Twist-3 generalized parton distributions of sea quarks at zero skewness in the light-cone quark model

Xiaoyan Luan; Zhun Lu

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Twist-3 generalized parton distributions of sea quarks at zero skewness in the light-cone quark model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read All eight nonzero twist-3 GPDs of the proton's \bar{u} and \bar{d} sea quarks at zero skewness are computed, and their kinetic orbital angular momentum matches the twist-2 result.

desk verdict First LCQM calculation of sea-quark twist-3 GPDs at ξ=0, but the OAM 'cross-check' is a restatement of Ji's sum rule rather than an independent twist-3 validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13627 v1 pith:VX6F6E5U submitted 2025-04-18 hep-ph

Xiaoyan Luan , Zhun Lu This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords twist-3GPDsseaquarkslight-conequarkmodelmeson-baryonfluctuationorbitalangularmomentumzeroskewnessoverlaprepresentationpartondistributionfunctions

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 argues that the twist-3 generalized parton distributions (GPDs) of the proton's \bar{u} and \bar{d} sea quarks can be computed systematically from the light-cone quark model with meson-baryon fluctuations, yielding the first complete set of predictions at zero skewness. The calculation matters because twist-3 GPDs correct deeply virtual Compton scattering amplitudes at moderate momentum transfers and provide a route to the quark orbital angular momentum (OAM) that is independent of the twist-2 route. The paper reports analytic expressions for six of the eight twist-3 GPDs, finds that the other two vanish identically in this model, and shows that the OAM obtained from the twist-3 GPDs agrees with the twist-2 values to within a few percent.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the light-cone wave functions from the meson-baryon fluctuation model, Eqs. (28) and (31), which factorize the proton's sea-quark Fock content into a baryonic part and a pion $q\bar{q}$ part with dipolar form factors, together with the overlap representation of the quark-quark correlation function, Eq. (38). The wave functions convert the off-forward matrix elements defining the twist-3 GPDs into explicit integrals over the light-cone momentum fractions $y$ and $x$ and the transverse momenta $\boldsymbol{k}_T$ and $\boldsymbol{r}_T$; carrying out these integrals yields the analytic formulas Eqs. (40)-(46) that are the paper's main output.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD calculation of the twist-3 PDFs $e^{\bar u}(x)$ and $e^{\bar d}(x)$ that violates $e^{\bar q/P}(x)=m/(xM)\,f_1^{\bar q/P}(x)$ at moderate $x$, or a direct lattice determination finding a nonzero $\widetilde{E}_2$ or $H_{2T}'$ for sea quarks at $\xi=0$, would falsify the model's central predictions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims to derive, in the overlap representation of light-cone wave functions built from the proton fluctuations $|p\rangle\to|\pi^+ n\rangle$ and $|p\rangle\to|\pi^- \Delta^{++}\rangle$, closed analytic expressions for the eight twist-3 GPDs of the \bar{u} and \bar{d} sea quarks at $\xi=0$: the chiral-odd set $H_2$, $E_2$, $\widetilde{E}_2$, $\widetilde{H}_2'$ and the chiral-even set $\widetilde{E}_{2T}$, $H_{2T}'$, $E_{2T}'$, $\widetilde{H}_{2T}'$. The central results are that $\widetilde{E}_2$ and $H_{2T}'$ vanish identically in this model; that the forward limit of $H_2$ reproduces the twist-3 PDF $e(x)$ and satisfies the relation $e^{\bar q/P}(x)=m/(xM)\,f_1^{\bar q/P}(x)$; and that the kinetic OAM of the sea quarks computed from the twist-3 GPD through $L_z=-\int_{-1}^{1}dx\,x\,G_2(x,0,0)$ takes the values $L_{\bar u}=0.024$ and $L_{\bar d}=0.046$, consistent with the twist-2 GPD results $L_{\bar u}=0.025$ and $L_{\bar d}=0.046$ from an earlier calculation. This consistency is offered as validation of the model and as a constraint on sea-quark angular momentum.

Load-bearing premise

Every numerical prediction rests on the assumption that the proton's sea quarks are fully represented by the two fluctuation channels $|p\rangle\to|\pi^+ n\rangle$ and $|p\rangle\to|\pi^- \Delta^{++}\rangle$ with the dipolar form factors and parameters fitted in Ref. [52]; if other meson-baryon channels contribute materially, the shapes and normalizations of all eight GPDs and the OAM match would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The complete $\xi=0$ twist-3 GPD set for \bar{u} and \bar{d} sea quarks can now be used to estimate power-suppressed DVCS background at moderate $Q^2$ and to model exclusive meson production.
The prediction that $\widetilde{E}_2$ and $H_{2T}'$ vanish for sea quarks is a sharp, testable signature of the meson-cloud mechanism.
The forward relation $e^{\bar q/P}(x)=m/(xM)\,f_1^{\bar q/P}(x)$ gives a direct model connection between the twist-3 PDF and the unpolarized PDF for sea quarks, with $e(x)$ positive and \bar{u} larger than \bar{d}.
The agreement of the kinetic OAM computed from twist-3 and twist-2 GPDs (differences of order 0.001) supports using either definition for sea-quark OAM in phenomenological analyses.

Reading between the lines

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

If the twist-2/twist-3 OAM agreement is not a model artifact, $G_2$ provides an independent phenomenological route to sea-quark OAM that could be combined with lattice-QCD matrix elements in future analyses.
Extending the same fluctuation mechanism to $\xi\neq 0$ and to other sea flavors (strange, charm) would produce testable sign patterns—for instance, $xE_2$ and $x\widetilde{E}_{2T}$ negative, $xE_{2T}'$ changing sign—that could discriminate meson-cloud models from spectator or diquark models.
Since twist-3 GPDs are also 'mother distributions' for generalized TMDs, the model's sea-quark twist-3 GPDs could serve as input for computing spin-orbit correlations and Wigner distributions of the sea, linking the OAM result to tomographic pictures of the proton.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Short version: the eight twist-3 sea-quark GPD expressions in Eqs. (40)-(46) are new, and the overlap calculation looks systematic. The paper is worth engaging. But the twist-2/twist-3 OAM agreement that the authors present as validation does not hold up as an independent check, and a few missing details need fixing.

The real contribution is the first model evaluation of the complete set of nonzero twist-3 GPDs for ubar and dbar at ξ=0 in the meson-baryon fluctuation LCQM. The analytic expressions, the vanishing of ~E2 and H'_2T, and the forward-limit e(x) relation give the community concrete model shapes to compare against. That is useful, especially for DVCS power-correction studies and EIC-era phenomenology.

Soft spots, in order. First, the OAM comparison in Sec. IV.B is underdocumented. Eq. (52) defines L from G2, but G2 never appears in the computed set of twist-3 GPDs. The only displayed route from G2 to L goes through Eq. (50), which at t=0 is just Ji's sum rule for twist-2 H, E, and ~H. Unless the authors show an explicit expression for G2 in terms of their LCWFs, the numbers 0.024 and 0.046 are not a twist-3 check; they are the same twist-2 inputs from Ref. [62] wearing a different integral. That claim should be reframed or removed. Second, the quark mass m is not reported. Eq. (56) makes e(x) proportional to f1 with m as the only free parameter, and the curves in Fig. 6 depend on it. Without m, the forward-limit results are not reproducible; easy fix. Third, figure captions for Figs. 1-4 systematically swap 'chiral-even' and 'chiral-odd'. The text gets the assignments right; the captions will mislead. Also a duplicated clause and a typo in Sec. IV.B.

The restriction to πN and πΔ fluctuations is a defensible first pass, but it should be stated as a caveat on absolute normalization.

Bottom line: the central GPD calculation appears sound; the validation narrative needs repair, not the whole paper. This is for GPD model-builders and people working on higher-twist effects. It deserves a serious referee. I'd recommend a revision that makes the OAM derivation explicit (or drops the consistency claim), reports m, and fixes the captions.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a light-cone quark-model calculation of the eight ξ-even twist-3 GPDs of $\bar u$ and $\bar d$ sea quarks in the proton at zero skewness, using a meson-baryon fluctuation model with $|\pi^+ n\rangle$ and $|\pi^- \Delta^{++}\rangle$ Fock states. The authors derive overlap-representation formulas, give analytic expressions in Eqs. (40)-(46), compute numerical plots as functions of $x$ and $\Delta_T$, take the forward limit to obtain the twist-3 PDF $e(x)$, and compare the kinetic orbital angular momentum extracted from twist-3 GPDs with the twist-2 result from their earlier work. Two of the eight GPDs, $\widetilde E_2$ and $H'_{2T}$, vanish identically in the model.

Significance. If fully substantiated, this would be a useful first systematic model calculation of sea-quark twist-3 GPDs at zero skewness. The overlap formulas in Appendix A and the analytic expressions in Eqs. (40)-(46) are systematic and go beyond the valence-quark focus of most earlier twist-3 GPD calculations. The numerical curves are concrete, falsifiable model predictions. However, the advertised twist-2/twist-3 OAM cross-check is currently not derived from the computed twist-3 objects, the quark mass $m$ is not reported, and the forward-limit $e(x)$ verification is a restatement of the input PDF. These issues must be addressed before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section IV.B, Eqs. (50)-(52), Fig. 5] The central twist-2/twist-3 OAM consistency claim is not derived from the twist-3 GPDs computed in this paper. Eq. (52) defines $L_q^z$ from $G_2$, but the manuscript never expresses $G_2$ in terms of the model's twist-3 light-cone wave functions. The only displayed identity, Eq. (50), combined with Eq. (52), is algebraically identical to Ji's sum rule, Eq. (51), and involves only the twist-2 GPDs $H, E, \widetilde H$ from Ref. [62]. The twist-3 functions computed here, such as $\widetilde E_{2T}, E'_{2T}, \widetilde H'_{2T}$, do not enter the displayed derivation. Moreover, according to Eq. (10), $G_2$ at $\xi=0$ requires the $H_{2T}/\xi$ limit and $E_{2T}$, neither of which is computed (indeed $H_{2T}$ vanishes at $\xi=0$ and is a $\xi$-odd function). Thus the quoted agreement $L_{\bar u}=0.024$, $L_{\bar d}=0.046$ with Ref. [62] appears to be either a restatement of the same twist-2 model input or the result of an undocumented additional assumption. Please provide the explicit model expression for $G_2$ and define the x-dependent quantity plotted in Fig. 5.
[Section III, Eqs. (31), (33), (40)-(46); Table I] The quark/sea-quark mass $m$ entering the mesonic wave functions and all final GPD expressions is never specified. The dipolar form factor in Eq. (35), the function $L_2^2$ in Eq. (33), and the analytic GPDs in Eqs. (40)-(46) all depend on $m$, as does the forward relation $e_{\bar q/P}(x)=m/(xM)\, f_{1}^{\bar q/P}(x)$ in Eq. (56). Without $m$, the numerical curves, the quoted OAM values, and the claimed 0.024-versus-0.025 agreement cannot be reproduced or independently assessed. The manuscript should also report uncertainties or at least a sensitivity estimate for the fitted parameters in Table I, since the twist-2 comparison is quoted to three decimal places.
[Section IV.B, Eq. (56), Fig. 6] The statement that the model result 'satisfies' $e_{\bar q/P}(x)=m/(xM)\, f_{1}^{\bar q/P}(x)$ is not an independent verification. The unpolarized PDF $f_{1}^{\bar q/P}$ from Ref. [52] was the input used to fix the parameters $g_1, \Lambda_\pi, \Lambda_{\bar q}$; with the same wave functions, $H_2$ is proportional to $f_1$ by construction. Consequently the plotted $e(x)$ in Fig. 6 carries no information beyond the already-fitted $f_1$. This should either be labeled explicitly as a self-consistency check of the overlap algebra, or the relation should be tested against a $f_1$ parametrization not used in the fit.

minor comments (5)

[Section IV.A, Figs. 1-4] The chiral-even/chiral-odd labels in the text are reversed for the plotted distributions. The $H_2, E_2, \widetilde E_2, \widetilde H'_2$ family follows from $\Gamma=1, \gamma_5, i\sigma^{ij}\gamma_5, i\sigma^{+-}\gamma_5$ and is chiral-odd, while the $\widetilde E_{2T}, H'_{2T}, E'_{2T}, \widetilde H'_{2T}$ family follows from $\Gamma=\gamma^i, \gamma^i\gamma_5$ and is chiral-even. For example, the text before Fig. 1 calls the $\Gamma=1$ distributions 'chiral-even'; please correct this and the analogous labels in Figs. 2-4.
[Eq. (17)] In the definitions of $\widetilde H'_2$ and $\widetilde E'_2$, the second helicity correlator should use $\Gamma=i\sigma^{+-}\gamma_5$, not $\Gamma=i\sigma^{12}\gamma_5$. As written, each equation mixes two different Dirac structures.
[Figs. 1-6 captions] The figure captions are not readable as printed; they contain long streams of tokens such as '/s48/s46/...' rather than actual text. They should be regenerated. In addition, the caption of Fig. 5 does not define what the x-dependent 'kinetic OAM' curves represent (cumulative integral up to $x$, integrand, or some other quantity).
[Section IV.B, after Eq. (55)] The sentence immediately after Eq. (55) is incomplete ('Among them, only has a nonzero twist-3 PDF e(x)') and the assertion that only $e(x)$ is nonzero is unsupported, since $h_L(x)$ and $g_T(x)$ are not computed anywhere in the paper. Please clarify the statement and either compute these forward limits or state explicitly that they are outside the scope.
[Section III, Eq. (26)] The restriction to the two fluctuation channels $|\pi^+ n\rangle$ and $|\pi^- \Delta^{++}\rangle$ is a model truncation whose quantitative effect on the absolute normalization and $x$-dependence of the eight GPDs is not estimated. A brief discussion of possible contributions from other meson-baryon channels would help calibrate the model uncertainty.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Twist-3 OAM 'cross-check' collapses into Ji's sum rule; forward-limit e(x) is the fitted PDF rescaled by m/(xM).

fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV.B (Forward limit), Eq. (56) and Fig. 6; parameters from Table I and Ref. [52]]
"We can easily verify that our result satisfy the following relation e_{\bar q/P}(x) = \frac{m}{xM} f_1^{\bar q/P}(x), where f_1^{\bar q/P}(x) has been obtained in Ref. [52]. In Fig. 6, we depict the twist-3 PDF xe_{\bar q/P}(x) of \bar u and \bar d quarks as a function of x."

The parameters g1, g2, Lambda_pi, and Lambda_qbar entering the LCWFs were fixed in Ref. [52] by fitting the same unpolarized PDFs f1 using GRV and MSTW2008 LO parametrizations, as stated before Table I. Equation (56) therefore makes e(x) a fixed rescaling of the fitted f1 by m/(xM); the plotted xe(x) is the input PDF relabeled as a twist-3 result. No independent normalization, x-dependence, or new information enters the forward-limit prediction.
self definitional [Sec. IV.B, Eqs. (50)-(52), OAM comparison paragraph and Ref. [62]]
"Sum rules ... ∫ dx xG2 = 1/2 {G_A(t) - ∫ dx x [H+E]}. ... Ji's sum rule: L_{\bar q} = ∫ dx 1/2 {x[H+E] - \tilde H}. Alternatively, the kinetic OAM can also be represented as L_q^z = -∫ dx xG2(x,0,0). ... Utilizing the GPDs from our model, we calculate the kinetic OAM defined by the twist-3 GPDs and obtain L_{\bar u}=0.024 and L_{\bar d}=0.046. These results are consistent with the kinetic OAM values defined by the twist-2 GPDs, as calculated in Ref. [62]."

Inserting Eq. (50) into Eq. (52) gives L^z = -1/2 G_A(0) + 1/2 ∫ dx x[H+E]. Since G_A(0)=∫ dx \tilde H, this is exactly Ji's twist-2 sum rule, Eq. (51). Thus the quoted 'twist-3' OAM is the twist-2 OAM by construction: no expression for G2 in terms of the computed twist-3 LCWFs of Eqs. (40)-(46) is supplied, and the advertised 0.024/0.046 values are not shown to depend on ~E2T or any other computed twist-3 GPD. Ref. [62] is the same authors' twist-2 calculation with the same model, so the agreement is not an independent cross-check.

full rationale

The analytic twist-3 GPD expressions in Eqs. (40)-(46) are genuine overlap-representation results built from the |pi+n> and |pi-Delta++> LCWFs; their Delta_T-dependence and the vanishing entries (~E2=0, H'_2T=0) are not extracted from a fit, so the core model calculation has independent content. However, the two advertised prediction/validation steps are circular. First, Eq. (56) makes the forward-limit twist-3 PDF e(x) exactly proportional to f1, and f1 is the PDF used in Ref. [52] to fix the model parameters, so the e(x) plot is a rescaled version of a fitted input. Second, the OAM comparison is not a twist-3 check: combining the printed G2 sum rule (50) with the PPSS relation (52) identically reproduces Ji's twist-2 sum rule (51), and the paper never shows how its computed twist-3 GPDs produce G2. The agreement with Ref. [62], a same-author twist-2 calculation in the same model, is therefore a comparison of twist-2 numbers with themselves unless an undocumented computation is assumed. These are partial circularities in the validation layer, not in the derivation of the GPD shapes themselves, so the score is 6 rather than higher.

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

The numerical predictions rest on wave functions and parameters imported from the authors' earlier fits; the quark mass is unspecified, and the e(x) forward limit inherits the fitted f1. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (5)

g1 = 9.33 (ubar), 5.79 (dbar)
Coupling in the baryonic form factor; fitted in Ref. [52] to f1u/P and f1d/P and inherited here. Sets the normalization of all sea-quark twist-3 GPDs.
g2 = 4.46 (both)
Coupling in the mesonic form factor; fixed in Ref. [52] by fitting pion PDFs and inherited here.
Lambda_pi = 0.223 GeV
Cutoff in the nucleon-pion-baryon form factor; fit parameter from Ref. [52].
Lambda_qbar = 0.510 GeV
Cutoff in the pion-quark-sea-quark form factor; fit parameter from Ref. [52].
quark/sea-quark mass m = not specified in the text
Appears in all twist-3 expressions and in e(x)=m/(xM) f1; without a numerical value, Figures 1-6 cannot be reproduced.

assumptions (5)

standard math Light-cone Fock-state expansion and overlap representation (Eq. 38) express GPDs through LCWFs.
Standard light-front technique used in Refs. [59-67]; accepted in the field.
domain assumption The proton sea is represented by only |pi+n> and |pi- Delta++> fluctuations, with the pion as a q qbar pair.
Introduced in Refs. [50-52]; invalidates the numerical predictions if other Fock components contribute significantly.
domain assumption Dipolar form factors (Eqs. 34-35) describe the two coupling vertices.
Functional form chosen in Ref. [52] and inherited here; shapes and normalization of all GPDs depend on it.
standard math Antiquark distributions are obtained from quark distributions through Eq. (37).
Relation from Ref. [66] connecting quark and antiquark correlation functions.
standard math Ji sum rule, Eq. (51), and the Penttinen-Polyakov-Shuvaev-Strikman relation, Eq. (52), connect GPD moments to kinetic orbital angular momentum.
Established sum rules; used to interpret the model output as OAM.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Twist-3 generalized parton distributions of sea quarks at zero skewness in the light-cone quark model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VX6F6E5U

@misc{pith2026250413627,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Twist-3 generalized parton distributions of sea quarks at zero skewness in the light-cone quark model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VX6F6E5U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13627}
}

abstract

We present a systematic study of twist-3 generalized parton distributions (GPDs) for $\bar{u}$ and $\bar{d}$ sea quarks in the proton at zero skewness ($\xi=0$) using the light-cone formalism with overlap representation. The proton wave functions are derived from a meson-baryon fluctuation model that incorporates $|q\bar{q}B\rangle$ Fock states, providing a natural framework for investigating sea quark contributions. Within this approach, we compute the complete set of twist-3 GPDs and present the numerical results, including both chiral-odd ($H_2$, $E_2$, $\widetilde{E}_2$, $\widetilde{H}_2^\prime$) and chiral-even ($\widetilde{E}_{2T}$, $H_{2T}^\prime$, $E_{2T}^\prime$, $\widetilde{H}_{2T}^\prime$) distributions for $\bar{u}$ and $\bar{d}$ quarks at zero skewness. By taking the forward limit, we also calculate the corresponding twist-3 parton distribution functions $e(x)$ of $\bar{u}$ and $\bar{d}$ quarks. The kinetic orbital angular momenta of sea quarks deduced from the twist-3 GPDs are studied and compared to those from the twist-2 GPDs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13627 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The twist-3 chiral-even GPDs (multiplied with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The twist-3 chiral-odd GPDs (multiplied with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The twist-3 chiral-odd GPDs (multiplied with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The kinetic OAM of ¯u [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The twist-3 PDFs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Mechanical properties of the nucleon from the generalized parton distributions
hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Using a double-distribution GPD model constrained by elastic-scattering data, the paper fits DQ(0) = -3.37 ± 0.17 from Compton form factors and derives proton pressure, shear, and radii.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[62]

Bacchetta, F

A. Bacchetta, F. Conti and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008), 074010 [arXiv:0807.0323 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2008
[52]

Chiral-even twist-3 GPDs for the proton in a spectator diquark model

C. Tan and Z. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.7, 074027 [arXiv:2407.17448 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[1]

The spinor product corresponds to the h igher-twist Dirac matrices and encodes struck quark helicity combinations

represents the helicity of the initial(ﬁnal) struck quark, and λi(λ′ i)(i = 2...n) denotes the helicity of the initial(ﬁnal) spectators. The spinor product corresponds to the h igher-twist Dirac matrices and encodes struck quark helicity combinations. And [dx][d2kT ] = ∏ dxiki T 16π3 16π3δ ( 1 − ∑ xi ) δ2 T (∑ ki T ) δ (x −x1). (39) Using the LCWFs in Eqs...

work page
[2]

mother distributions

and chiral-even ( ~E2T , H ′ 2T , E′ 2T , ~H ′ 2T ) distributions for ¯u and ¯d quarks at zero skewness. By taking the forward limit, we also calculate the corresponding twist-3 parton distribution functions e(x) of ¯u and ¯d quarks. The kinetic orbital angular momenta of sea quarks deduced from the twist-3 GPDs a re studied and compared to those from the...

work page
[3]

(33) For the form factors g(r2) and g(k2), we adopt the dipolar form g(r2) = −g1(1 −y) r2 T +L2 1(m2 π) [r2 T +L2 1(Λ 2 π)]2, (34) g(k2) = −g2(1 − x y ) (kT − x y rT )2 +L2 2(m2) [(kT − x y rT )2 +L2 2(Λ 2¯q)]2. (35) When considering the quark as the active parton (with the antiquar k as spectator), the quark carries momentum −kT and longitudinal momentum...

work page
[4]

1, we plot the chiral-even GPDs associated with Γ = 1, namely, H ¯u/P 2 , H ¯d/P 2 , E ¯u/P 2 , and E ¯d/P 2 at ξ = 0

In the upper and lower panels of Fig. 1, we plot the chiral-even GPDs associated with Γ = 1, namely, H ¯u/P 2 , H ¯d/P 2 , E ¯u/P 2 , and E ¯d/P 2 at ξ = 0. We ﬁnd that xH ¯u/P 2 and xH ¯d/P 2 are positive throughout the entire x and ∆ T region. For ﬁxed values of x, both xH ¯u/P 2 and xH ¯d/P 2 show a monotonically decreasing trend with increasing ∆ T . ...

work page
[5]

Adloﬀ et al

C. Adloﬀ et al. [H1], Eur. Phys. J. C 13 (2000), 371-396 [arXiv:hep-ex/9902019 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2000
[6]

M¨ uller, D

D. M¨ uller, D. Robaschik, B. Geyer, F. M. Dittes and J. Hoˇ rejˇ si, Fortsch. Phys.42, 101-141 (1994) [arXiv:hep- ph/9812448 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 1994

Show all 76 references

[7]

X. D. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997), 7114-7125 [arXiv:hep- ph/9609381 [hep-ph]]

1997
[8]

A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997), 5524-5557 [arXiv:hep-ph/9704207 [hep-ph]]

1997 arXiv
[9]

Diehl, Eur

M. Diehl, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (2016) no.6, 149 [arXiv:1512.01328 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[10]

Airapetian et al

A. Airapetian et al. [HERMES], Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001), 182001 [arXiv:hep-ex/0106068 [hep-ex]]

2001 arXiv
[11]

Adloﬀ et al

C. Adloﬀ et al. [H1], Phys. Lett. B 517 (2001), 47-58 [arXiv:hep-ex/0107005 [hep-ex]]

2001 arXiv
[12]

Aktas et al

A. Aktas et al. [H1], Eur. Phys. J. C 44 (2005), 1-11 [arXiv:hep-ex/0505061 [hep-ex]]

2005 arXiv
[13]

Breitweg et al

J. Breitweg et al. [ZEUS], Eur. Phys. J. C 6 (1999), 603- 627 [arXiv:hep-ex/9808020 [hep-ex]]

1999 arXiv
[14]

Chekanov et al

S. Chekanov et al. [ZEUS], Phys. Lett. B 573 (2003), 46-62 [arXiv:hep-ex/0305028 [hep-ex]]

2003 arXiv
[15]

Burkardt, Phys

M. Burkardt, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000), 071503 [erratum: 13 Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002), 119903] [arXiv:hep-ph/0005108 [hep-ph]]

2000 arXiv
[16]

Airapetian et al

A. Airapetian et al. [HERMES], Phys. Lett. B 704 (2011), 15-23 [arXiv:1106.2990 [hep-ex]]

2011 arXiv
[17]

Airapetian et al

A. Airapetian et al. [HERMES], JHEP 07 (2012), 032 [arXiv:1203.6287 [hep-ex]]

2012 arXiv
[18]

d’Hose, E

N. d’Hose, E. Burtin, P. A. M. Guichon and J. Marroncle, Eur. Phys. J. A 19S1 (2004), 47-53

2004
[19]

Stepanyan et al

S. Stepanyan et al. [CLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001), 182002 [arXiv:hep-ex/0107043 [hep-ex]]

2001 arXiv
[20]

Burkardt, Phys

M. Burkardt, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002), 114005 [arXiv:hep- ph/0209179 [hep-ph]]

2002
[21]

Burkardt, Int

M. Burkardt, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 18 (2003), 173-208 [arXiv:hep-ph/0207047 [hep-ph]]

2003 arXiv
[22]

Diehl, Eur

M. Diehl, Eur. Phys. J. C 25, 223 (2002) [Erratum-ibid. C 31, 277 (2003)] [arXiv:hep-ph/0205208]

2002 arXiv
[23]

Boﬃ and B

S. Boﬃ and B. Pasquini, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 30 (2007) no.9, 387-448 [arXiv:0711.2625 [hep-ph]]

2007 arXiv
[24]

Kumeriˇ cki and D

K. Kumeriˇ cki and D. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B 841 (2010), 1-58 [arXiv:0904.0458 [hep-ph]]

2010 arXiv
[25]

A. V. Belitsky and D. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B 589 (2000), 611-630 [arXiv:hep-ph/0007031 [hep-ph]]

2000 arXiv
[26]

Bhattacharya, C

S. Bhattacharya, C. Cocuzza and A. Metz, Phys. Lett. B 788 (2019), 453-463 [arXiv:1808.01437 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[27]

Bhattacharya, C

S. Bhattacharya, C. Cocuzza and A. Metz, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no.5, 054021 [arXiv:1903.05721 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[28]

I. V. Anikin, B. Pire and O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000), 071501 [arXiv:hep-ph/0003203 [hep-ph]]

2000 arXiv
[29]

Penttinen, M

M. Penttinen, M. V. Polyakov, A. G. Shuvaev and M. Strikman, Phys. Lett. B 491 (2000), 96-100 [arXiv:hep-ph/0006321 [hep-ph]]

2000 arXiv
[30]

X. Ji, X. Xiong and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012), 152005 [arXiv:1202.2843 [hep-ph]]

2012 arXiv
[31]

Kivel and M

N. Kivel and M. V. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B 600 (2001), 334-350 [arXiv:hep-ph/0010150 [hep-ph]]

2001 arXiv
[32]

A. V. Radyushkin and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001), 114012 [arXiv:hep-ph/0010296 [hep-ph]]

2001 arXiv
[33]

Kivel, M

N. Kivel, M. V. Polyakov and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001), 114014 [arXiv:hep-ph/0012136 [hep- ph]]

2001 arXiv
[34]

X. D. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997), 610-613 [arXiv:hep- ph/9603249 [hep-ph]]

1997
[35]

F. P. Aslan, M. Burkardt and M. Schlegel, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.9, 096021 [arXiv:1904.03494 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[36]

X. Ji, X. Xiong and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) no.1, 014041 [arXiv:1207.5221 [hep-ph]]

2013 arXiv
[37]

Hatta, Phys

Y. Hatta, Phys. Lett. B 708 (2012), 186-190 [arXiv:1111.3547 [hep-ph]]

2012 arXiv
[38]

as well as the relations in Eqs. ( 36) and (37), the overlap representation of the twist-3 chiral- odd GPDs of sea quarks in terms of the LCWFs can be expressed as 11 H2 (x, 0,t ) = ∫ 1 x dy y ∫ d2kT 16π3 ∫ d2rT 16π3 ∑ λB λq × [ m 2Mx ( ψ+∗ λB λq +ψ+ λB λq + +ψ+∗ λB λq−ψ+ λB λ...
[39]

Hatta and S

Y. Hatta and S. Yoshida, JHEP 10 (2012), 080 [arXiv:1207.5332 [hep-ph]]

2012 arXiv
[40]

Burkardt, Phys

M. Burkardt, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013), 114502 [arXiv:0810.3589 [hep-ph]]

2013 arXiv
[41]

Lorc´ e, Phys

C. Lorc´ e, Phys. Lett. B 735 (2014), 344-348 [arXiv:1401.7784 [hep-ph]]

2014 arXiv
[42]

Bhoonah and C

A. Bhoonah and C. Lorc´ e, Phys. Lett. B 774 (2017), 435-440 [arXiv:1703.08322 [hep-ph]]

2017 arXiv
[43]

Y. Guo, X. Ji, B. Kriesten and K. Shiells, JHEP 06 (2022), 096 [arXiv:2202.11114 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[44]

Meissner, A

S. Meissner, A. Metz, M. Schlegel and K. Goeke, JHEP 08 (2008), 038 [arXiv:0805.3165 [hep-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[45]

Meissner, A

S. Meissner, A. Metz and M. Schlegel, JHEP 08 (2009), 056 [arXiv:0906.5323 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[46]

Lorc´ e and B

C. Lorc´ e and B. Pasquini, JHEP 09 (2013), 138 [arXiv:1307.4497 [hep-ph]]

2013 arXiv
[47]

Rajan, M

A. Rajan, M. Engelhardt and S. Liuti, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.7, 074022 [arXiv:1709.05770 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[48]

Mukherjee and M

A. Mukherjee and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Lett. B 542 (2002), 245-254 [arXiv:hep-ph/0206159 [hep-ph]]

2002 arXiv
[49]

Mukherjee and M

A. Mukherjee and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003), 085020 [arXiv:hep-ph/0211386 [hep-ph]]

2003 arXiv
[50]

Aslan and M

F. Aslan and M. Burkardt, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.1, 016010 [arXiv:1811.00938 [nucl-th]]

2020 arXiv
[51]

Bhattacharya, K

S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, J. Dodson, A. Metz, A. Scapellato and F. Steﬀens, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.5, 054501 [arXiv:2306.05533 [hep-lat]]

2023 arXiv
[53]

S. Jain, S. Sharma and H. Dahiya, [arXiv:2408.07332 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[54]

Zhang et al

Z. Zhang et al. [BLFQ], Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.3, 034031 [arXiv:2312.00667 [hep-th]]

2024
[55]

S. J. Brodsky and B. Q. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 381, 317-324 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9604393 [hep-ph]]

1996 arXiv
[56]

Pasquini and S

B. Pasquini and S. Boﬃ, Phys. Rev. D 73, 094001 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0601177 [hep-ph]]

2006 arXiv
[57]

Luan and Z

X. Luan and Z. Lu, Phys. Lett. B 833 (2022), 137299 [arXiv:2204.06854 [hep-ph]]

2022 arXiv
[58]

Aslan, M

F. Aslan, M. Burkardt, C. Lorc´ e, A. Metz and B. Pasquini, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.1, 014038 [arXiv:1802.06243 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[59]

G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980), 2157

1980
[60]

S. J. Brodsky, D. S. Hwang, B. Q. Ma and I. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. B 593 (2001), 311-335

2001
[61]

B. W. Xiao and B. Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003), 034020

2003
[63]

Lu and I

Z. Lu and I. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007), 073008 [arXiv:hep-ph/0611158 [hep-ph]]

2007 arXiv
[64]

The concept of phenomeno- logical light-front wave functions – Regge improved di- quark model predictions,

D. M¨ uller and D. S. Hwang, “The concept of phenomeno- logical light-front wave functions – Regge improved di- quark model predictions,” [arXiv:1407.1655 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[65]

S. J. Brodsky, M. Diehl and D. S. Hwang, Nucl. Phys. B 596 (2001), 99-124 [arXiv:hep-ph/0009254 [hep-ph]]

2001 arXiv
[66]

Burkardt and D

M. Burkardt and D. S. Hwang, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004), 074032 [arXiv:hep-ph/0309072 [hep-ph]]

2004 arXiv
[67]

Luan and Z

X. Luan and Z. Lu, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.6, 504 [arXiv:2302.11278 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[68]

Z. L. Ma and Z. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.5, 054024 [arXiv:1808.00140 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[69]

Kaur and H

S. Kaur and H. Dahiya, AIP Conf. Proc. 2249 (2020) no.1, 030043

2020
[70]

Luan and Z

X. Luan and Z. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.9, 094016 [arXiv:2401.15596 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[71]

Kumano and Q

S. Kumano and Q. T. Song, JHEP 09 (2021), 141 [arXiv:2106.15849 [hep-ph]]

2021 arXiv
[72]

Sharma and H

S. Sharma and H. Dahiya, [arXiv:2310.03463 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[73]

Gluck, E

M. Gluck, E. Reya and A. Vogt, Z. Phys. C 53 (1992), 651-656

1992
[74]

A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C 63 (2009), 189-285 [arXiv:0901.0002 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[75]

D. V. Kiptily and M. V. Polyakov, Eur. Phys. J. C 37 (2004), 105-114 [arXiv:hep-ph/0212372 [hep-ph]]

2004 arXiv
[76]

Lorc´ e and K

C. Lorc´ e and K. F. Liu, Few Body Syst. 57 (2016) no.6, 379-384 [arXiv:1601.05282 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [62]

Bacchetta, F

A. Bacchetta, F. Conti and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008), 074010 [arXiv:0807.0323 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2008

[2] [52]

Chiral-even twist-3 GPDs for the proton in a spectator diquark model

C. Tan and Z. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.7, 074027 [arXiv:2407.17448 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[3] [1]

The spinor product corresponds to the h igher-twist Dirac matrices and encodes struck quark helicity combinations

represents the helicity of the initial(ﬁnal) struck quark, and λi(λ′ i)(i = 2...n) denotes the helicity of the initial(ﬁnal) spectators. The spinor product corresponds to the h igher-twist Dirac matrices and encodes struck quark helicity combinations. And [dx][d2kT ] = ∏ dxiki T 16π3 16π3δ ( 1 − ∑ xi ) δ2 T (∑ ki T ) δ (x −x1). (39) Using the LCWFs in Eqs...

work page

[4] [2]

mother distributions

and chiral-even ( ~E2T , H ′ 2T , E′ 2T , ~H ′ 2T ) distributions for ¯u and ¯d quarks at zero skewness. By taking the forward limit, we also calculate the corresponding twist-3 parton distribution functions e(x) of ¯u and ¯d quarks. The kinetic orbital angular momenta of sea quarks deduced from the twist-3 GPDs a re studied and compared to those from the...

work page

[5] [3]

(33) For the form factors g(r2) and g(k2), we adopt the dipolar form g(r2) = −g1(1 −y) r2 T +L2 1(m2 π) [r2 T +L2 1(Λ 2 π)]2, (34) g(k2) = −g2(1 − x y ) (kT − x y rT )2 +L2 2(m2) [(kT − x y rT )2 +L2 2(Λ 2¯q)]2. (35) When considering the quark as the active parton (with the antiquar k as spectator), the quark carries momentum −kT and longitudinal momentum...

work page

[6] [4]

1, we plot the chiral-even GPDs associated with Γ = 1, namely, H ¯u/P 2 , H ¯d/P 2 , E ¯u/P 2 , and E ¯d/P 2 at ξ = 0

In the upper and lower panels of Fig. 1, we plot the chiral-even GPDs associated with Γ = 1, namely, H ¯u/P 2 , H ¯d/P 2 , E ¯u/P 2 , and E ¯d/P 2 at ξ = 0. We ﬁnd that xH ¯u/P 2 and xH ¯d/P 2 are positive throughout the entire x and ∆ T region. For ﬁxed values of x, both xH ¯u/P 2 and xH ¯d/P 2 show a monotonically decreasing trend with increasing ∆ T . ...

work page

[7] [5]

Adloﬀ et al

C. Adloﬀ et al. [H1], Eur. Phys. J. C 13 (2000), 371-396 [arXiv:hep-ex/9902019 [hep-ex]]

arXiv 2000

[8] [6]

M¨ uller, D

D. M¨ uller, D. Robaschik, B. Geyer, F. M. Dittes and J. Hoˇ rejˇ si, Fortsch. Phys.42, 101-141 (1994) [arXiv:hep- ph/9812448 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 1994