Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 9 cited by

Gradient flow for parton distribution functions: first application to the pion

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using gradient flow as an intermediate regulator, lattice QCD computes pion PDF Mellin moment ratios up to order six, with uncertainties competitive with phenomenology.

desk verdict Solid proof-of-principle for gradient-flow PDF moments, but the n=6 central value violates moment ordering and the t→0 extrapolation rests on deferred NNLO coefficients. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02472 v1 pith:NBCZDAFC submitted 2025-09-02 hep-lat hep-exhep-ph

Anthony Francis , Patrick Fritzsch , Robert V. Harlander , Rohith Karur , Jangho Kim , Jonas T. Kohnen , Giovanni Pederiva , Dimitra A. Pefkou
show 4 more authors
Antonio Rago Andrea Shindler André Walker-Loud Savvas Zafeiropoulos
This is my paper
classification hep-lathep-exhep-ph
keywords partondistributionfunctionspionlatticeQCDgradientflowMellinmomentsshortflow-timeexpansiontwist-2operatorsvalencequark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Pion parton distribution functions are hard to determine: pions cannot be used as fixed targets in scattering experiments, and direct lattice QCD calculations of their Mellin moments—the weighted integrals ⟨x^n⟩ that encode the shape of the PDF—are blocked beyond the lowest orders by operator mixing that worsens as the lattice spacing shrinks. This paper gives the first numerical demonstration that the gradient flow, a smoothing evolution of the gauge and fermion fields, removes that obstruction. The authors compute ratios of flavor non-singlet (valence) pion PDF moments up to ⟨x^5⟩/⟨x⟩ on four lattice spacings at m_π ≈ 411 MeV, take the continuum limit, match to the MS scheme at next-to-next-to-leading order, and extrapolate the flow time to zero. Their moment ratios agree quantitatively with recent phenomenological extractions, and a two-parameter reconstruction of the valence PDF gives β ≈ 1. If the method holds, direct lattice determinations of PDF moments can go beyond the previous n≤4 frontier, for the pion and later for the proton, gluon and singlet distributions, and generalized parton distributions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the flowed, traceless, twist-2 operator O_n(t,x), obtained by replacing quark fields in Eq. (2) with gradient-flowed fields. The gradient flow smooths the fields over a physical scale √(8t), with the flow time t serving as an intermediate regulator that makes flowed matrix elements finite. The load-bearing identity is Eq. (3): the ratio of flowed moment matrix elements equals the MS ratio times ζ_m/ζ_n plus O(t) corrections from the short flow-time expansion (SFTX), the operator-product-style expansion of flowed operators in terms of local operators at t=0. The matching coefficients ζ_n(t,µ), computed at NNLO for n up to 6, turn flowed ratios into physical MS ratios; th

What would settle it

On the finest lattice, extend the NNLO-matched ratios to flow times below the (t/t0)_min used in the fits; if the ratios curve instead of following the straight C0+C1 t/t0 line toward t=0, the Table II intercepts are biased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that Eq. (3) is not just a formal relation but a workable lattice route: the ratio of flowed matrix elements of traceless twist-2 operators equals the MS-scheme ratio of Mellin moments times the ratio of matching coefficients ζ_m/ζ_n, up to corrections of order t. The flow time t acts as an intermediate ultraviolet regulator, making flowed matrix elements finite; taking ratios with identical fermion content removes the multiplicative renormalization of flowed fermion fields. Using traceless operators with purely temporal Lorentz indices avoids momentum injection, and a continuum extrapolation at fixed physical flow time removes lattice artifacts. Applying newly computed

Load-bearing premise

The quoted physical values assume that the residual flow-time dependence after NNLO matching is linear in t over the fitted range, that the not-yet-published NNLO coefficients for n=3–6 are correct, and that chiral corrections between m_π≈411 MeV and the physical point are small.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Direct lattice determinations of pion PDF Mellin moments from local operators can extend from n≤4 to n=6, and in principle to arbitrary order, without the noisy multi-directional momentum injection that earlier methods required.
  • With only a few hundred to about eight hundred gauge configurations, the lowest-moment ratios already reach uncertainties comparable to phenomenological fits, so the method is computationally economical.
  • The moment ratios can be incorporated directly into global PDF fits, either in ratio form or as individual moments once the normalization ⟨x⟩ is computed with standard techniques and renormalized via RI-MOM or flowed-fermion renormalization.
  • The same gradient-flow recipe is expected to transfer to proton PDFs, flavor-singlet and gluon PDFs, and generalized parton distributions, since the mechanism does not rely on pion-specific kinematics.
  • The reconstructed valence PDF with β≈1 supports recent determinations of the pion's large-x behavior and gives an explicit target for planned pion-structure measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the linear t→0 extrapolation and the deferred NNLO coefficients are confirmed independently, the Table II ratios become a clean benchmark for testing other lattice actions and other discretizations of twist-2 operators.
  • Repeating the calculation at or near the physical pion mass would be the sharpest test: a large shift in the ratios would signal either chiral corrections the paper treats as small or a bias in the flow-time extrapolation.
  • The four measured ratios are too few to pin down a PDF shape robustly, so the β≈1 result should be read as suggestive; a Bayesian or Gaussian-process reconstruction on the same data could check whether the large-x behavior is truly flat.
  • Because the calculation isolates the connected non-singlet contribution, the agreement with phenomenology tests only the valence sector; extending the method to singlet and gluon distributions will require the renormalized flowed fermion fields the paper flags as a next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first lattice QCD application of the gradient-flow method of Ref. [74] to pion PDF moments. Using four N_f=3 Stabilized Wilson Fermion ensembles at m_pi ≈ 411 MeV (Table I), the authors compute ratios of flavor non-singlet Mellin moments <x^{n-1}>/<x> for n = 3..6 from ground-state matrix elements of flowed, trace-subtracted twist-2 operators with temporal Lorentz indices. They continuum-extrapolate the flowed ratios at fixed flow time assuming O(a^2) cutoff effects (Appendix B), match to the MS scheme at mu = 2 GeV using NNLO short-flow-time matching coefficients (Eq. (3); the n = 3..6 coefficients are deferred to a companion paper), and then extrapolate the matched ratios linearly in t/t0 to t = 0 (Fig. 1). The resulting ratios (Table II) are compared with JAM, xFitter, and FANTO phenomenological extractions and used to reconstruct q_v(x) via a two-parameter ansatz x^alpha (1-x)^beta. The paper claims quantitative agreement with phenomenology and presents the method as a practical solution to the long-standing hypercubic-mixing problem for higher moments.

Significance. If confirmed, the method is a genuine advance: it evades the power-divergent mixing that has limited local-operator computations to low n, avoids the signal-to-noise problems of multi-directional momentum injections, and does so at modest computational cost. The choice of temporal operators and the use of ratios that cancel multiplicative renormalization are clean simplifications. The paper is notably honest: excited-state contamination is treated conservatively, the PDF reconstruction is labeled illustrative, and the pion-mass dependence is flagged as a limitation. On the other hand, the central numbers in Table II rest on two pieces of support that are not yet in the paper: the unpublished NNLO matching coefficients for n = 3..6 and the assumption that the residual flow-time dependence is linear. The internal evidence already shows a stress signal: <x^5>/<x> = 0.158(39) exceeds <x^4>/<x> = 0.130(43), violating an exact inequality for nonnegative PDFs (albeit within 1 sigma). These issues are addressable and do not invalidate the method's promise, but they must be resolved before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Moment results (Fig. 1, Table II)] The t->0 intercept is the load-bearing step. The NNLO-matched continuum data are fit with C0 + C1 t/t0 over ranges extending to t/t0 ≈ 2.6, with ranges selected by p>0.1 and a minimum span; no estimate of the SFTX O(t) truncation error or of curvature is given. Table II's central values violate the exact bound <x^5>/<x> < <x^4>/<x> (0.158(39) vs 0.130(43)), which holds for any nonnegative PDF on [0,1]. The violation is within 1 sigma, but it signals that the linear intercepts are already biased. Please (i) test stability under a quadratic term in t/t0, (ii) report whether the finite-t matched continuum ratios respect this ordering, and (iii) either justify the n=6 result or remove it from the central claims.
  2. [Flowed moments (Eq. (3))] All physical results use NNLO matching coefficients zeta_n(t,mu) for n = 3..6 that are not presented; the manuscript defers them to a forthcoming publication. They are applied at t/t0 up to ~2.6, where the NLO-to-NNLO shift is about 5%, and the reader cannot verify the values or the quoted agreement. The stated checks (agreement with known n=1,2 results; gauge-parameter independence) are necessary but not sufficient. Please provide the coefficients in an appendix or supplementary material, or alternatively present NLO-matched results as primary and treat NNLO as a systematic shift.
  3. [Abstract and Fig. 2] The claim of 'quantitative agreement' with phenomenology overstates the evidence. The comparison is at m_pi ≈ 411 MeV with chiral corrections estimated from older quenched/lattice fits (SM, Fig. 5) that are not propagated as a systematic uncertainty, and the compared ratios inherit the same t->0 intercepts whose robustness is the concern above. The consistency is encouraging, but the conclusion should be phrased as agreement within current large uncertainties under the assumed chiral behavior, pending the requested stability checks.
  4. [Appendix B (Continuum limit)] The continuum extrapolation uses an O(a^2) ansatz, but the subset of lattice spacings entering the fit and the minimum flow time (t/t0)_min are selected per n by inspection (lighter points in Fig. 4 are excluded), and the statement that a 'more sophisticated analysis' gives consistent results is not documented. Please specify the selection criterion explicitly and include the alternative analysis or its results, so that the continuum values feeding the t->0 fit are reproducible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The printed formula is garbled ('(-1)^{n-m} m^{n-m} ...'); please check the typeset kinematic factor that relates the ratio of matrix elements to the moment ratio.
  2. [PDF reconstruction] The fit parameters alpha, beta in Table II are prior-dependent (the text notes strong sensitivity to the prior width of alpha); label them as such, and note that the statement that excluding n=6 'has little impact' is difficult to reconcile with the non-monotonic <x^5>/<x> central value.
  3. [Moment results / SM Fig. 5] The chiral-dependence comparison uses fits from Ref. [97] with covariances neglected and unrenormalized moments; this limitation should be stated in the main text when the mild pion-mass dependence is invoked.
  4. [Table III] The comparison with other lattice determinations mixes different N_f, m_pi, and renormalization schemes; please state the scheme of each entry (or add a column) so that the assessment of discrepancies is transparent.
  5. [Appendix A] The excited-state analysis is described as giving results 'consistent' with plateau fits, but with the present precision the contamination 'cannot be resolved'; given that Table II carries a systematic from the plateau spread, a quantitative bound or a two-state fit result would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: the central moment ratios come from lattice three-point data, are matched with perturbative coefficients, and are benchmarked against independent phenomenological extractions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the extraction of the pion PDF moment ratios <x^{n-1}>/<x> from lattice QCD using the gradient-flow method. The chain is: (i) compute flowed three-point functions on the lattice (Eqs. 4-6), (ii) take the continuum limit at fixed flow time (Eq. 11), (iii) multiply by perturbative matching coefficients in Eq. (3), and (iv) linearly extrapolate in t/t0 to obtain the physical ratios. None of these steps fits a parameter to the phenomenological values with which the results are compared (JAM, xFitter, FANTO). The t→0 intercept is a fitted parameter in the linear extrapolation, but this is the standard extraction of the same observable at the physical point, not a prediction of a separate quantity that is statistically forced to agree. The flowed ratios themselves are genuine lattice data; the agreement with phenomenology in Fig. 2 and Table III is therefore informative rather than tautological. The main verifiability gap is the NNLO matching coefficients for n=3,...,6, which are computed but deferred to a forthcoming companion paper [90] by the same authors. This is an omitted derivation and a self-referential pipeline element, but it is not circular: the coefficients are determined perturbatively, checked against known results for n=1,2 and for gauge-parameter independence, and are not tuned to the lattice data or to the phenomenological targets. The same-author method paper [74] is the proposal that this work explicitly applies, so citing it is natural and does not provide the load-bearing justification; no uniqueness theorem is invoked to exclude alternatives. The PDF reconstruction using the ansatz Eq. (7) is explicitly labeled illustrative, with acknowledged prior sensitivity, so it is not presented as a forced prediction. For completeness, the n=6 central value in Table II violates the expected moment-ordering inequality for a positive PDF, and the NNLO coefficients remain unpublished, but these are correctness/verifiability concerns, not evidence that the derivation is equivalent to its inputs. Overall, the central result is anchored by externally benchmarked lattice data, so circularity is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard lattice QCD methodology plus several analysis-specific assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced. The most fragile items are the truncated SFTX/t->0 extrapolation and the unpublished NNLO coefficients. The PDF reconstruction fit introduces two fitted shape parameters, alpha and beta, with prior sensitivity.

free parameters (4)
  • C0 (t->0 intercept for each moment ratio) = Table II: 0.433(14), 0.275(23), 0.130(43), 0.158(39)
    Fitted in Fig. 1 as the constant term of C0 + C1 t/t0; the final quoted ratios are these intercepts, so the result depends on the linear-in-t model.
  • C1 (linear slope in t/t0) = not quoted in text
    Second parameter of the linear fits in Fig. 1; its value affects the intercept uncertainty and the extrapolation.
  • alpha (PDF reconstruction exponent) = -0.48(10) (nmax=6), -0.47(11) (nmax=5)
    Fitted to the moment ratios via ansatz qv(x) ~ x^alpha (1-x)^beta; the paper states the fit is 'highly sensitive to the prior width of alpha', so this is a prior-dependent fitted value, not a prediction.
  • beta (PDF reconstruction exponent) = 0.93(16) (nmax=6), 0.97(17) (nmax=5)
    Fitted simultaneously with alpha in the same reconstruction; labeled illustrative by the authors.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Short flow-time expansion with O(t) truncation and linear residual t-dependence (Eq. 3 and Fig. 1).
    The physical moment ratios are the t->0 limit of NNLO-matched flowed ratios. The fit C0 + C1 t/t0 assumes no significant O(t^2) or log(t) terms in the fitted range; if such terms matter, the intercepts in Table II are biased. Invoked in 'Flowed moments' and 'Moment results'.
  • domain assumption Ground-state dominance in the spectral decomposition (Eq. 10) and conservative plateau average.
    The extraction of An(t)/A2(t) from three-point functions assumes tau_s >> tau_O >> 0 with the flow-time footprint sqrt(8t) small; the paper notes enhanced correlated fluctuations on some ensembles and that excited states cannot be resolved with current statistics.
  • domain assumption O(a^2) scaling of cutoff effects for ratios of flowed moments (Eq. 11).
    The continuum extrapolation assumes that O(am) effects cancel and only power-enhanced a^2/t and O(a^2) terms remain, as argued in Appendix B. If residual O(a) effects survive, the a->0 limits drawn in Fig. 4 are wrong.
  • domain assumption Mild pion-mass dependence of the moment ratios between 411 MeV and the physical point.
    The qualitative agreement with phenomenological extractions at the physical pion mass depends on chiral corrections from Ref [97] (older fits, no covariances); the paper concedes more physical-point data are needed.
  • ad hoc to paper Correctness of the unpublished NNLO matching coefficients zeta_n(t,mu) for n = 3..6.
    The final Table II values are obtained using these coefficients, but the paper defers their derivation to Ref [90]; they cannot be checked from this text and are new results of the same authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gradient flow for parton distribution functions: first application to the pion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NBCZDAFC

@misc{pith2026250902472,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gradient flow for parton distribution functions: first application to the pion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NBCZDAFC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02472}
}
abstract

Parton distribution functions (PDFs) are central to precision QCD phenomenology. Their Mellin moments can be computed on the lattice, but direct determinations using local operators, besides $\langle x \rangle$, face severe challenges from reduced hypercubic symmetry, limiting results to the lowest moments. A recently proposed method resolves these issues using gradient flow. We demonstrate the efficacy of this method by computing ratios of flavor non-singlet pion PDF moments up to $\langle x^5 \rangle$, on four lattice spacings at $m_\pi \simeq 411$ MeV. The moments and reconstructed PDF agree quantitatively with recent phenomenological extractions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02472 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Continuum-extrapolated ratios of Mellin moments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of our continuum-extrapolated results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Reconstructed pion valence PDF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ratios of flowed Mellin moments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Pion mass dependence of the ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

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

  1. The perturbative Ricci flow in gravity

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0 of 10

    A perturbative Ricci-flow formulation in gravity yields a renormalization scheme for Newton's constant that exhibits a non-Gaussian fixed point at two-loop order.

  2. The nucleon unpolarized generalized form factors and Mellin moments up to fourth order

    hep-lat 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    First lattice-QCD extraction of nucleon unpolarized Mellin moments through fourth order at physical pion mass, with GFF Q^{2} dependence and a reconstructed isovector valence PDF.

  3. Gradient Flow Renormalization Schemes for Composite Fermion Operators

    hep-lat 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    New A and V gradient flow schemes enable nonperturbative renormalization of composite fermion operators via conserved currents and ratios of correlation functions, demonstrated on domain-wall ensembles for Z_V/Z_A and...

  4. Mellin Moments of Pion and Kaon Unpolarized PDFs from Nonlocal Operators in Lattice QCD

    hep-lat 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    First lattice QCD results for Mellin moments of pion and kaon unpolarized PDFs from nonlocal operator matrix elements on a 32^3×64 twisted-mass ensemble at m_π=260 MeV, extracted at NNLO and μ=2 GeV.

  5. Constraining DVCS Compton Form Factors Using Lattice QCD informed Neural Network

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A neural network framework informed by lattice QCD uses all-order dispersion relations to significantly constrain both real and imaginary parts of Compton Form Factors extracted from DVCS proton data.

  6. Pion and Kaon PDFs from Lattice QCD via Large Momentum Effective Theory and Short-Distance Factorization

    hep-lat 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Lattice QCD calculation of pion and kaon unpolarized quark PDFs on a 32^3×64 ensemble with 260 MeV pion mass, using LaMET and SDF matching at boosts up to 2.07 GeV.

  7. Pion Parton Distribution Functions in the Light-Cone Quark Model and Experimental Constraints

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Pion valence quark PDFs from the light-cone quark model are evolved with DGLAP and shown to match experimental data, enabling first NLO F2 predictions and Drell-Yan cross-section estimates.

  8. Hadron Structure from lattice QCD in the context of the Electron-Ion Collider

    hep-lat 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    Lattice QCD now delivers high-precision results on hadron internal structure that directly support the scientific program of the Electron-Ion Collider.

  9. Precision QCD with the Electron-Ion Collider

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    A workshop summary report outlines discussion topics in perturbative QCD, nuclear structure, and related techniques for the upcoming Electron-Ion Collider.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 9 Pith papers

  1. [74]

    Shindler, Moments of parton distribution functions of any order from lattice QCD, Phys

    A. Shindler, Moments of parton distribution functions of any order from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D110, L051503 (2024), arXiv:2311.18704 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Amoroso et al., Snowmass 2021 Whitepaper: Proton Structure at the Precision Frontier, Acta Phys

    S. Amoroso et al., Snowmass 2021 Whitepaper: Proton Structure at the Precision Frontier, Acta Phys. Polon. B 53, 12 (2022), arXiv:2203.13923 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [2]

    J. S. Conway et al., Experimental Study of Muon Pairs Produced by 252-GeV Pions on Tungsten, Phys. Rev. D 39, 92 (1989)

    1989

  4. [3]

    Betev et al

    B. Betev et al. (NA10), Differential Cross-section of High Mass Muon Pairs Produced by a 194-GeV/ cπ− Beam on a Tungsten Target, Z. Phys. C 28, 9 (1985)

    1985

  5. [4]

    J. F. Owens, Q**2 Dependent Parametrizations of Pion Parton Distribution Functions, Phys. Rev. D 30, 943 (1984)

    1984

  6. [5]

    Aurenche, R

    P. Aurenche, R. Baier, M. Fontannaz, M. Kienzle- Focacci, and M. Werlen, The gluon content of the pion from high-pt photon production, Physics Letters B 233, 517 (1989)

    1989

  7. [6]

    P. J. Sutton, A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, and W. J. Stirling, Parton distributions for the pion extracted from Drell-Yan and prompt photon experiments, Phys. Rev. D 45, 2349 (1992)

    1992

  8. [7]

    Gl¨ uck, E

    M. Gl¨ uck, E. Reya, and A. Vogt, Pionic parton distri- butions, Z. Phys. C 53, 651 (1992)

    1992

Show all 130 references
  1. [8]

    Wijesooriya, P

    K. Wijesooriya, P. E. Reimer, and R. J. Holt, The pion parton distribution function in the valence region, Phys. Rev. C 72, 065203 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0509012

    2005 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Novikov et al

    I. Novikov et al. , Parton Distribution Functions of the Charged Pion Within The xFitter Framework, Phys. Rev. D 102, 014040 (2020), arXiv:2002.02902 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [10]

    F. D. Aaron et al. (H1), Measurement of Leading Neu- tron Production in Deep-Inelastic Scattering at HERA, Eur. Phys. J. C 68, 381 (2010), arXiv:1001.0532 [hep- ex]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Chekanov et al

    S. Chekanov et al. (ZEUS), Leading neutron production in e+ p collisions at HERA, Nucl. Phys. B637, 3 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0205076

    2002 arXiv

  5. [12]

    P. C. Barry, N. Sato, W. Melnitchouk, and C.-R. Ji, First Monte Carlo Global QCD Analysis of Pion Par- ton Distributions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 152001 (2018), arXiv:1804.01965 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [13]

    N. Y. Cao, P. C. Barry, N. Sato, and W. Melnitchouk (Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum), Towards the three- dimensional parton structure of the pion: Integrating transverse momentum data into global QCD analysis, Phys. Rev. D 103, 114014 (2021), arXiv:2103.02159 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [14]

    P. C. Barry, C.-R. Ji, N. Sato, and W. Melnitchouk (Jef- ferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM)), Global QCD Analysis of Pion Parton Distributions with Threshold Resummation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 232001 (2021), arXiv:2108.05822 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Aicher, A

    M. Aicher, A. Sch¨ afer, and W. Vogelsang, Soft-gluon resummation and the valence parton distribution func- tion of the pion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252003 (2010), arXiv:1009.2481 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Westmark and J

    D. Westmark and J. F. Owens, Enhanced threshold re- summation formalism for lepton pair production and its 7 effects in the determination of parton distribution func- tions, Phys. Rev. D95, 056024 (2017), arXiv:1701.06716 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [17]

    L. Kotz, A. Courtoy, P. Nadolsky, F. Olness, and M. Ponce-Chavez, Analysis of parton distributions in a pion with B´ ezier parametrizations, Phys. Rev. D109, 074027 (2024), arXiv:2311.08447 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [18]

    L. Kotz, A. Courtoy, P. Nadolsky, and M. Ponce- Chavez, Fantˆ omas: epistemic and nuclear uncertain- ties for the parton distributions of the pion (2025), arXiv:2505.13594 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [19]

    R. A. Montgomery, J. R. M. Annand, D. Dutta, C. E. Keppel, P. King, B. Wojtsekhowski, and J. Zhang (TDIS, SBS), Proposed measurement of tagged deep in- elastic scattering in Hall A of Jefferson lab, AIP Conf. Proc. 1819, 030004 (2017)

    2017

  13. [20]

    Abdul Khalek et al

    R. Abdul Khalek et al. , Science Requirements and De- tector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report, Nucl. Phys. A 1026, 122447 (2022), arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Arrington et al., Revealing the structure of light pseu- doscalar mesons at the electron–ion collider, J

    J. Arrington et al., Revealing the structure of light pseu- doscalar mesons at the electron–ion collider, J. Phys. G 48, 075106 (2021), arXiv:2102.11788 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Z. F. Ezawa, Wide-Angle Scattering in Softened Field Theory, Nuovo Cim. A 23, 271 (1974)

    1974

  16. [23]

    P. V. Landshoff and J. C. Polkinghorne, Threshold prop- erties of electroproduction and annihilation, Nucl. Phys. B 53, 473 (1973)

    1973

  17. [24]

    J. F. Gunion, S. J. Brodsky, and R. Blankenbecler, Large Angle Scattering and the Interchange Force, Phys. Rev. D 8, 287 (1973)

    1973

  18. [25]

    G. R. Farrar and D. R. Jackson, The Pion Form-Factor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 246 (1979)

    1979

  19. [26]

    E. L. Berger and S. J. Brodsky, Quark Structure Func- tions of Mesons and the Drell-Yan Process, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 940 (1979)

    1979

  20. [27]

    Shigetani, K

    T. Shigetani, K. Suzuki, and H. Toki, Pion structure function in the Nambu and Jona-Lasinio model, Phys. Lett. B 308, 383 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9402286

    1993 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Szczepaniak, C.-R

    A. Szczepaniak, C.-R. Ji, and S. R. Cotanch, General- ized relativistic meson wave function, Phys. Rev. D 49, 3466 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9309284

    1994 arXiv

  22. [29]

    R. M. Davidson and E. Ruiz Arriola, Structure functions of pseudoscalar mesons in the SU(3) NJL model, Phys. Lett. B 348, 163 (1995)

    1995

  23. [30]

    M. B. Hecht, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Valence quark distributions in the pion, Phys. Rev. C63, 025213 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0008049

    2001 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Melnitchouk, Quark hadron duality in electron pion scattering, Eur

    W. Melnitchouk, Quark hadron duality in electron pion scattering, Eur. Phys. J. A 17, 223 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0208258

    2003

  25. [32]

    Noguera and S

    S. Noguera and S. Scopetta, Pion transverse momentum dependent parton distributions in the Nambu and Jona- Lasinio model, JHEP 11, 102, arXiv:1508.01061 [hep- ph]

    arXiv

  26. [33]

    P. T. P. Hutauruk, I. C. Cloet, and A. W. Thomas, Fla- vor dependence of the pion and kaon form factors and parton distribution functions, Phys. Rev. C 94, 035201 (2016), arXiv:1604.02853 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [34]

    T. J. Hobbs, Quantifying finite-momentum effects in the quark quasidistribution functions of mesons, Phys. Rev. D 97, 054028 (2018), arXiv:1708.05463 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [35]

    G. F. de Teramond, T. Liu, R. S. Sufian, H. G. Dosch, S. J. Brodsky, and A. Deur (HLFHS), Universality of Generalized Parton Distributions in Light-Front Holo- graphic QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 182001 (2018), arXiv:1801.09154 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [36]

    K. D. Bednar, I. C. Clo¨ et, and P. C. Tandy, Distin- guishing Quarks and Gluons in Pion and Kaon Parton Distribution Functions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 042002 (2020), arXiv:1811.12310 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [37]

    J. Lan, C. Mondal, S. Jia, X. Zhao, and J. P. Vary, Par- ton Distribution Functions from a Light Front Hamilto- nian and QCD Evolution for Light Mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 172001 (2019), arXiv:1901.11430 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [38]

    J. Lan, C. Mondal, S. Jia, X. Zhao, and J. P. Vary, Pion and kaon parton distribution functions from basis light front quantization and QCD evolution, Phys. Rev. D 101, 034024 (2020), arXiv:1907.01509 [nucl-th]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Chang, K

    L. Chang, K. Raya, and X. Wang, Pion Parton Distribu- tion Function in Light-Front Holographic QCD, Chin. Phys. C 44, 114105 (2020), arXiv:2001.07352 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Z.-F. Cui, M. Ding, F. Gao, K. Raya, D. Binosi, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero, and S. M. Schmidt, Kaon and pion parton distributions, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1064 (2020)

    2020

  34. [41]

    A. Kock, Y. Liu, and I. Zahed, Pion and kaon parton distributions in the QCD instanton vacuum, Phys. Rev. D 102, 014039 (2020), arXiv:2004.01595 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Z. F. Cui, M. Ding, J. M. Morgado, K. Raya, D. Binosi, L. Chang, F. De Soto, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr ´ ıguez- Quintero, and S. M. Schmidt, Emergence of pion par- ton distributions, Phys. Rev. D 105, L091502 (2022), arXiv:2201.00884 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Albino, I

    L. Albino, I. M. Higuera-Angulo, K. Raya, and A. Bashir, Pseudoscalar mesons: Light front wave func- tions, GPDs, and PDFs, Phys. Rev. D 106, 034003 (2022), arXiv:2207.06550 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Ahmady, S

    M. Ahmady, S. Kaur, C. Mondal, and R. San- dapen, Pion spectroscopy and dynamics using the holo- graphic light-front Schr¨ odinger equation and the ’t Hooft equation, Phys. Lett. B 836, 137628 (2023), arXiv:2208.08405 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Pasquini, S

    B. Pasquini, S. Rodini, and S. Venturini (MAP (Multi- dimensional Analyses of Partonic distributions)), Va- lence quark, sea, and gluon content of the pion from the parton distribution functions and the electromag- netic form factor, Phys. Rev. D 107, 114023 (2023), arXiv:2303...

    2023 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Lu, Y.-Z

    Y. Lu, Y.-Z. Xu, K. Raya, C. D. Roberts, and J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero, Pion distribution functions from low-order Mellin moments, Phys. Lett. B 850, 138534 (2024), arXiv:2311.08565 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [47]

    A. S. Francis, F. Cuteri, P. Fritzsch, G. Ped- eriva, A. Rago, A. Shindler, A. Walker-Loud, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Properties, ensembles and hadron spectra with Stabilised Wilson Fermions, PoS LA T- TICE2021, 118 (2022), arXiv:2201.03874 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Cuteri, A

    F. Cuteri, A. S. Francis, P. Fritzsch, G. Ped- eriva, A. Rago, A. Shindler, A. Walker-Loud, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Gauge generation and dissemina- tion in OpenLat, PoS LA TTICE2022, 426 (2023), arXiv:2212.07314 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Cuteri, A

    F. Cuteri, A. Francis, P. Fritzsch, G. Pederiva, A. Rago, A. Shindler, A. Walker-Loud, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Benchmark Continuum Limit Results for Spectroscopy with Stabilized Wilson Fermions, PoSLA TTICE2022, 074 (2023), arXiv:2212.11048 [hep-lat]. 8

    2023 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Francis, F

    A. Francis, F. Cuteri, P. Fritzsch, G. Pederiva, A. Rago, A. Shindler, A. Walker-Loud, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Progress in generating gauge ensembles with Stabilized Wilson Fermions, PoS LA TTICE2023, 048 (2024), arXiv:2312.11298 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [51]

    A. S. Kronfeld and D. M. Photiadis, Phenomenology on the Lattice: Composite Operators in Lattice Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. D 31, 2939 (1985)

    1985

  45. [52]

    Martinelli and C

    G. Martinelli and C. T. Sachrajda, Pion Structure Func- tions From Lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B196, 184 (1987)

    1987

  46. [53]

    Martinelli and C

    G. Martinelli and C. T. Sachrajda, A Lattice Study of Nucleon Structure, Nucl. Phys. B 316, 355 (1989)

    1989

  47. [54]

    Aglietti, M

    U. Aglietti, M. Ciuchini, G. Corbo, E. Franco, G. Mar- tinelli, and L. Silvestrini, Model independent determi- nation of the shape function for inclusive B decays and of the structure functions in DIS, Phys. Lett. B 432, 411 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9804416

    1998 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Detmold and C

    W. Detmold and C. J. D. Lin, Deep-inelastic scatter- ing and the operator product expansion in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 73, 014501 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0507007

    2006 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Ji, Parton Physics on a Euclidean Lattice, Phys

    X. Ji, Parton Physics on a Euclidean Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 262002 (2013), arXiv:1305.1539 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Monahan and K

    C. Monahan and K. Orginos, Locally smeared operator product expansions in scalar field theory, Phys. Rev. D 91, 074513 (2015), arXiv:1501.05348 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Radyushkin, Nonperturbative Evolution of Parton Quasi-Distributions, Phys

    A. Radyushkin, Nonperturbative Evolution of Parton Quasi-Distributions, Phys. Lett. B 767, 314 (2017), arXiv:1612.05170 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Orginos, A

    K. Orginos, A. Radyushkin, J. Karpie, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Lattice QCD exploration of par- ton pseudo-distribution functions, Phys. Rev. D 96, 094503 (2017), arXiv:1706.05373 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  53. [60]

    A. J. Chambers, R. Horsley, Y. Nakamura, H. Perlt, P. E. L. Rakow, G. Schierholz, A. Schiller, K. Som- fleth, R. D. Young, and J. M. Zanotti, Nucleon Struc- ture Functions from Operator Product Expansion on the Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 242001 (2017), arXiv:1703.01153 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Braun and D

    V. Braun and D. M¨ uller, Exclusive processes in position space and the pion distribution amplitude, Eur. Phys. J. C 55, 349 (2008), arXiv:0709.1348 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Ma and J.-W

    Y.-Q. Ma and J.-W. Qiu, Extracting Parton Distribu- tion Functions from Lattice QCD Calculations, Phys. Rev. D 98, 074021 (2018), arXiv:1404.6860 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Liang, T

    J. Liang, T. Draper, K.-F. Liu, A. Rothkopf, and Y.- B. Yang (XQCD), Towards the nucleon hadronic tensor from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 101, 114503 (2020), arXiv:1906.05312 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Izubuchi, X

    T. Izubuchi, X. Ji, L. Jin, I. W. Stewart, and Y. Zhao, Factorization Theorem Relating Euclidean and Light- Cone Parton Distributions, Phys. Rev. D 98, 056004 (2018), arXiv:1801.03917 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Karpie, K

    J. Karpie, K. Orginos, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Moments of Ioffe time parton distribution functions from non-local matrix elements, JHEP 11, 178, arXiv:1807.10933 [hep- lat]

    arXiv

  59. [66]

    Jo´ o, J

    B. Jo´ o, J. Karpie, K. Orginos, A. Radyushkin, D. Richards, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Parton Distribution Functions from Ioffe time pseudo-distributions, JHEP 12, 081, arXiv:1908.09771 [hep-lat]

    1908 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Jo´ o, J

    B. Jo´ o, J. Karpie, K. Orginos, A. V. Radyushkin, D. G. Richards, R. S. Sufian, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Pion valence structure from Ioffe-time parton pseudodistri- bution functions, Phys. Rev. D 100, 114512 (2019), arXiv:1909.08517 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Jo´ o, J

    B. Jo´ o, J. Karpie, K. Orginos, A. V. Radyushkin, D. G. Richards, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Parton Distribution Functions from Ioffe Time Pseudodistributions from Lattice Calculations: Approaching the Physical Point, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 232003 (2020), arXiv:2004.01687 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Z. Fan, X. Gao, R. Li, H.-W. Lin, N. Karthik, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, S. Syritsyn, Y.-B. Yang, and R. Zhang, Isovector parton distribution functions of the proton on a superfine lattice, Phys. Rev. D 102, 074504 (2020), arXiv:2005.12015 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Egerer et al

    C. Egerer et al. (HadStruc), Transversity parton dis- tribution function of the nucleon using the pseudodis- tribution approach, Phys. Rev. D 105, 034507 (2022), arXiv:2111.01808 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [71]

    X. Gao, A. D. Hanlon, N. Karthik, S. Mukherjee, P. Pe- treczky, P. Scior, S. Shi, S. Syritsyn, Y. Zhao, and K. Zhou, Continuum-extrapolated NNLO valence PDF of the pion at the physical point, Phys. Rev. D 106, 114510 (2022), arXiv:2208.02297 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  65. [72]

    X. Gao, A. D. Hanlon, J. Holligan, N. Karthik, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, S. Syritsyn, and Y. Zhao, Unpolarized proton PDF at NNLO from lattice QCD with physical quark masses, Phys. Rev. D 107, 074509 (2023), arXiv:2212.12569 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Dutrieux, R

    H. Dutrieux, R. G. Edwards, C. Egerer, J. Karpie, C. Monahan, K. Orginos, A. Radyushkin, D. Richards, E. Romero, and S. Zafeiropoulos (HadStruc), Towards unpolarized GPDs from pseudo-distributions, JHEP 08, 162, arXiv:2405.10304 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    P. C. Barry et al. (Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM), HadStruc), Complementarity of experimental and lattice QCD data on pion parton distributions, Phys. Rev. D 105, 114051 (2022), arXiv:2204.00543 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Narayanan and H

    R. Narayanan and H. Neuberger, Infinite N phase transitions in continuum Wilson loop operators, JHEP 0603, 064, arXiv:hep-th/0601210 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  69. [77]

    L¨ uscher, Properties and uses of the Wilson flow in lattice QCD, JHEP 08, 071, [Erratum: JHEP 03, 092 (2014)], arXiv:1006.4518 [hep-lat]

    M. L¨ uscher, Properties and uses of the Wilson flow in lattice QCD, JHEP 08, 071, [Erratum: JHEP 03, 092 (2014)], arXiv:1006.4518 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  70. [78]

    L¨ uscher and P

    M. L¨ uscher and P. Weisz, Perturbative analysis of the gradient flow in non-abelian gauge theories, JHEP 02, 051, arXiv:1101.0963 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  71. [79]

    L¨ uscher, Chiral symmetry and the Yang–Mills gra- dient flow, JHEP 04, 123, arXiv:1302.5246 [hep-lat]

    M. L¨ uscher, Chiral symmetry and the Yang–Mills gra- dient flow, JHEP 04, 123, arXiv:1302.5246 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Suzuki, Energy–momentum tensor from the Yang–Mills gradient flow, PTEP 2013, 083B03 (2013), [Erratum: PTEP 2015, 079201 (2015)], arXiv:1304.0533 [hep-lat]

    H. Suzuki, Energy–momentum tensor from the Yang–Mills gradient flow, PTEP 2013, 083B03 (2013), [Erratum: PTEP 2015, 079201 (2015)], arXiv:1304.0533 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  73. [81]

    L¨ uscher, Future applications of the Yang-Mills gra- dient flow in lattice QCD, PoS LA TTICE2013, 016 (2014), arXiv:1308.5598 [hep-lat]

    M. L¨ uscher, Future applications of the Yang-Mills gra- dient flow in lattice QCD, PoS LA TTICE2013, 016 (2014), arXiv:1308.5598 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  74. [82]

    S. G. Gorishnii, S. A. Larin, and F. V. Tkachov, The al- gorithm for OPE coefficient functions in the MS scheme, Phys. Lett. B 124, 217 (1983)

    1983

  75. [83]

    S. G. Gorishnii and S. A. Larin, Coefficient functions of asymptotic operator expansions in minimal subtraction scheme, Nucl. Phys. B 283, 452 (1987)

    1987

  76. [84]

    R. V. Harlander, Y. Kluth, and F. Lange, The two- 9 loop energy–momentum tensor within the gradient-flow formalism, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 944 (2018), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 79, 858 (2019)], arXiv:1808.09837 [hep- lat]

    2018 arXiv

  77. [85]

    J. Artz, R. V. Harlander, F. Lange, T. Neumann, and M. Prausa, Results and techniques for higher order cal- culations within the gradient-flow formalism, JHEP 06, 121, [Erratum: JHEP 10, 032 (2019)], arXiv:1905.00882 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  78. [86]

    E. G. Floratos, D. A. Ross, and C. T. Sachrajda, Higher order effects in asymptotically free gauge theories: The anomalous dimensions of Wilson operators, Nucl. Phys. B 129, 66 (1977), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 139, 545–546 (1978)]

    1977

  79. [87]

    Gonzalez-Arroyo, C

    A. Gonzalez-Arroyo, C. Lopez, and F. J. Yndurain, Second order contributions to the structure functions in deep inelastic scattering. 1. Theoretical calculations, Nucl. Phys. B 153, 161 (1979)

    1979

  80. [88]

    Makino and H

    H. Makino and H. Suzuki, Lattice energy–momentum tensor from the Yang–Mills gradient flow—inclusion of fermion fields, PTEP 2014, 063B02 (2014), [Erratum: PTEP 2015, 079202 (2015)], arXiv:1403.4772 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Borgulat, R

    J. Borgulat, R. V. Harlander, J. T. Kohnen, and F. Lange, Short-flow-time expansion of quark bilinears through next-to-next-to-leading order QCD, JHEP 05, 179, arXiv:2311.16799 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  82. [90]

    Francis, P

    A. Francis, P. Fritzsch, R. Karur, J. Kim, G. Pederiva, D. A. Pefkou, A. Rago, A. Shindler, A. Walker-Loud, and S. Zafeiropoulos, (in preparation),

  83. [91]

    Aoki et al

    Y. Aoki et al. (Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), FLAG Review 2024 (2024), arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Blum et al

    T. Blum et al. (RBC, UKQCD), Domain wall QCD with physical quark masses, Phys. Rev. D 93, 074505 (2016), arXiv:1411.7017 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  85. [93]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, P. Georg, D. Jenkins, P. Kor- cyl, A. Sch¨ afer, E. E. Scholz, J. Simeth, W. S¨ oldner, and S. Weish¨ aupl (RQCD), Scale setting and the light baryon spectrum in N f = 2 + 1 QCD with Wilson fermions, JHEP 05, 035, arXiv:2211.03744 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  86. [94]

    Bruno, T

    M. Bruno, T. Korzec, and S. Schaefer, Setting the scale for the CLS 2 + 1 flavor ensembles, Phys. Rev. D 95, 074504 (2017), arXiv:1608.08900 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Bors´ anyi, S

    S. Bors´ anyi, S. D¨ urr, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, T. Kurth, L. Lellouch, T. Lippert, and C. McNeile (BMW), High-precision scale setting in lat- tice QCD, JHEP 09, 010, arXiv:1203.4469 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  88. [96]

    Brommel, M

    D. Brommel, M. Diehl, M. G¨ ockeler, P. Hagler, R. Hors- ley, D. Pleiter, P. E. L. Rakow, A. Sch¨ afer, G. Schier- holz, and J. M. Zanotti, Structure of the pion from full lattice QCD, PoS LA T2005, 360 (2006), arXiv:hep- lat/0509133

    2006

  89. [97]

    Brommel, Pion Structure from the Lattice, Ph.D

    D. Brommel, Pion Structure from the Lattice, Ph.D. the- sis, Regensburg U. (2007)

    2007

  90. [98]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, I. Cloet, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, G. Koutsou, and C. Lauer (ETM), Mellin moments ⟨x⟩ and ⟨x2⟩ for the pion and kaon from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 103, 014508 (2021), arXiv:2010.03495 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, I. Clo¨ et, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, G. Koutsou, and C. Lauer (ETM), Pion and kaon ⟨x3⟩ from lattice QCD and PDF re- construction from Mellin moments, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054504 (2021), arXiv:2104.02247 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Detmold, W

    W. Detmold, W. Melnitchouk, and A. W. Thomas, Par- ton distribution functions in the pion from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 68, 034025 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0303015

    2003 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Martinelli, C

    G. Martinelli, C. Pittori, C. T. Sachrajda, M. Testa, and A. Vladikas, A general method for nonperturbative renormalization of lattice operators, Nucl. Phys. B 445, 81 (1995), arXiv:hep-lat/9411010

    1995 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Martinelli, S

    G. Martinelli, S. Petrarca, C. T. Sachrajda, and A. Vladikas, Nonperturbative renormalization of two quark operators with an improved lattice fermion action, Phys. Lett. B 311, 241 (1993), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 317, 660 (1993)]

    1993

  95. [103]

    Dutrieux, J

    H. Dutrieux, J. Karpie, K. Orginos, and S. Zafeiropou- los, Simple nonparametric reconstruction of parton dis- tributions from limited Fourier information, Phys. Rev. D 111, 034515 (2025), arXiv:2412.05227 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Candido, L

    A. Candido, L. Del Debbio, T. Giani, and G. Petrillo, Bayesian inference with Gaussian processes for the de- termination of parton distribution functions, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 716 (2024), arXiv:2404.07573 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Ji, Off forward parton distributions, J

    X.-D. Ji, Off forward parton distributions, J. Phys. G 24, 1181 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9807358

    1998 arXiv

  98. [106]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Nonforward parton distributions, Phys. Rev. D 56, 5524 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9704207

    1997 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht, M. Sch¨ onherr, and G. Watt, LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 132 (2015), arXiv:1412.7420 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  100. [108]

    J¨ ulich Supercomputing Centre, Juwels cluster and booster: Exascale pathfinder with modular supercom- puting architecture at juelich supercomputing centre, Journal of Large-Scale Research Facilities 7, A183 (2021)

    2021

  101. [109]

    L¨ uscher, Code available at, https://luscher.web.cern.ch/luscher/openQCD/

    M. L¨ uscher, Code available at, https://luscher.web.cern.ch/luscher/openQCD/

  102. [110]

    R. G. Edwards and B. Jo´ o (SciDAC Collabo- ration, LHPC Collaboration, UKQCD Collabora- tion), The Chroma software system for lattice QCD, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. 140, 832 (2005), arXiv:hep- lat/0409003 [hep-lat]

    2005

  103. [111]

    Clark, R

    M. Clark, R. Babich, K. Barros, R. Brower, and C. Rebbi, Solving Lattice QCD systems of equations using mixed precision solvers on GPUs, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 1517 (2010), arXiv:0911.3191 [hep-lat]

    2010 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Babich, M

    R. Babich, M. Clark, B. Jo´ o, G. Shi, R. Brower, and S. Gottlieb, Scaling Lattice QCD beyond 100 GPUs, in SC11 International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis (2011) arXiv:1109.2935 [hep-lat]

    2011 arXiv

  105. [113]

    M. A. Clark, B. Jo´ o, A. Strelchenko, M. Cheng, A. Gambhir, and R. Brower, Accelerating Lattice QCD Multigrid on GPUs Using Fine-Grained Parallelization, (2016), arXiv:1612.07873 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  106. [114]

    F. T. Winter, M. A. Clark, R. G. Edwards, and B. Jo´ o

  107. [115]

    Gambhir, D

    A. Gambhir, D. Brantley, J. Chang, B. H¨ orz, H. Monge- Camacho, P. Vranas, and A. Walker-Loud, lalibe, https://github.com/callat-qcd/lalibe (2018)

    2018

  108. [116]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gom- mers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Tay- lor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del R ´ ıo, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. G´ erard-Marchant, K. She...

    2020

  109. [117]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Pe- terson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, ˙I. Polat, Y. ...

    2020

  110. [118]

    G. P. Lepage, gvar v. 11.9.1 doi:10.5281/zenodo.4290884 (2020), https://github.com/gplepage/gvar

    2020 doi

  111. [119]

    G. P. Lepage, lsqfit v. 11.7 doi:10.5281/zenodo.4037174 (2020), https://github.com/gplepage/lsqfit

    2020 doi

  112. [120]

    J. D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment, Computing in Science & Engineering 9, 90 (2007)

    2007

  113. [121]

    Martinelli and C

    G. Martinelli and C. T. Sachrajda, A Lattice Calcula- tion of the Pion’s Form-Factor and Structure Function, Nucl. Phys. B 306, 865 (1988)

    1988

  114. [122]

    C. W. Bernard, T. Draper, G. Hockney, and A. Soni, Calculation of weak matrix elements: some technical aspects, in Workshop on Lattice Gauge Theories (1985)

    1985

  115. [123]

    Francis, P

    A. Francis, P. Fritzsch, R. Karur, J. Kim, G. Pederiva, D. A. Pefkou, A. Rago, A. Shindler, A. Walker-Loud, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Probing higher moments of pion parton distribution functions, PoS LA TTICE2024, 336 (2025), arXiv:2412.01750 [hep-lat]

    2025 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Symanzik, Continuum Limit and Improved Action in Lattice Theories

    K. Symanzik, Continuum Limit and Improved Action in Lattice Theories. 1. Principles and φ4 Theory, Nucl. Phys. B 226, 187 (1983)

    1983

  117. [125]

    Symanzik, Continuum Limit and Improved Action in Lattice Theories

    K. Symanzik, Continuum Limit and Improved Action in Lattice Theories. 2. O(N) Nonlinear Sigma Model in Perturbation Theory, Nucl. Phys. B 226, 205 (1983)

    1983

  118. [126]

    Luscher, S

    M. Luscher, S. Sint, R. Sommer, and P. Weisz, Chiral symmetry and O(a) improvement in lattice QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 478, 365 (1996), arXiv:hep-lat/9605038

    1996 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Francis, P

    A. Francis, P. Fritzsch, M. L¨ uscher, and A. Rago, Master-field simulations of O(a)-improved lattice QCD: Algorithms, stability and exactness, Comput. Phys. Commun. 255, 107355 (2020), arXiv:1911.04533 [hep- lat]

    2020 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Arndt and M

    D. Arndt and M. J. Savage, Chiral corrections to matrix elements of twist-2 operators, Nucl. Phys. A 697, 429 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0105045

    2002 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Guagnelli, K

    M. Guagnelli, K. Jansen, F. Palombi, R. Petronzio, A. Shindler, and I. Wetzorke (Zeuthen-Rome (ZeRo)), Non-perturbative pion matrix element of a twist-2 op- erator from the lattice, Eur. Phys. J. C 40, 69 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0405027

    2005 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Capitani, K

    S. Capitani, K. Jansen, M. Papinutto, A. Shindler, C. Urbach, and I. Wetzorke, Parton distribution func- tions with twisted mass fermions, Phys. Lett. B 639, 520 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0511013. End Matter Appendix A: Lattice QCD technical details: In this ap- pendix we provide ...

    2006 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.