First simultaneous global QCD analysis of kaon and pion parton distributions with lattice QCD constraints

Chueng-Ryong Ji; Fernanda Steffens; N. Sato; P. C. Barry; W. Melnitchouk

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

First simultaneous global QCD analysis of kaon and pion parton distributions with lattice QCD constraints

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The kaon's strange valence quarks dominate its anti-up quarks at large momentum fraction.

desk verdict A plausible first simultaneous pion/kaon PDF extraction, but the headline s/ū separation leans on fragile lattice moments and the gluon mass-budget numbers don't match the paper's own table. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.11979 v2 pith:RVYYVANX submitted 2025-10-13 hep-ph hep-exhep-latnucl-th

P. C. Barry , Chueng-Ryong Ji , W. Melnitchouk , N. Sato , Fernanda Steffens This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-exhep-latnucl-th

keywords kaonpionpartondistributionfunctionslatticeQCDDrell-Yanvalencequarkstrangegluonmomentumfraction

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

This paper is the first to analyze the internal quark and gluon distributions of the pion and the kaon in a single global QCD framework, combining existing pion and kaon Drell-Yan cross sections, leading-neutron data, and lattice QCD moments of both mesons. The central claim is that the kaon's valence structure is flavor-asymmetric in a quark-mass-dependent way: the strange-quark distribution is significantly more concentrated at large momentum fraction x than the anti-up quark distribution, while the anti-up in the kaon is softer than the anti-up in the pion. If correct, this gives the first empirical glimpse of how a heavier quark reshapes the partonic interior of the simplest hadron containing a strange quark, and it narrows the kaon's gluon momentum fraction to about a quarter of its mass budget at 2 GeV, compared with about a third for the pion.

What carries the argument

The central object is the simultaneous Bayesian fit of pion and kaon PDFs using a common parametrization f(x) = N x^α (1-x)^β (1+γ√x+δx) at an input scale μ0=m_c, with charge-symmetry relations relating K^- to K^+ and pi^- to pi^+. The discriminating power is provided by combining the kaon-to-pion Drell-Yan cross-section ratio—which alone cannot separate flavors—with lattice QCD computations of the low moments <x^n> for both mesons, in particular the n=2 and n=3 moments that constrain the x-dependence of the s and anti-u valence PDFs in the kaon. The heavy-quark limit, in which a heavier valence quark approaches a delta function at x=1, is the physical motivation for expecting a harder s-qua

What would settle it

Let a future high-statistics kaon-induced Drell-Yan measurement with luminosity above roughly 2×10^-2 fb^-1 measure the K^-/pi^- cross-section ratio for x1 between 0.7 and 0.9. If the ratio stays roughly flat rather than continuing the downward trend seen in current data, the softer anti-up in the kaon would be falsified. Alternatively, a lattice calculation of the kaon's <x^3>_u and <x^3>_s moments with both connected and disconnected diagrams at physical quark masses could resolve the current ambiguity; if the corrected moments no longer favor a more peaked s distribution, the central claim

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The analysis extracts valence PDFs for the anti-up and strange quarks in the K^- and for the anti-up in the pi^- in the x range covered by data and lattice moments. It finds an effective large-x exponent beta for the anti-up distribution in the kaon of 1.6(2), significantly larger than the pion's 1.16(4), meaning the kaon's anti-up valence quark falls off faster as x→1. The strange valence quark in the kaon is more peaked at large x: at x=0.8 the s-v distribution is about twice the u-bar-v distribution within 1 sigma, with the ratio rising monotonically with x. The gluon momentum fraction at mu=2 GeV is found to be ~1/3 for the pion and ~1/4 for the kaon, a difference the authors attribute t

Load-bearing premise

The high-x flavor separation rests on the lattice QCD moments for the kaon's second and third moments, which were computed on a single lattice spacing at a pion mass of 260 MeV and include only connected diagrams; the paper inflates their uncertainties by a factor of two and applies small shifts, but if those moments are biased, the claimed peaked strange-valence distribution would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The valence structure of the kaon is flavor-asymmetric in a way that is not captured by the pion's PDFs; future kaon-beam Drell-Yan measurements with high statistics should see a kaon-to-pion cross-section ratio that falls with x, as the anti-up contribution diminishes.
The extracted gluon momentum fractions change the meson mass decomposition: about 1/3 of the pion's momentum at 2 GeV is carried by gluons, versus about 1/4 for the kaon, reflecting the heavier strange quark's larger share.
Predictions for kaon-induced processes in the valence region, such as tagged semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering and kaon-induced charged-current charm production, now have a flavor-resolved input.
The analysis provides a benchmark for the planned kaon-induced Drell-Yan program: luminosities above 2×10^-2 fb^-1 would suffice to distinguish the 68% credible-interval spread of the current strange-valence determination at 3σ.

Reading between the lines

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

If the strange-valence dominance at large x is real, then kaon fragmentation functions and kaon-induced production at high x should also show a strange-flavor bias; a testable extension would be to compare kaon and pion spectra in semi-inclusive processes where the valence quark is tagged.
The same heavy-quark argument that motivates a peaked s-quark distribution in the kaon would predict a still more extreme pattern in D mesons, where the charm quark is much heavier; existing D-meson PDF extractions could be checked for this trend.
The robustness of the result rests on the lattice moments; a direct lattice computation of the n=2 and n=3 moments with connected and disconnected contributions at the physical mass, or with continuum extrapolation, would either confirm or refute the 7%/4.6%/6% shifts applied here.
A simpler phenomenological test that avoids the lattice input entirely would be to fit the NA3 ratio alone with the strange and anti-up distributions reversed in hardness; the resulting chi-square would show whether the data alone prefer the peaked strange distribution.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper's new result is the first simultaneous pion/kaon PDF fit with lattice constraints, yielding a separate kaon valence ū and s distribution. The central claim — that s_v is more peaked than ū_v at large x — is plausible but more fragile than the abstract suggests. The NA3 ratio alone fixes ū_K/ū_π; the s/ū split comes from the ⟨x²⟩ and ⟨x³⟩ moments of Ref. [25], which are connected-only, at a single lattice spacing and m_π=260 MeV. The authors handle these carefully with factor-of-two uncertainty inflation and ad-hoc shifts on the n=3 moments, but the robustness check only perturbs those shifts by a few percent. It does not test dropping the moments or allowing a larger u-vs-s systematic offset. The fit value ⟨x³⟩_u^K = 0.050(3) sits about 2.5σ above the raw lattice 0.033(6); inflation brings that to ~1.4σ, but a connected-only bias larger than the assumed 7% would still move the separation. So the "strange valence is more peaked" result is a reasonable inference, not a firm measurement.

The framework is otherwise solid. The Bayesian machinery is standard JAM, the pion fits match earlier work, and the NA3 χ²/Ndat = 0.08 reflects the data's large uncertainties rather than overfitting. The AMBER luminosity projections are useful and the authors are transparent about lattice limitations.

Two concrete problems. First, the mass-budget numbers contradict their own Table I: the abstract says pion gluon ≈1/3 and kaon ≈1/4, but the table gives ⟨x⟩_g = 0.439(28) for the pion and 0.333(17) for the kaon. The text's "≈1/4 (1/3) of the kaon (pion)" also misstates the table. That needs correcting. Second, replicas are only "available upon request" with no data or code release; for a global analysis that is a reproducibility gap.

Verdict: worth refereeing, but not for the mass-budget claim. I'd send it to review and ask the authors to fix the mass-budget numbers, add a more stringent robustness test (e.g., exclude the n=3 kaon moments), and archive a minimal set of replicas.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents the first simultaneous global QCD analysis of pion and kaon PDFs, combining pion- and kaon-induced Drell–Yan data, leading-neutron electroproduction data, and lattice QCD moments in a Bayesian Monte Carlo framework. The main findings are: (i) the \bar u valence distribution in the K^- is softer than in the \pi^-; (ii) the strange valence quark in the K^- is significantly more peaked at large x than the \bar u, with effective high-x exponents \beta_{\bar u}^{K^-}=1.6(2), \beta_{\bar u}^{\pi^-}=1.16(4), \beta_{s}^{K^-}=1.2(4); and (iii) the gluon momentum fraction is approximately 1/3 for the pion but only 1/4 for the kaon at \mu=2 GeV. The analysis also estimates the luminosity needed for the AMBER experiment to discriminate between kaon PDF flavors.

Significance. If the kaon valence flavor separation holds, this is a first step toward understanding SU(3) flavor breaking in hadron structure and provides a concrete, testable prediction for AMBER. The simultaneous treatment of pion and kaon data is a methodological improvement over previous kaon extractions, and the paper carries out a careful Bayesian uncertainty quantification. The explicit parametrization, the use of both experimental and lattice constraints, and the availability of replicas are strengths. However, the headline result—the s/\bar u valence asymmetry in the kaon—depends critically on the treatment of the ETMC n=2 and n=3 moments from Ref. [25], whose systematic uncertainties are handled by an ad hoc inflation and shift procedure. The robustness check reported in the text is incomplete, so the central claim is conditional on additional tests.

major comments (3)

[Methodology / Table I] The separation of the kaon valence s and \bar u PDFs is the central new result, but it is not determined by the NA3 ratio data alone; those data constrain \bar u_{K^-}/\bar u_{\pi^-} under the assumption of valence dominance. The conclusion s_v^{K^-} >> \bar u_v^{K^-} at x ~ 0.5 is imposed by the ETMC n=2 and n=3 moments of Ref. [25]. These moments are computed from connected diagrams only, at m_pi=260 MeV and a single lattice spacing. The robustness check described in the text only perturbs the ad hoc +7%, +4.6%, +6% shifts on the n=3 moments and finds 'no discernible effects'; it does not test the fit without the kaon n=2/n=3 moments or with doubled shifts. Such a test is essential: without these moments the s/\bar u split is essentially unconstrained, so the quoted \beta_s^{K^-} and the x>0.5 dominance could be artifacts of the lattice input. Please provide removal/stress tests and qu
[Table I] The JAM result for \langle x^3\rangle_u^{K} = 0.050(3) is more than 2.5\sigma above the input ETMC value 0.033(6), even after the factor-2 uncertainty inflation. This is a large pull on a central input. The text states that shifting the n=3 values has no discernible effect, but no chi^2 or parameter-level evidence is shown. Given that the n=3 moments are connected-only and the disconnected correction is estimated only by ad hoc percentage shifts, the authors should provide a more systematic account of the n=3 systematics (e.g., a covariance matrix or an envelope over plausible shifts) and show the stability of the valence asymmetry. Without this, the fit is visibly stretched by this datum and the quoted uncertainties understate the systematic error.
[QCD analysis / Fig. 1] The NA3 dataset is fitted with chi^2/N_dat = 0.08, indicating very weak constraining power. The small uncertainty quoted for \beta_{\bar u}^{K^-} = 1.6(2) is then not obviously a property of the data; it likely reflects the lattice moments as well. The paper should separate the information content of the NA3 ratio from that of the lattice moments in the quoted exponents, so readers can see which ingredient drives the claim of a softer \bar u in the kaon. This is needed to interpret the abstract's empirical-sounding statement.

minor comments (6)

[Fig. 2 inset] Define how the effective \beta exponents and their uncertainties are computed after averaging over x in [0.7,0.95]; clarify whether the spread is over replicas only or also over x values.
[Table I] Indicate explicitly which entries have inflated uncertainties (factor 2) and list original uncertainties in a footnote, to avoid ambiguity.
[Introduction] The sentence referring to 'the latter which is consistent with the earlier JAM analysis [18]' is grammatically awkward; rephrase.
[Outlook] The projection in Fig. 4 would benefit from a brief description of the t-comparison statistic and the truncation of moments at x=0.4; currently the procedure is not reproducible from the text.
[Methodology] The assumption that the kaon sea and gluon x-shapes equal the pion shapes is stated but not tested. A short discussion of the impact on the valence extraction (e.g., via the momentum sum rule) would help.
[Outlook] The replicas are said to be available upon request; consider hosting them in a public repository for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: kaon PDF results are driven by external DY and lattice inputs; the flavor separation is not a fit-to-fit tautology.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) parametrize pion and kaon PDFs with Eq. (4); (2) constrain them by external DY data (NA3, NA10, E615, H1, ZEUS) and lattice moments from ETMC [25,35]; (3) extract valence PDFs and beta exponents. The central result—s_v^K- >> ubar_v^K- at x ~ 0.5—depends on the lattice <x^2> and <x^3> moments for u and s in the kaon, which are independent external inputs. The NA3 ratio alone constrains ubar^K-/ubar^pi-, not the s/ubar split inside the kaon, as the paper explicitly acknowledges: "the ratio data alone cannot uniquely determine even the flavor structure of the valence kaon PDFs." The beta exponents are derived from the fitted PDFs, not imposed. The lattice moments are not reproduced trivially: JAM <x^3>_u^K = 0.050(3) lies ~2.6 sigma above the raw ETMC value 0.033(6), so the fit is not forced to the lattice input. The robustness check applies shifts to n=3 moments and finds no discernible effects, which is a stability test rather than a circular redefinition. Self-citations to previous JAM methodology [15-20,48-52] are used for the Bayesian framework and parametrization form; these are standard and not load-bearing for the specific kaon flavor result. The pion PDFs are re-fitted from the same external datasets, not taken as outputs of prior fits. Overall, no step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central extraction relies on ~25 fitted parameters and several stated modeling choices. The most consequential is the pion-shaped kaon sea/gluon assumption and the reliance on connected-only lattice moments; the latter directly underpins the headline strange-valence result.

free parameters (10)

Pion valence PDF shape parameters (N, α, β, γ, δ) = β_ū^π = 1.16(4); others not individually quoted
Eq. (4) parametrization at μ0=1.28 GeV; fitted to pion DY and LN data.
Kaon anti-up valence PDF parameters (N, α, β, γ, δ) = β_ū^K = 1.6(2)
Eq. (4); constrained by NA3 ratio and lattice moments.
Kaon strange valence PDF parameters (N, α, β, γ, δ) = β_s^K = 1.2(4)
Eq. (4); constrained mainly by lattice moments; wide uncertainty.
Pion sea PDF parameters (N, α, β) = not stated
γ=δ set to zero a priori; N,α,β fitted; shapes copied to kaon sea with normalization free.
Pion gluon PDF parameters (N, α, β) = not stated
γ=δ set to zero; fitted; shapes copied to kaon gluon with normalization free.
Kaon sea normalization = not stated
q_sea^K ∝ q_sea^π; overall normalization varied.
Kaon gluon normalization = not stated
g^K ∝ g^π; overall normalization varied.
Six data normalization parameters = not stated
Multiplicative normalizations for DY and LN datasets.
Sullivan cutoff mass = not stated
Fitted for the p→π+n splitting function in the LN process.
Lattice moment uncertainty inflation factor = 2 (with a factor-3 check)
Hand-set systematic inflation for connected-only higher moments; also +7%, +4.6%, +6% shifts applied in a robustness test.

assumptions (7)

standard math QCD factorization for Drell-Yan at NLO+NLL accuracy
Invoked in Eq. (1) for the DY cross section.
domain assumption Sullivan process interpretation: leading neutron electroproduction is dominated by p→π+n splitting
Used to extract pion PDFs from HERA LN data; standard but model-dependent.
domain assumption Charge symmetry: ū^{π−}=d^{π−}=u^{π+}=d̄^{π+}, and ū^{K−}=u^{K+}, s^{K−}=s̄^{K+}
Stated in Methodology; reduces the number of independent PDFs.
ad hoc to paper PDF parametrization form f(x)=N x^α(1−x)^β(1+γ√x+δx)
Eq. (4); a standard but not derived ansatz that shapes the extracted x-dependence.
ad hoc to paper Kaon sea and gluon x-shapes equal to pion sea and gluon shapes
Methodology: q_sea^K ∝ q_sea^π and g^K ∝ g^π with only normalizations free. Directly affects the gluon momentum fraction and mass-budget result.
domain assumption Connected-only, single-lattice-spacing lattice moments are valid constraints after uncertainty inflation
Methodology and Table I; the n=2,3 moments from Ref. [25] are used to separate kaon valence flavors.
standard math Baryon number and momentum sum rules imposed parametrically
Methodology: normalizations of valence and sea/gluon PDFs fixed by sum rules.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First simultaneous global QCD analysis of kaon and pion parton distributions with lattice QCD constraints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RVYYVANX

@misc{pith2026251011979,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First simultaneous global QCD analysis of kaon and pion parton distributions with lattice QCD constraints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RVYYVANX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.11979}
}

abstract

We perform the first simultaneous global QCD analysis of pion and kaon parton distribution functions (PDFs), constrained by pion- and kaon-induced Drell-Yan (DY) and leading neutron electroproduction data, together with lattice QCD data on pion and kaon PDF moments. The analysis indicates a softer valence $\bar u$ distribution in the $K^-$ than in the $\pi^-$, and a significantly more peaked valence $s$-quark density in $K^-$ compared with the $\bar u$. The effective exponent governing the high-$x$ behavior of the PDF is found to be larger for $\bar u$ in the kaon, $\beta_{\bar u}^{K^-}\!= 1.6(2)$, than in the pion, $\beta_{\bar u}^{\pi^-}\!= 1.16(4)$, in the range $0.7 \leq x \leq 0.95$. From the gluon momentum fractions we find the pion's gluon content accounts for $\approx 1/3$ of the mass budget of the pion at $\mu=2~{\rm GeV}$, but only $\approx 1/4$ for the kaon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.11979 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Valence quark PDFs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

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.
PRISM: Rethinking Atmospheric Scattering Reconstruction as a Unified Understanding and Restoration Model for Real-world Dehazing
cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

PRISM proposes a physically structured PSAR framework with non-uniform haze synthesis and selective self-distillation adaptation to achieve state-of-the-art real-world image dehazing.
Feasibility Study of Pion and Kaon Structure via the Sullivan Process at EicC
hep-ex 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

EicC could measure pion and kaon structure functions via the Sullivan process with statistical uncertainties below 5% (pion) and 8% (kaon) in most kinematic bins, according to Monte Carlo projections.
Impact of parity-violating deep-inelastic scattering on the weak mixing angle and high-$x$ parton distributions
hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

Simulations of 11 and 22 GeV PVDIS pseudodata indicate potential constraints on low-Q² sin²θ_W and high-x strange quark and d/u PDFs, with strong correlations requiring simultaneous QCD-electroweak analysis.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 50 linked inside Pith · cited by 4 Pith papers

[25]

Alexandrou, S

C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, I. Clo¨ et, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, G. Koutsou, and C. Lauer, Phys. Rev. D104, 054504 (2021), arXiv:2104.02247 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2021
[1]

J. G. Bransonet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1331 (1977)

1977
[2]

K. J. Andersonet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 944 (1979)

1979
[3]

Barateet al., Phys

R. Barateet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 1541 (1979)

1979
[4]

Cordenet al., Phys

M. Cordenet al., Phys. Lett. B96, 417 (1980)

1980
[5]

J. G. McEwenet al., Phys. Lett. B121, 198 (1983)

1983
[6]

H. B. Greenleeet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 1555 (1985)

1985
[7]

Betevet al., Z

B. Betevet al., Z. Phys. C28, 9 (1985)

1985

Show all 74 references

[8]

J. S. Conwayet al., Phys. Rev. D39, 92 (1989)

1989
[9]

F. D. Aaronet al., Eur. Phys. J. C68, 381 (2010), arXiv:1001.0532 [hep-ex]

2010 arXiv
[10]

Chekanovet al., Nucl

S. Chekanovet al., Nucl. Phys.B637, 3 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0205076

2002 arXiv
[11]

J. D. Sullivan, Phys. Rev. D5, 1732 (1972)

1972
[12]

A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B126, 97 (1983)

1983
[13]

J. R. McKenney, N. Sato, W. Melnitchouk, and C.-R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D93, 054011 (2016), arXiv:1512.04459 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[14]

Salamu, C.-R

Y. Salamu, C.-R. Ji, W. Melnitchouk, and P. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 122001 (2015), arXiv:1409.5885 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[15]

P. C. Barry, N. Sato, W. Melnitchouk, and C.-R. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 152001 (2018), arXiv:1804.01965 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[16]

N. Y. Cao, P. C. Barry, N. Sato, and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. D103, 114014 (2021), arXiv:2103.02159 [hep- ph]

2021 arXiv
[17]

P. C. Barry, L. Gamberg, W. Melnitchouk, E. Moffat, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, and N. Sato, Phys. Rev. D 108, L091504 (2023), arXiv:2302.01192 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[18]

P. C. Barry, C.-R. Ji, N. Sato, and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 232001 (2021), arXiv:2108.05822 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[19]

P. C. Barry, C. Egerer, J. Karpie, W. Melnitchouk, C. Monahan, K. Orginos, J.-W. Qiu, D. G. Richards, N. Sato, R. S. Sufian and S. Zafeiropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 105, 114051 (2022), arXiv:2204.00543 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[20]

W. Good, P. C. Barry, H.-W. Lin, W. Melnitchouk, A. NieMiera, and N. Sato, (2025), arXiv:2507.22730 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[21]

Badieret al., Phys

J. Badieret al., Phys. Lett. B93, 354 (1980)

1980
[22]

Martinelli and C

G. Martinelli and C. T. Sachrajda, Phys. Lett. B196, 184 (1987)

1987
[23]

C. Best, M. Gockeler, R. Horsley, E.-M. Ilgenfritz, H. Perlt, P. E. L. Rakow, A. Schafer, G. Schierholz, A. Schiller, and S. Schramm, Phys. Rev. D56, 2743 (1997), arXiv:hep-lat/9703014

1997 arXiv
[24]

Detmold, W

W. Detmold, W. Melnitchouk, and A. W. Thomas, Mod. Phys. Lett. A18, 2681 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0310003

2003 arXiv
[26]

Guagnelli, K

M. Guagnelli, K. Jansen, F. Palombi, R. Petronzio, A. Shindler, and I. Wetzorke, Eur. Phys. J. C40, 69 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0405027

2005 arXiv
[27]

Capitani, K

S. Capitani, K. Jansen, M. Papinutto, A. Shindler, C. Ur- bach, and I. Wetzorke, Phys. Lett. B639, 520 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0511013

2006 arXiv
[28]

Abdel-Rehimet al., Phys

A. Abdel-Rehimet al., Phys. Rev. D92, 114513 (2015), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D93, 039904 (2016)], arXiv:1507.04936 [hep-lat]

2015 arXiv
[29]

Oehmet al., Phys

M. Oehmet al., Phys. Rev. D99, 014508 (2019), arXiv:1810.09743 [hep-lat]

2019 arXiv
[30]

Alexandrou, S

C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, I. Cloet, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, G. Koutsou, and C. Lauer, Phys. Rev. D103, 014508 (2021), arXiv:2010.03495 [hep-lat]

2021 arXiv
[31]

Alexandrouet al., Phys

C. Alexandrouet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 252001 (2021), arXiv:2109.10692 [hep-lat]

2021 arXiv
[32]

L¨ offler, P

M. L¨ offler, P. Wein, T. Wurm, S. Weish¨ aupl, D. Jenkins, R. R¨ odl, A. Sch¨ afer, and L. Walter, Phys. Rev. D105, 014505 (2022), arXiv:2108.07544 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[33]

D. C. Hackett, P. R. Oare, D. A. Pefkou, and P. E. Shanahan, Phys. Rev. D108, 114504 (2023), arXiv:2307.11707 [hep-lat]

2023 arXiv
[34]

W. Good, K. Hasan, A. Chevis, and H.-W. Lin, Phys. Rev. D109, 114509 (2024), arXiv:2310.12034 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[35]

Higher moments, computed at slightly larger quark masses, are also available [25] and can help constrain the xdependence of the PDFs

at physical quark masses and with a continuum ex- trapolation, reducing the systematic effects from the lat- tice. Higher moments, computed at slightly larger quark masses, are also available [25] and can help constrain the xdependence of the PDFs. Earlier extractions of kaon ...
[36]

Alexandrouet al., Phys

C. Alexandrouet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 131902 (2025), arXiv:2405.08529 [hep-lat]

2025 arXiv
[37]

Zhang, J.-W

J.-H. Zhang, J.-W. Chen, L. Jin, H.-W. Lin, A. Sch¨ afer, 6 and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D100, 034505 (2019), arXiv:1804.01483 [hep-lat]

2019 arXiv
[38]

Izubuchi, L

T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Kallidonis, N. Karthik, S. Mukher- jee, P. Petreczky, C. Shugert, and S. Syritsyn, Phys. Rev. D100, 034516 (2019), arXiv:1905.06349 [hep-lat]

2019 arXiv
[39]

Lin, J.-W

H.-W. Lin, J.-W. Chen, Z. Fan, J.-H. Zhang, and R. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D103, 014516 (2021), arXiv:2003.14128 [hep-lat]

2021 arXiv
[40]

X. Gao, L. Jin, C. Kallidonis, N. Karthik, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, C. Shugert, S. Syritsyn, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D102, 094513 (2020), arXiv:2007.06590 [hep-lat]

2020 arXiv
[41]

X. Gao, A. D. Hanlon, N. Karthik, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, P. Scior, S. Shi, S. Syritsyn, Y. Zhao, and K. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D106, 114510 (2022), arXiv:2208.02297 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[42]

R. S. Sufian, J. Karpie, C. Egerer, K. Orginos, J.-W. Qiu, and D. G. Richards, Phys. Rev. D99, 074507 (2019), arXiv:1901.03921 [hep-lat]

2019 arXiv
[43]

Jo´ o, J

B. Jo´ o, J. Karpie, K. Orginos, A. V. Radyushkin, D. G. Richards, R. S. Sufian, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Phys. Rev. D100, 114512 (2019), arXiv:1909.08517 [hep-lat]

2019 arXiv
[44]

R. S. Sufian, C. Egerer, J. Karpie, R. G. Edwards, B. Jo´ o, Y.-Q. Ma, K. Orginos, J.-W. Qiu, and D. G. Richards, Phys. Rev. D102, 054508 (2020), arXiv:2001.04960 [hep- lat]

2020 arXiv
[45]

Salas-Chavira, Z

A. Salas-Chavira, Z. Fan, and H.-W. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 106, 094510 (2022), arXiv:2112.03124 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[46]

Gluck, E

M. Gluck, E. Reya, and M. Stratmann, Eur. Phys. J. C 2, 159 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9711369

1998 arXiv
[47]

Bourrely, F

C. Bourrely, F. Buccella, W.-C. Chang, and J.-C. Peng, Phys. Lett. B848, 138395 (2024), arXiv:2305.18117 [hep- ph]

2024 arXiv
[48]

Westmark and J

D. Westmark and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D95, 056024 (2017), arXiv:1701.06716 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[49]

Cocuzza, W

C. Cocuzza, W. Melnitchouk, A. Metz, and N. Sato, Phys. Rev. D104, 074031 (2021), arXiv:2109.00677 [hep- ph]

2021 arXiv
[50]

Cocuzza, C

C. Cocuzza, C. E. Keppel, H. Liu, W. Melnitchouk, A. Metz, N. Sato, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 242001 (2021), arXiv:2104.06946 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[51]

Cocuzza, W

C. Cocuzza, W. Melnitchouk, A. Metz, and N. Sato, Phys. Rev. D106, L031502 (2022), arXiv:2202.03372 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[52]

Anderson, W

T. Anderson, W. Melnitchouk, and N. Sato, (2024), arXiv:2501.00665 [hep-ph]

2024
[53]

Cocuzza, N

C. Cocuzza, N. T. Hunt-Smith, W. Melnitchouk, N. Sato, and A. W. Thomas, (2025), arXiv:2506.13616 [hep-ph]

2025
[54]

J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D30, 943 (1984)

1984
[55]

Aurenche, R

P. Aurenche, R. Baier, M. Fontannaz, M. N. Kienzle- Focacci, and M. Werlen, Phys. Lett. B233, 517 (1989)

1989
[56]

P. J. Sutton, A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, and W. J. Stirling, Phys. Rev. D45, 2349 (1992)

1992
[57]

Gluck, E

M. Gluck, E. Reya, and A. Vogt, Z. Phys. C53, 651 (1992)

1992
[58]

Gluck, E

M. Gluck, E. Reya, and I. Schienbein, Eur. Phys. J. C 10, 313 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9903288

1999 arXiv
[59]

Wijesooriya, P

K. Wijesooriya, P. E. Reimer, and R. J. Holt, Phys. Rev. C72, 065203 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0509012

2005 arXiv
[60]

Aicher, A

M. Aicher, A. Schafer, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 252003 (2010), arXiv:1009.2481 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[61]

Novikovet al., Phys

I. Novikovet al., Phys. Rev. D102, 014040 (2020), arXiv:2002.02902 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[62]

L. Kotz, A. Courtoy, P. Nadolsky, F. Olness, and M. Ponce-Chavez, Phys. Rev. D109, 074027 (2024), arXiv:2311.08447 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[63]

L. Kotz, A. Courtoy, P. Nadolsky, and M. Ponce-Chavez, (2025), arXiv:2505.13594 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[64]

Ji, Phys

X.-D. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 1071 (1995), arXiv:hep- ph/9410274

1995
[65]

Ji, Phys

X.-D. Ji, Phys. Rev. D52, 271 (1995), arXiv:hep- ph/9502213

1995
[66]

A. Metz, B. Pasquini, and S. Rodini, Phys. Rev. D102, 114042 (2020), arXiv:2006.11171 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[67]

Neubert, Phys

M. Neubert, Phys. Rep.245, 259 (1994), arXiv:hep- ph/9306320

1994
[68]

Paiva, M

S. Paiva, M. Nielsen, F. S. Navarra, F. O. Duraes, and L. L. Barz, Mod. Phys. Lett. A13, 2715 (1998)

1998
[69]

Melnitchouk and A

W. Melnitchouk and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B414, 134 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9707387

1997 arXiv
[70]

Adamset al., (2018), arXiv:1808.00848 [hep-ex]

B. Adamset al., (2018), arXiv:1808.00848 [hep-ex]

2018 arXiv
[71]

Blobel, H

V. Blobel, H. Fesefeldt, H. Franz, W. M. Geist, K. Von Holt, U. Idschok, and N. Schmitz, Nucl. Phys. B135, 379 (1978)

1978
[72]

Moffat, W

E. Moffat, W. Melnitchouk, T. C. Rogers, and N. Sato, Phys. Rev. D104, 016015 (2021), arXiv:2101.04664 [hep- ph]

2021 arXiv
[73]

de Florian, M

D. de Florian, M. Epele, R. J. Hernandez-Pinto, R. Sas- sot, and M. Stratmann, Phys. Rev. D95, 094019 (2017), arXiv:1702.06353 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[74]

Abdul Khalek, V

R. Abdul Khalek, V. Bertone, A. Khoudli, and E. R. No- cera, Phys. Lett. B834, 137456 (2022), arXiv:2204.10331 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [25]

Alexandrou, S

C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, I. Clo¨ et, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, G. Koutsou, and C. Lauer, Phys. Rev. D104, 054504 (2021), arXiv:2104.02247 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2021

[2] [1]

J. G. Bransonet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1331 (1977)

1977

[3] [2]

K. J. Andersonet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 944 (1979)

1979

[4] [3]

Barateet al., Phys

R. Barateet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 1541 (1979)

1979

[5] [4]

Cordenet al., Phys

M. Cordenet al., Phys. Lett. B96, 417 (1980)

1980

[6] [5]

J. G. McEwenet al., Phys. Lett. B121, 198 (1983)

1983

[7] [6]

H. B. Greenleeet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 1555 (1985)

1985

[8] [7]

Betevet al., Z

B. Betevet al., Z. Phys. C28, 9 (1985)

1985