loop expectation, and the range of validity of large-Pomeron-loop summation would be limited to Y ≲ 1/α_s^4. The Mellin/saddle-point calculation is transparent and checkable, and the author is honest about the limitations of the Braun Hamiltonian. However, the central claim is conditional on an unproven choice of fixed point, and the paper's own unitary model contradicts the path-integral step used to obtain Eq. (41). The result is therefore best regarded as a well-defined conjecture whose main physical prediction still needs a dynamical argument for fixed-point selection.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.B–III.D, Eq. (1) and Eq. (50)] The central result Eq. (1) follows only after selecting the fixed point (Φ,Φ̄)=(1,1) as the high-energy endpoint for dipole-dipole scattering. The author writes in §III.B only that "Intuitively, we believe" this is the relevant endpoint; no basin-of-attraction or initial-condition argument is given. §III.D shows that the same Braun Hamiltonian has another stable fixed point, (1,0), at which the calculation gives S_BK = exp(-z^2/2κ), Eq. (50), changing the exponent by a factor of 4. Section IV.C shows in the UTM that the fixed-point structure is Hamiltonian-dependent and that (1,1) need not be reachable at all. Thus Eq. (1) is an assumption, not a derived consequence of the Braun Hamiltonian, unless the manuscript provides a concrete reason why dipole-dipole initial conditions flow to (1,1) rather than (1,0).
  2. [IV.C, Eq. (67) and following text] The paper explicitly states that "Eq. (41) is not correct" and that "the contribution of S0+SI in the path integral for the solutions of the equation of motion is essential (cf. section III, Eq. (40))". This is a direct admission that the derivation of Eq. (41) in §III.C.2, which neglects the action contribution at large z, is invalid in the one-dimensional unitary model. The subsequent claim that the correct UTM asymptotics S~Δ² coincides with Eq. (41) "if the Hamiltonian had a fixed point (1,1)" does not repair the derivation, because the UTM does not have that fixed point. The author must either compute the action contribution in the QCD case or explicitly reclassify Eq. (1) as a conjecture whose saddle-point evaluation is not yet justified.
  3. [III.B Eq. (19)-(20) vs. IV.A] There is an unresolved parametric inconsistency in the claimed range of validity of large-Pomeron-loop summation. Eq. (19)-(20) give the condition Y ≤ 2η_max = (2/Δ_BFKL) ln(1/α_s^2), which is parametrically much smaller than the N_c^2/α_s^4 claimed in §IV.A. The latter estimate is introduced through a vertex-counting argument with an unestimated numerical factor, and the two estimates are never reconciled. Since the abstract advertises the wide trust region Y ≤ 1/α_s^4, the paper should clarify which estimate is meant to be quantitative and why the earlier bound does not apply.
minor comments (4)
  1. [III.C.2, Eq. (41)] The prefactor Ψ(z) in Eq. (41) is not determined; the later bounds Ψ < exp(-z^2/κ) or Ψ < exp(-z^2/4κ) are statements about possible subleading corrections, not a computation. The abstract's claim that "all constants are determined" is therefore too strong unless the leading-exponential statement is made precise.
  2. [Eq. (38)] Typographical: the second functional integration measure should be DΦ̄(η), not DΦ(η); the text currently reads "DΦ(η)DΦ(η)". There are also encoding artifacts such as "path integral" in §III.C.2.
  3. [References] Reference [39] has a malformed DOI "10.1103/6fgj-hkqq". Also, the notation z is used both for a coordinate and for the rapidity variable in Eq. (43); the footnote acknowledging this is not sufficient when the same symbol appears in the same equation.
  4. [V] The conclusion contains "Heeling" for "Healing", and the sentence "we can feel rather optimistically" is awkward. More substantively, the final paragraph's statement that "the form of the Hamiltonian can change crucially the structure of the fixed points ... our solution is based on this structure" should be moved earlier because it directly qualifies the main result.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The exponent in Eq. (1) is genuinely computed, not fitted; but the factor-of-4 relation S_dd = (S_BK)^4 is hostage to the assumed (1,1) fixed point, and the alternative (1,0) — which would yield S_BK — is excluded only by intuition plus the author's own self-citation [21], which the paper's unitary toy model then undermines.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. III.B (fixed-point choice); III.D (rejection of (1,0)); IV.C and V (concessions)]
    "Intuitively, we believe that the behaviour of Φ and ¯Φ in the vicinity of the fixed point (1,1) corresponds to the scattering amplitudes at high energies."

    Eq. (1) is the asymptotic form at fixed point (1,1); Sec. III.D shows the same Hamiltonian's alternative fixed point (1,0) yields S = S_BK = exp(-z²/2κ) (Eq. 50) — a factor 4 different exponent. The paper rejects (1,0) only via 'as it has been shown in Ref.[21], it contradicts QCD', a self-citation to the author's own work, and never derives that two-dipole initial conditions flow to (1,1); it merely asserts 'Intuitively, we believe'. The self-cited chain itself undermines the premise: Sec. IV.C states that in the UTM 'none of the fixed points: (00),(1,0),(0,1), and (1,1), can be reached at α≠0' and 'Eq. (41) is not correct'; Sec. V concedes 'our solution is based on this structure'. The claimed (S_BK)^4 behaviour is thus interchangeable with the assumed fixed-point selection, whose only s

full rationale

The asymptotic computation itself is not circular. Given the (1,1) fixed point, the paper linearizes the Braun-Hamiltonian EOMs (Eqs. 21–26), solves the Mellin-transformed equations (Eqs. 27–34) and obtains n(z) ∝ exp(-z²/κ); the S-matrix then follows from S ≃ Δ(η=Y)·Δ̄(η=0) (Eqs. 38–41). κ and γ_cr are fixed by the standard BFKL saddle-point equation (Eq. 17), not by any fit to dipole-dipole data, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The identity S_dd = (S_BK)^4 is an algebraic comparison of two computed exponents (Eqs. 1 and 2), not an imposed input. In this narrow sense the derivation is self-contained. However, one load-bearing step is an unproven premise protected by a self-citation: the selection of the (1,1) fixed point as the endpoint of dipole-dipole scattering. The paper introduces it by assertion ('Intuitively, we believe', Sec. III.B; 'we expect', Sec. III.C.1) and never derives it from the two-dipole initial conditions of Eq. (9). Section III.D shows the same Hamiltonian admits the alternative fixed point (1,0), where the same S-matrix formula yields S = S_BK = exp(-z²/2κ) (Eq. 50) — a factor of four in the exponent — and the paper rejects this alternative only by citing its own Ref. [21] ('as it has been shown in Ref.[21], it contradicts QCD'). The paper's own limitation passages (Sec. IV.C: in the UTM 'none of the fixed points: (00),(1,0),(0,1), and (1,1), can be reached at α≠0' and 'Eq. (41) is not correct'; Sec. V: 'our solution is based on this structure') confirm that the headline factor 4 is interchangeable with the assumed fixed-point structure. Score 3: a genuine, non-fitted calculation whose central prediction is nevertheless conditional on an assumption whose only stated external support is author self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on (i) the Braun Hamiltonian from Ref. [16], (ii) the linearized equations from Ref. [21], (iii) an assumed geometric-scaling regime, (iv) an intuition-based choice of the (1,1) fixed point, and (v) an analogy to the unitary toy model for the 1/α_s^4 estimate. No parameters are fitted to data; κ and γ_cr are fixed by the BFKL equation. The prefactor Ψ and the numerical factor of the trust-region bound are genuinely undetermined. The paper contains no invented entities.

free parameters (2)
  • Prefactor Ψ(z) of the S-matrix (Eq. 41)
    The smooth function multiplying exp(-2(z - κ ln(2z/κ)/2)^2/κ) is never computed. The paper only asserts a bound, Ψ < exp(-z^2/4κ), 'can be guaranteed' from Eqs. (23)-(24), without a derivation. The undetermined prefactor affects the subleading z-dependence of the claimed result.
  • Numerical factor in the large-loop trust region Y ≤ N_c^2/α_s^4
    Section IV.A states the bound 'with a numerical factor in front which we failed to estimate'. The 1/α_s^4 estimate is an order-of-magnitude result from one diagram (α_s^4/N_c^2) plus the UTM analogy (γ ~ α_s^2), and is used to argue the large-loop approach is trustworthy where it contradicts the main result.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The Braun Hamiltonian (Eq. 6) is the correct action for pomeron interactions in leading 1/N_c QCD.
    Adopted in Section II from Ref. [16]; the paper does not re-derive it. All results inherit this assumption.
  • domain assumption The classical equations of motion give the S-matrix via saddle point (Eqs. 35-38).
    Pomeron-loop fluctuations are neglected in Section III; only in Section IV are specific loops considered. The fixed-point solutions are classical solutions.
  • domain assumption Geometric scaling of n and n̄ in the saturation region.
    Assumed after Eq. (24) so the integro-differential equations reduce to the ODEs (25)-(26); no proof of exact geometric scaling is given.
  • domain assumption Linearization near (1,1): Δ, Δ̄ small and quadratic terms negligible.
    Section III.C.1. The paper's own estimate of the neglected terms (Eq. 46) is not rigorously shown to be subdominant to the claimed leading term.
  • ad hoc to paper The (1,1) fixed point governs dipole-dipole asymptotics.
    Section III.B: 'Intuitively, we believe...'. The alternative (1,0) branch, Section III.D, yields the BK answer, so the branch choice determines the result and is not derived.
  • domain assumption The one-dimensional UTM captures the relevant pomeron-loop physics of QCD.
    Section IV.B-C extrapolates the UTM's Y ≤ 1/γ^2 trust region to QCD's Y ≤ 1/α_s^4 using γ ~ α_s^2; this is an analogy, explicitly labeled as a source of intuition.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dipole-dipole scattering at high energy in the Pomeron field theory with Braun Hamiltonian and beyond." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TW467ZTB

@misc{pith2026260800506,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dipole-dipole scattering at high energy in the Pomeron field theory with Braun Hamiltonian and beyond},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TW467ZTB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00506}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

In this paper we find that the scattering matrix for dipole-dipole interaction in the saturation region has the form: ${\cal S}^d_d \xrightarrow{z \,\gg\,1} \exp\Lb - C^d_d z^2\Rb \propto \Lb {\cal S}_{BK}\Rb^4 = \exp\Lb - 4\,C_{BK} z^2\Rb$, where $z = \bas \kappa Y\,+\,\ln\Lb \frac{r^2}{r'^2}\Rb$ for interaction of a dipole $r$ at rapidity $Y$ with dipole $r'$ at rest. $S_{BK}$ is the S-matrix for the Balitsky-Kovchegov amplitude. All constants are determined in the text. The proof is given in the same theoretical framework for both cases (${\cal S}^d_d$ and ${\cal S}_{BK}$): the Pomeron interaction which takes into account the Pomeron vertices in the leading $1/N_c$ approximation ($N_c$ is the number of colours). This result is in striking contradiction with 'rare' fluctuation approach as well as with summing the large Pomeron loops. These lead to ${\cal S}^d_d \propto \sqrt{{\cal S}_{BK}}$ at large $z$. In the paper we collect arguments supporting the idea that the sum of large Pomeron loops can be trusted in a wide region of energy: $Y \leq 1/\as^4$. In addition we discuss the influence of the structure of the Hamiltonian on the asymptotic behaviour of the scattering amplitudes using the exactly solvable one dimensional model as our theoretical ground.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00506 by Eugene Levin (Tel Aviv University.).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The Pomeron diagrams that are described by the equation of motion. The ’fan’ diagrams of Fig. 1-a correspond to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Kinematic regions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Summing large Pomeron loops. The wavy lines denote the BFKL Pomerons. The grey circles denote the triple Pomeron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The contours of integration in Eq. (58). The red points denote the poles in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 25 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Equation of motion 6

    work page

  2. [2]

    Dipole-dipole scattering at high energy in the Pomeron field theory with Braun Hamiltonian and beyond

    Scattering matrix 7 D.Φand ¯Φin the vicinity of the fixed point (1,0) 9 IV. Summing large Pomeron loops 10 A. Generalities 10 B. One dimensional model 11 C. Discussions: lessons for QCD 12 V. Conclusions 13 References 14 I. INTRODUCTION The BFKL1 Pomeron calculus is the effective theory for high energy interaction in QCD. Its main ideas are based on the r...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    2) we expect that the behaviour of these functions in the vicinity of the fixed point (1,1) will give the high energy asymptotic of the scattering amplitudes

    Equation of motion In the saturation regions for bothΦand ¯Φ(see Fig. 2) we expect that the behaviour of these functions in the vicinity of the fixed point (1,1) will give the high energy asymptotic of the scattering amplitudes. Following Ref.[32] we introduce new functions∆and ¯∆:Φ (x, y, η) = 1−∆ (x, y, η)and¯Φ (x, y, η) = 1−¯∆ (x, y, η). We assume that...

    work page

  4. [4]

    K(x, y|z)¯∆(x, z, η) # (39) resulting in a path integral contribution that turns out to be small at largeY. 2 YZ 0 dη∆(x, y, η)∇2 x∇2 y

    Scattering matrix The scattering matrix is given by the following equation[16, 21]: S ≃ Z d ¯ΦdΦW P [Φ]W T [ ¯Φ] Z Φ(Y)=Φ; ¯Φ(0)= ¯Φ DΦ(η)D ¯Φ(η)eS0+SI , Z DΦ(η)D ¯Φ(η)eS0+SI (35) 3 We hope that the notationzfor the energy variable and for the coordinate will not be misleading. 8 with S0 +S I = Z Y 0 dη N 2 c 4π4 ¯α2s [∇2 x∇2 y ¯Φ(x, y;η)] ∂ ∂η Φ(x, y;η)−...

    work page

  5. [5]

    V. N. Gribov, Sov. Phys. JETP26, 414 (1968) [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.53, 654 (1967)]

    work page 1968

  6. [6]

    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)]

    work page 1975

  7. [7]

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

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

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

    work page 1990

  9. [9]

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

    work page 1986

  10. [10]

    A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B415(1994) 373; Nucl. Phys. B437(1995) 107; A. H. Mueller and B. Patel, Nucl. Phys. B 425, 471, 1994

    work page 1994

  11. [11]

    L. N. Lipatov, Phys. Rept.286(1997) 131

    work page 1997

  12. [12]

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

    work page 1986

  13. [13]

    L. N. Lipatov, Nucl. Phys. B365, 614 (1991), Nucl. Phys. B452, 369 (1995), R. Kirschner, L. N. Lipatov and L. Szymanowski, Nucl. Phys. B425, 579 (1994), Phys. Rev. D51, 838 (1995)

    work page 1991

  14. [14]

    Unitarity Corrections in High Energy QCD

    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 [hep-ph]]; C. Ewerz, JHEP0104(2001) 031

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  15. [15]

    Bartels, Nucl

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

    work page 1980

  16. [16]

    McLerran and R

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

    work page 1994

  17. [17]

    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]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  18. [18]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and E. Levin, Nucl. Phys. B577(2000) 221

    work page 2000

  19. [19]

    M. A. Braun, Eur. Phys. J.C16(2000) 337; M. A. Braun and G. P. Vacca, Eur. Phys. J.C6(1999) 147; J. Bartels, M. Braun and G. P. Vacca, Eur. Phys. J. C40, 419 (2005). J. Bartels, L. N. Lipatov and G. P. Vacca, Nucl. Phys. B706, 391 (2005)

    work page 2000

  20. [20]

    M. A. Braun, Phys. Lett. B483, 115 (2000), Eur. Phys. J. C33, 113 (2004); Phys. Lett. B632, 297 (2006)

    work page 2000

  21. [21]

    Balitsky, Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  22. [22]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  23. [23]

    Reggeon Field Theory for Large Pomeron Loops

    T. Altinoluk, A. Kovner, E. Levin and M. Lublinsky, JHEP04(2014), 075 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)075 [arXiv:1401.7431 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [24]

    QCD Reggeon Calculus From KLWMIJ/JIMWLK Evolution: Vertices, Reggeization and All

    T. Altinoluk, C. Contreras, A. Kovner, E. Levin, M. Lublinsky and A. Shulkin, JHEP09(2013), 115 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2013)115 [arXiv:1306.2794 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  25. [25]

    QCD unitarity constraints on Reggeon Field Theory

    A. Kovner, E. Levin and M. Lublinsky, JHEP08(2016), 031 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)031 [arXiv:1605.03251 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    Kovner and M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  27. [27]

    Jalilian-Marian, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  28. [28]

    Jalilian-Marian, A

    J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov, and H. Weigert,Phys.Rev.D59(1998) 014014,[arXiv:hep-ph/9706377 [hep-ph]]. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  29. [29]

    Kovner, J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  30. [30]

    Iancu, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  31. [31]

    Iancu, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  32. [32]

    Ferreiro, E

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  33. [33]

    Weigert, Nucl

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  34. [34]

    Vector potential versus colour charge density in low-x evolution

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  35. [35]

    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

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    E.LevinandK.Tuchin,Nucl.Phys.B573,833(2000)[hep-ph/9908317]; Nucl.Phys.A691,779(2001)[hep-ph/0012167]; 693, 787 (2001) [hep-ph/0101275]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  37. [37]

    Rare fluctuations and the high-energy limit of the S-matrix in QCD

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  38. [38]

    From Color Glass to Color Dipoles in high-energy onium--onium scattering

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  39. [39]

    Dipole-dipole scattering: summing large Pomeron loops in non-linear evolution with leading twist kernel

    E. Levin, “Dipole-dipole scattering: summing large Pomeron loops in non-linear evolution with leading twist kernel,” [arXiv:2512.21592 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    Dipole-dipole scattering amplitude in CGC approach

    E. Levin, Phys. Rev. D107(2023) no.5, 054012 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.054012 [arXiv:2209.07095 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Summing large Pomeron loops in the saturation region: amplitude and multiplicity distributions for dipole-dipole scattering

    E. Levin, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.11, 116021 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.116021 [arXiv:2409.00761 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

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

    E. Levin, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.9, 096004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.096004 [arXiv:2502.01712 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

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

    E. Levin, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.5, 054033 doi:10.1103/6fgj-hkqq [arXiv:2506.07569 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Reggeon Field Theory and Self Duality: Making Ends Meet

    A. Kovner, E. Levin, M. Li and M. Lublinsky, JHEP10(2020), 185 doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2020)185 [arXiv:2007.12132 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    The JIMWLK evolution and the s-channel unitarity

    A. Kovner, E. Levin, M. Li and M. Lublinsky, JHEP09(2020), 199 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2020)199 [arXiv:2006.15126 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [47]

    Levin and M

    E. Levin and M. Lublinsky, Phys. Lett. B607(2005) 131; Nucl. Phys. A763(2005) 172

    work page 2005

  47. [48]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  48. [49]

    High energy amplitude in the dipole approach with Pomeron loops: asymptotic solution

    E. Levin, Nucl. Phys. A763(2005), 140-171, [arXiv:hep-ph/0502243 [hep-ph]]. NSPIRE as of 25 Apr 2016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  49. [50]

    Rembiesa and A

    P. Rembiesa and A. M. Stasto, Nucl. Phys. B725(2005) 251

    work page 2005

  50. [51]

    Kovner and M

    A. Kovner and M. Lublinsky, Nucl. Phys. A767171 (2006)

    work page 2006

  51. [52]

    A. I. Shoshi and B. W. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 094014

    work page 2006

  52. [53]

    Kozlov and E

    M. Kozlov and E. Levin, Nucl. Phys. A779(2006) 142

    work page 2006

  53. [54]

    Armesto, S

    N. Armesto, S. Bondarenko, J. G. Milhano and P. Quiroga, JHEP 0805 (2008) 103

    work page 2008

  54. [55]

    Levin and A

    E. Levin and A. Prygarin, Eur. Phys. J. C53(2008) 385

    work page 2008

  55. [56]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [57]

    Multiplicity distribution of dipoles in QCD from Le, Mueller and Munier equation

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [58]

    Kovner and M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  58. [59]

    From target to projectile and back again: selfduality of high energy evolution

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  59. [60]

    High-enegy effective action from scattering of QCD shock waves

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  60. [61]

    Hatta, E

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

    work page arXiv 2006

  61. [62]

    From bubbles to foam: dilute to dense evolution of hadronic wave function at high energy

    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]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  62. [63]

    Kovner and M

    A. Kovner and M. Lublinsky Nucl. Phys. A767, 171-188 (2006)

    work page 2006

  63. [64]

    The Energy dependence of the saturation momentum,

    A. H. Mueller and D. N. Triantafyllopoulos,“The Energy dependence of the saturation momentum,”Nucl. Phys. B640 (2002) 331 [hep-ph/0205167]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  64. [65]

    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:1006.4293 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1992

  65. [66]

    Bondarenko, L

    S. Bondarenko, L. Motyka, A. H. Mueller, A. I. Shoshi and B. W. Xiao, Eur. Phys. J. C50(2007), 593-601, [arXiv:hep- ph/0609213 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2007

  66. [67]

    Blaizot, E

    J.-P. Blaizot, E. Iancu and D. N. Triantafyllopoulos, Nucl. Phys. A784(2007) 227

    work page 2007

  67. [68]

    Kovner, E

    A. Kovner, E. Levin and M. Lublinsky, JHEP08(2016), 031

    work page 2016

  68. [69]

    Nuclei in the toy world: beyond the Pomeron in zero transverse dimensions

    A. Kovner, E. Levin and M. Lublinsky, JHEP05, 019 (2022) [arXiv:2201.01551 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  69. [70]

    High energy scattering in the Unitary Toy Model

    A. Kovner, E. Levin and M. Lublinsky„ JHEP10(2024), 127 [arXiv:2406.12691 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [71]

    Particle production in the toy world: multiplicity distribution and entropy

    E. Levin, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) no.1, 016019 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.016019 [arXiv:2412.02504 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [72]

    Borel’s Method of Summability, Theory and Application

    Bruce Shawyer and Bruce Watson,“Borel’s Method of Summability, Theory and Application”, Clarendon Press, Ox- ford,1994; Ovidiu Costin,“Asymptotocs and Borel Summability”, Chapman & HALL/CRC Monographs and Surveys in Pure and Applied Mathematics, CRC Press, Taylor & Frencis Group,2009; http://www1.phys.vt.edu/ ersharpe/spec−f n/app−d.pd f

    work page 1994

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.