Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Hadron production in the charged current semi-inclusive deeply inelastic scattering of $N=Z$ nuclei

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that in charged-current semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering of neutrinos off unpolarized N=Z nuclei, only the chiral-even transverse-momentum-dependent distribution f1 contributes to the cross section, because the…

desk verdict Clean chiral-even selection rule for neutrino SIDIS off isoscalar nuclei, but the numerical universality claim for A^π rests on a massless-target approximation and a single nPDF set. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18080 v3 pith:YZYCCJMU submitted 2024-11-27 hep-ph

Wenyan Yu , Weihua Yang , Xing-hua Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords charged-currentSIDISneutrino-nucleusscatteringN=ZnucleiTMDpartondistributionschiral-eventermspionyieldasymmetrynuclearPDFsfragmentationfunctions
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 calculates charged-current semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering (SIDIS) of neutrinos and antineutrinos off unpolarized nuclei with equal neutron and proton numbers (N=Z). It finds that at leading twist the cross section is built entirely from the unpolarized transverse-momentum-dependent distribution $f_1$: every chiral-odd term vanishes because the W boson couples only to left-handed quarks, so $c_V^q=c_A^q=1$ makes the chiral-odd coupling $c_2^q=0$. The authors introduce a charged-pion yield asymmetry $A^\pi$ and show numerically, within a Gaussian model for transverse momenta, that this observable is essentially independent of which N=Z nucleus is used: ratios for carbon-12, oxygen-16, and calcium-40 vary by less than 0.0005. They also find that sea quark distributions and disfavored fragmentation functions noticeably influence the asymmetry. If correct, this gives future neutrino experiments a flavor-tagged observable for nuclear parton distributions that is free of chiral-odd contamination.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hadronic tensor built from TMD distribution and fragmentation correlators in the collinear frame where the nucleus travels along the positive z direction and the W boson defines the reaction plane. The argument runs through the trace identities (37)-(39): the chiral-odd terms are multiplied by $c_2^q=(c_V^q)^2-(c_A^q)^2$, which vanishes for charged-current weak interactions with $c_V^q=c_A^q=1$, while the surviving terms are carried by the unpolarized distribution $f_1$ and chiral-even fragmentation functions such as $D_1$, $D_{1T}^\perp$, $G_{1L}$, and $G_{1T}^\perp$. The resulting cross section is a convolution $C[f_1 D]$ controlled by the kinematic factors $A(y)=2-2y+y^2$ and $C(y)=y(2-y)$. The yield asymmetry $A^\pi$ of Eq. (69) then isolates combinations of up, down, and strange nuclear PDFs with pion fragmentation functions; in the isoscalar limit the paper reduces it to simple expressions such as $A^\pi_F=C(y)/A(y)$, which at $y=0.5$ equals 0.6.

What would settle it

Measure $A^\pi$ for $^{12}$C, $^{16}$O, and $^{40}$Ca at matched kinematics, say $y=0.5$ and $z=0.2$, in a high-statistics neutrino beam; if $A^\pi(^{16}\mathrm{O})/A^\pi(^{12}\mathrm{C})$ or $A^\pi(^{40}\mathrm{Ca})/A^\pi(^{12}\mathrm{C})$ departs from 1 by more than about 0.0005, the claimed universality fails. Alternatively, observation of a Collins-type azimuthal asymmetry that requires a chiral-odd distribution in this process would contradict the central claim that only chiral-even terms survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the leading-twist differential cross section for $\nu A \to e h X$ and $\bar\nu A \to e h X$, with $A$ an unpolarized N=Z nucleus and $h$ a tagged hadron such as a pion, is governed by a single TMD distribution, $f_1$. All chiral-odd terms in the hadronic tensor vanish because the trace identity that projects them out is multiplied by $c_2^q=(c_V^q)^2-(c_A^q)^2$, and for the charged-current weak interaction $c_V^q=c_A^q=1$. The physical mechanism is helicity conservation: the W couples only to left-handed quarks and does not flip helicity, so chirality is conserved and chiral-odd correlators cannot contribute. From this reduced cross section the paper derives a set of azimuthal asymmetries and a charged-pion yield asymmetry $A^\pi$. Numerically, with Gaussian transverse-momentum distributions, nuclear PDFs, and pion fragmentation functions, $A^\pi$ is the same for $^{12}$C, $^{16}$O, and $^{40}$Ca to within 0.05%, while it deviates for a non-isoscalar target such as $^{27}$Al.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering off a nucleus factorizes exactly like scattering off a free nucleon, with nuclear PDFs folded against unmodified fragmentation functions and the nuclear mass neglected, so if nuclear-modified hadronization or mass corrections matter, the cross section and the predicted universality of $A^\pi$ would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $A^\pi$ is indeed target-independent for N=Z nuclei, a measurement on any isoscalar target can be used to determine nuclear PDFs without disentangling target-size effects.
  • Because all chiral-odd terms vanish, charged-current SIDIS off isoscalar nuclei gives a clean extraction of the unpolarized TMD $f_1$ and of chiral-even fragmentation functions such as $D_{1T}^\perp$ and $G_{1L}$.
  • The visible sensitivity to sea quark distributions and disfavored fragmentation functions means those quantities must be known precisely before $A^\pi$ can serve as a precise nPDF probe, and conversely the asymmetry carries flavor-separated information in the strange sector.
  • The reduced expression $A^\pi_F=C(y)/A(y)$ gives a baseline that is independent of $x$ and $z$; a measured deviation from the predicted value 0.6 at $y=0.5$ would signal an asymmetry between strange and antistrange quarks in N=Z nuclei.
  • The universality breaks for non-isoscalar nuclei such as $^{27}$Al, so the asymmetry can serve as an isospin-symmetry diagnostic for nuclear targets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the insensitivity of $A^\pi$ to the nuclear species for N=Z targets suggests that any observed deviation from universality, once precise data exist, could be used to isolate nuclear-modified fragmentation functions, which the paper deliberately omits.
  • The same ratio-symmetric structure may extend to other produced hadrons such as kaons; the paper defines $A^h$ generally but only computes pions, so a kaon version would test the strange-quark sector more directly.
  • The mass-neglect assumption is likely the first thing to break as the nucleus gets heavier; testing whether the universality survives with mass-rescaled kinematics would delimit the observable's range of validity.
  • If the Gaussian ansatz is replaced by more realistic TMD shapes, the claimed target-independence of $A^\pi$ may acquire residual $x$ or $z$ dependence, giving a cheap way to validate the universality claim before dedicated neutrino data are available.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes the leading-twist charged-current semi-inclusive deeply inelastic scattering (SIDIS) cross section for (anti-)neutrinos off unpolarized N=Z nuclei, working in the parton model with TMD factorization. The formal result is that the hadronic tensor is governed entirely by the chiral-even unpolarized TMD f1, with all chiral-odd contributions vanishing because the charged-current couplings satisfy c_V = c_A = 1. The authors define a pion yield asymmetry A^π as the ratio of the νA(π+) and anti-νA(π-) cross sections and show numerically, using a Gaussian kT ansatz and the EPPS21 nuclear PDF set, that A^π is nearly identical for 12C, 16O, and 40Ca, with ratios varying by less than 0.0005. They also show that strange sea quarks and disfavored fragmentation functions have a visible effect on A^π.

Significance. The formal statement that chiral-odd TMDs decouple in charged-current SIDIS on unpolarized isoscalar targets is clean and useful; the derivation in Eqs. (43) and (55) is transparent and the trace algebra is internally consistent. The proposed yield asymmetry A^π is a potentially interesting observable for future neutrino experiments such as FASER, and the explicit flavor decomposition in Eqs. (65)-(72) is a helpful starting point. The numerical results are, however, obtained under model assumptions (massless nuclear target, Gaussian transverse momentum, single nPDF set) that are not propagated into the claimed 0.0005-level universality; the authors themselves identify the mass issue in Sec. V. The central formal result is sound, but the numerical claim of universality needs either quantified corrections or a more restrictive statement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (12); Sec. V] The target nucleus mass is neglected: Eq. (12) sets p^- = 0, and the authors acknowledge in Sec. V that this breaks the standard definitions in Eq. (2). For 12C at Q = 5 GeV, M_A^2/Q^2 is of order 5, so target-mass corrections are not uniformly small over the kinematic range shown in Figs. 3-7; for example, x^2 M_A^2/Q^2 reaches about 0.45 at x = 0.3. Because the claimed universality of A^π (Fig. 7) is established only within this massless approximation, the flatness of RA(C), RA(O), and RA(Ca) could be an artifact of neglecting A-dependent target-mass terms. The paper should either estimate the size of these corrections (for instance using a Nachtmann-ξ rescaling with the nuclear mass) or explicitly restrict the universality claim to the massless limit.
  2. [Sec. IV B, Eqs. (65)-(69); Figs. 3-7] The numerical definition of A^π is incomplete. Equation (22) defines dσ as differential in dx dy dψ dz d^2 p_h⊥, and Eq. (69) defines A^π as a ratio of such differential cross sections. The text and figure captions, however, do not state whether A^π is evaluated at a fixed transverse momentum p_h⊥, integrated over p_h⊥, or weighted in some other way. If A^π is a function of p_h⊥, the plots versus x and z are not uniquely defined; if it is integrated, the integration must be shown explicitly. Without this specification the numerical results in Figs. 3-7 are not reproducible.
  3. [Sec. IV B and Figs. 5-7] The universality claim rests on a single nPDF set (EPPS21), a single FF set, and a Gaussian kT ansatz with flavor-independent nuclear widths. No uncertainty propagation or alternative sets are considered. In particular, the 0.0005-level flatness in Fig. 7 is much smaller than the known spread among modern nPDF sets and the expected size of the target-mass corrections discussed above. The authors should test the robustness of the flatness using at least one additional nPDF set and an alternative transverse-momentum parametrization, or explicitly state that the conclusion is a model-dependent observation valid only within the Gaussian, massless, one-set approximation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'Semi-inclusive means that a spin-1 hadron is also measured in addition to the scattered charged lepton' is inaccurate because the numerical part of the paper treats charged pions, which are spin-0. The phrase should be 'a hadron (possibly spin-1)' or similar.
  2. [Sec. I, third paragraph] There is a typo: 'they can provides precision measurements' should be 'they can provide precision measurements'.
  3. [Sec. IV B, caption of Figs. 3 and 4] The statement that solid black lines show 'Aπ without any approximation' is misleading, since the full calculation still uses the Gaussian ansatz and the massless-target approximation. It would be clearer to say 'without the additional approximations of Eqs. (77)-(85)'.
  4. [Sec. IV B, Eq. (88)] The derivation of Aπ_V assumes a specific ratio D_s^{π-}/D_u^{π+}; stating the numerical value of this ratio at the plotted kinematics would help the reader assess the result.
  5. [General] The paper does not explain how the input PDFs and FFs are evolved to the common scale Q = 5 GeV. A sentence specifying the treatment of the scale (or stating that a fixed scale is used) would remove ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the chiral-odd suppression follows from the standard-model CC vertex, and the numerical A^pi universality is a parameter-free prediction from external nPDFs, FFs, and fixed Gaussian widths; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The formal claim that only the chiral-even f1 survives (Eqs. (43) and (55)) is obtained by inserting the charged-current couplings c_V = c_A = 1 into the trace formulas (37)-(39); because c_2 = (c_V)^2 - (c_A)^2 = 0, the chiral-odd trace is zero. This is a direct consequence of the standard-model input, not a fitted output. The numerical yield asymmetry A^pi (Eq. (70)) is evaluated from EPPS21/CT18 nuclear PDFs, NNPDF fragmentation functions, fixed Gaussian widths, and PDG CKM elements, with no parameter adjusted to reproduce the claimed N=Z universality; Figs. 5-7 are therefore genuine predictions rather than refitted results. The self-citations (Refs. [9]-[12] and [22]-[24]) appear only in the introductory discussion of jet-frame kinematics and are not load-bearing for the central derivation, which relies on external TMD references (Mulders-Tangerman, Bacchetta et al.). The caveats in Sec. V about the neglected nuclear mass in Eq. (12) and the missing systematic partonic formalism for nuclei are acknowledged limitations affecting model validity, not instances where an output is fed back as an input. No circular step is present.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or dimensions. Its predictions rest on external fits (nPDFs, FFs, Gaussian widths) and on the approximation that nucleus SIDIS behaves like nucleon SIDIS, so the central numerical claims inherit the credibility of those inputs.

free parameters (4)
  • Gaussian width for light quark transverse momentum (u,d) = 0.34 GeV^2
    Taken from literature fits [32-37]; controls kT dependence of PDFs in Eq. (86).
  • Gaussian width for anti-quark transverse momentum (ubar,dbar) = 0.63 GeV^2
    Taken from literature fits [32-37]; used in Eq. (86).
  • Gaussian width for strange quark transverse momentum = 0.22 GeV^2
    Taken from literature [32-37]; used in Eq. (86).
  • Gaussian width for hadron transverse momentum = 0.17 GeV^2
    Taken from Ref. [37,38]; used in Eq. (87).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SIDIS factorization for nuclei: the cross section is the same convolution of nuclear PDFs and FFs as for nucleons.
    Stated in Sec. II: 'We assume that the formalism of the SIDIS of nucleus is the same to that of nucleon.'
  • domain assumption The nuclear mass can be neglected in the light-cone parameterization, so only the plus component of the nucleus momentum survives.
    Eqs. (10)-(12) and text: 'we do not consider the mass effect.'
  • ad hoc to paper Transverse momentum dependence has a Gaussian form with fixed widths.
    Eqs. (86)-(87); this is a model assumption, not derived.
  • domain assumption Isospin symmetry holds for N=Z nuclei: f_u=f_d, f_ubar=f_dbar, and D_u(pi+)=D_d(pi-), D_dbar(pi+)=D_ubar(pi-).
    Used after Eq. (72) to simplify F_pi_M and F_pi_P.
  • domain assumption No nuclear-modified fragmentation functions.
    Stated in Sec. I: 'we do not consider the nuclear modified FFs here.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hadron production in the charged current semi-inclusive deeply inelastic scattering of $N=Z$ nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZYCCJMU

@misc{pith2026241118080,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hadron production in the charged current semi-inclusive deeply inelastic scattering of $N=Z$ nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZYCCJMU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18080}
}
abstract

The charged current weak interaction can distinguish quark flavors, it provides a valid method to determine (transverse momentum dependent) parton distribution functions in high energy reactions by utilizing tagged hadrons. In this paper, we calculate the charged current semi-inclusive deeply inelastic neutrino and anti-neutrino scattering of $N=Z$ nuclei. Semi-inclusive means that a spin-1 hadron is also measured in addition to the scattered charged lepton. The target nucleus has the same number of neutrons and protons and is assumed as unpolarized. According to calculations, we find that only chiral-even terms survive and chiral-odd terms vanish in the differential cross section for this charged current deeply inelastic (anti-)neutrino nucleus scattering process. Furthermore, we introduce a measurable quantity, the yield asymmetry of the produced hadron $A^h$, to determine the nuclear parton distribution functions. Numerical estimates show that the yield asymmetry is independent of the type of target nucleus if it has the same number of neutrons and protons. Numerical estimates also show that sea quark distribution functions and disfavored fragmentation functions have significant influence on measurable quantities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18080 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Illustration of the SIDIS process in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Numerical estimates of the asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Numerical estimates of the asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Numerical estimates of the asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Numerical estimates of the asymmetry ratio of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Numerical estimates of the asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Numerical estimates of the asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (29) Lorentz-scalar quantities MN and Mh are introduced via di- mensional analysis

    (26) For the coe fficient functions of the fragmentation correlator, we have zΞα =nα D1 + εk′S ⊥ Mh D⊥ 1T + S LLD1LL + k′ ⊥· S LT Mh D⊥ 1LT + S k′k′ T T M2 h D⊥ 1T T ! , (27) z ˜Ξα =nα λhG1L + k′ ⊥· S T Mh G⊥ 1T + εk′S LT ⊥ Mh G⊥ 1LT + ˜S k′k′ T T M2 h G⊥ 1T T ! , (28) zΞαβ =nα "εk′β ⊥ Mh H⊥ 1 + S 1LLH⊥ 1LL + Sβ T H1T + k′β ⊥ Mh λhH⊥ 1L + k′ ⊥· S T Mh H⊥ ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Ariga et al

    A. Ariga et al. [FASER], [arXiv:1812.09139 [physics.ins-det]]

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    J. L. Feng, I. Galon, F. Kling and S. Trojanowski, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.3, 035001 (2018) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.97.035001 [arXiv:1708.09389 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    J. L. Feng, F. Kling, M. H. Reno, J. Rojo, D. Soldin, L. A. An- chordoqui, J. Boyd, A. Ismail, L. Harland-Lang and K. J. Kelly, et al. J. Phys. G 50, no.3, 030501 (2023) doi:10.1088 /1361- 6471/ac865e [arXiv:2203.05090 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    L. A. Anchordoqui, A. Ariga, T. Ariga, W. Bai, K. Bal- azs, B. Batell, J. Boyd, J. Bramante, M. Campanelli and A. Carmona, et al. Phys. Rept. 968, 1-50 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.04.004 [arXiv:2109.10905 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    J. J. Aubert et al. [European Muon], Phys. Lett. B 123, 275-278 (1983) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90437-9

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)90437-9 1983

  7. [7]

    L. L. Frankfurt and M. I. Strikman, Phys. Rept. 160, 235-427 (1988) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(88)90179-2

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(88)90179-2 1988

  8. [8]

    E. A. Paschos and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D7, 91-95 (1973) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.91

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.7.91 1973

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    D. Boer, M. Diehl, R. Milner, R. Venugopalan, W. V ogelsang, D. Kaplan, H. Montgomery, S. Vigdor, A. Accardi and E. C. As- chenauer, et al. [arXiv:1108.1713 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Yang and X

    W. Yang and X. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B 990, 116181 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2023.116181

    2023

  3. [11]

    Yang and X

    W. Yang and X. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.9, 093003 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.093003 [arXiv:2209.01629 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C. Wu, X. Yang, C. Li and W. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B997, 116390 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2023.116390

    2023

  5. [13]

    Yang, Phys

    W. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.5, 056022 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.056022 [arXiv:2306.12632 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Y . k. Song, J. h. Gao, Z. t. Liang and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 1, 014005 (2014) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.89.014005 [arXiv:1308.1159 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Y . k. Song, J. h. Gao, Z. t. Liang and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 83, 054010 (2011) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.83.054010 [arXiv:1012.4179 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Gutierrez-Reyes, I

    D. Gutierrez-Reyes, I. Scimemi, W. J. Waalewijn and L. Zoppi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no.16, 162001 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.162001 [arXiv:1807.07573 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    S. y. Wei, Y . k. Song, K. b. Chen and Z. t. Liang, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 7, 074017 (2017) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.95.074017 [arXiv:1611.08688 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    X. Liu, F. Ringer, W. V ogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no.19, 192003 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.192003 [arXiv:1812.08077 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Gutierrez-Reyes, I

    D. Gutierrez-Reyes, I. Scimemi, W. J. Waalewijn and L. Zoppi, JHEP 10, 031 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2019)031 [arXiv:1904.04259 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Z. B. Kang, X. Liu, S. Mantry and D. Y . Shao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 242003 (2020) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevLett.125.242003 [arXiv:2008.00655 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    X. Liu, F. Ringer, W. V ogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.9, 094022 (2020) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.102.094022 [arXiv:2007.12866 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    K. B. Chen and W. H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.9, 096017 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.096017 [arXiv:2004.01359 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Arratia, Y

    M. Arratia, Y . Makris, D. Neill, F. Ringer and N. Sato, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.3, 034005 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.034005 [arXiv:2006.10751 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    X. h. Yang and W. h. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.9, 093007 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.093007 [arXiv:2211.10899 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Yang, Phys

    W. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.1, 016011 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.016011 [arXiv:2011.10212 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bacchetta, M

    A. Bacchetta, M. Diehl, K. Goeke, A. Metz, P. J. Mulders and M. Schlegel, JHEP 0702, 093 (2007) doi:10.1088 /1126- 6708/2007/02/093 [hep-ph/0611265]

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    P. J. Mulders and R. D. Tangerman, Nucl. Phys. B 461, 197 (1996) Erratum: [Nucl. Phys. B 484, 538 (1997)] doi:10.1016 /S0550-3213(96)00648-7, 10.1016 /0550- 3213(95)00632-X [hep-ph/9510301]

    1996 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bacchetta and P

    A. Bacchetta and P. J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. D62, 114004 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.114004 [hep-ph/0007120]

    2000 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sajjad Athar, A

    M. Sajjad Athar, A. Fatima and S. K. Singh, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 129, 104019 (2023) doi:10.1016 /j.ppnp.2022.104019 [arXiv:2206.13792 [hep-ph]]

    2023

  22. [30]

    Bacchetta, U

    A. Bacchetta, U. D’Alesio, M. Diehl and C. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 70, 117504 (2004) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.70.117504 [arXiv:hep-ph/0410050 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    R. D. Tangerman and P. J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. D 51, 3357-3372 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.3357 [arXiv:hep- ph/9403227 [hep-ph]]

    1995

  24. [32]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, A. Kotzinian, F. Murgia and A. Prokudin, Phys. Rev. D 71, 074006 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.074006 [arXiv:hep-ph /0501196 [hep-ph]]

    2005 doi

  25. [33]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 030001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, J. O. Gonzalez Hernan- dez, S. Melis and A. Prokudin, JHEP 04, 005 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)005 [arXiv:1312.6261 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Signori, A

    A. Signori, A. Bacchetta, M. Radici and G. Schnell, JHEP 11, 194 (2013) doi:10.1007 /JHEP11(2013)194 [arXiv:1309.3507 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Bacchetta et al

    A. Bacchetta et al. [MAP (Multi-dimensional Anal- yses of Partonic distributions)], JHEP 10, 127 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2022)127 [arXiv:2206.07598 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Cammarota et al

    J. Cammarota et al. [Jefferson Lab Angular Mo- mentum], Phys. Rev. D 102, no.5, 054002 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.054002 [arXiv:2002.08384 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Callos, Z

    D. Callos, Z. B. Kang and J. Terry, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.9, 096007 (2020) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.102.096007 [arXiv:2003.04828 [hep-ph]]. 10

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bacchetta et al

    A. Bacchetta et al. [MAP], JHEP 08, 232 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)232 [arXiv:2405.13833 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    T. J. Hou, J. Gao, T. J. Hobbs, K. Xie, S. Du- lat, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin and C. Schmidt, et al. Phys. Rev. D 103, no.1, 014013 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.014013 [arXiv:1912.10053 [hep- ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen and C. A. Salgado, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.5, 413 (2022) doi:10.1140 /epjc/s10052- 022-10359-0 [arXiv:2112.12462 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    argued that Q2/v is independent of the atomic number 8 Aπ (12C)/Aπ (12C) Aπ (16O)/Aπ (12C) Aπ (40Ca)/Aπ (12C) 0.001 0.005 0.010 0.050 0.100 0.500 1 0.99965 0.99970 0.99975 0.99980 0.99985 0.99990 0.99995 1.00000 x RA FIG. 7. Numerical estimates of the asymmetry ratio of RA(C),...

  35. [43]

    Bertoneet al

    V . Bertoneet al. [NNPDF], Eur. Phys. J. C77, no.8, 516 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5088-y [arXiv:1706.07049 [hep- ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    R. Ruiz, K. F. Muzakka, C. Leger, P. Risse, A. Ac- cardi, P. Duwent ¨aster, T. J. Hobbs, T. Je ˇzo, C. Keppel and M. Klasen, et al. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 136, 104096 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104096 [arXiv:2301.07715 [hep-ph]]

    2024

  37. [45]

    Abreu et al

    H. Abreu et al. [FASER], Phys. Rev. D 104, no.9, L091101 (2021) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.104.L091101 [arXiv:2105.06197 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Mammen Abraham et al

    R. Mammen Abraham et al. [FASER], Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, no.2, 021802 (2024) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevLett.133.021802 [arXiv:2403.12520 [hep-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Mammen Abraham et al

    R. Mammen Abraham et al. [FASER], Phys. Rev. D 110, no.1, 012009 (2024) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.110.012009 [arXiv:2402.13318 [hep-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.