Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

From Bjorken Scaling to Scaling Violations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This historical account asserts that the author's 1974 operator-product equations for scaling violations were formally the same, up to typos, as the Altarelli-Parisi equations.

desk verdict A readable, valuable participant memoir that slightly overreaches on an unchecked priority claim; accept with a request for corrected equations and a more careful comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03383 v1 pith:YVBFNHUH submitted 2025-06-03 physics.hist-ph hep-phhep-th

Giorgio Parisi This is my paper
classification physics.hist-phhep-phhep-th
keywords BjorkenscalingviolationsdeepinelasticscatteringoperatorproductexpansionAltarelli-ParisiequationsasymptoticfreedompartonmodelhistoryofQCD
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

The paper is a first-person reconstruction of the chain of ideas that brought Lagrangian quantum field theory back to the center of strong-interaction physics, from Bjorken scaling through the discovery of asymptotic freedom and QCD. Its sharpest claim is historical: the non-singlet evolution equations that later became known as the Altarelli-Parisi equations were already written down, formally up to a few typos, in the author's 1974 paper based on the operator product expansion, before the physically motivated parton-level derivation. The paper also argues that the lasting contribution of the later formulation was not a new computation but a change of language---from operator expansions to effective, resolution-dependent parton distributions---that made factorization and perturbative QCD calculations for Drell-Yan and jet processes possible. A careful reader would care because the account assigns priority, explains what the language shift did, and documents how the 1976 moment-based fit to SLAC data already gave $\alpha_s \approx 0.4$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the evolution equation for the moments of the structure function, $\partial M_n(q^2)/\partial \log q^2 = \gamma_n(\alpha(q^2)) M_n(q^2)$, together with its inverse Mellin transform, $$\frac{\partial F(x,$q^{2}$)}{\partial \log $q^{2}$} = \$int_x^{1}$ \frac{dy}{y}\, F(y,$q^{2}$)\, K(x/y,\$\alpha$($q^{2}$)),$$ whose one-loop kernel in the non-singlet case is $$K(z,\$\alpha$($q^{2}$)) = \frac{8}{3}\frac{\$\alpha$($q^{2}$)}{4\pi}\left[\frac{1+$z^{2}$}{(1-z)_+} + \frac{3}{2}\delta(z-1)\right].$$ The kernel is the inverse Mellin transform of the anomalous dimensions $\gamma_n$ computed in [36] and, in QCD, in [52,53]. The paper's argument is that this operator-product machinery already contained the Altarelli-Parisi content, and that the later derivation supplied the physical interpretation: the same equations as probabilities for a parton to emit another parton, obtained by generalizing the equivalent-photon method to the infinite-momentum frame.

What would settle it

Take the printed kernel in [54] and compare it term by term with the Altarelli-Parisi splitting functions $P_{qq}(z)$ and the gluon/sea sector; if the x-space meaning or the gluon terms differ beyond typographical slips, the formal-equivalence claim is false. This is a direct calculation that can be done from the two published papers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mathematics of scaling violations was complete before the paper usually credited for it: using the operator product expansion and the renormalization group, the author's 1974 paper [54] obtained the integro-differential equation for the structure function whose kernel is the inverse Mellin transform of the anomalous dimensions, and this is formally the same as the Altarelli-Parisi equation apart from a few typos. The paper reconstructs the route to that result: Bjorken's sum-rule argument for scaling, Feynman's parton model, the light-cone expansion [35], the computation of anomalous dimensions [36], and the 1973 observation that the moment equations could be rewritten as a closed equation for $F(x,q^2)$ [44]. It further claims that the 1976 moment-based computation with Petronzio [55] already fitted the SLAC data and produced $\alpha_s \approx 0.4$. The later Altarelli-Parisi derivation is described not as a new result but as a pedagogical and conceptual reformulation that shifted the focus from operators to effective parton densities, thereby opening up hard processes beyond deep inelastic scattering.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's priority claim rests on the author's memory that the formulas in [54] equal the Altarelli-Parisi equations up to typos; the reader cannot check that comparison against [54] from this manuscript, so if the 1974 kernels differed in the gluon or sea sector, the claim would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The operator-product route already contained the non-singlet evolution equations by 1974, so the date of the mathematical content of the Altarelli-Parisi equations would move back three years.
  • The 1977 parton-language paper is best understood as an interpretation and generalization, not as the first derivation of scaling-violation evolution.
  • The language shift to effective parton distributions is what made Drell-Yan, jet production, and large-transverse-momentum processes calculable through factorization in perturbative QCD.
  • Compatible determinations of $\alpha_s$ from deep inelastic scattering, Drell-Yan, and jet production in the late 1970s counted as evidence that QCD is the correct theory.
  • Scaling violations, far from being a failure of Bjorken scaling, became the observable signature of asymptotic freedom.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the formal-equivalence claim is correct, textbook histories should credit [54] for the equations themselves while crediting the 1977 paper for the physical derivation and the effective-parton interpretation; the manuscript asserts but does not demonstrate this by reproducing the 1974 formulas.
  • The paper's emphasis on language as a scientific tool suggests a testable historical hypothesis: the 1978 factorization papers [61]-[64] were enabled by the parton-language formulation, and a reception analysis of when 'effective parton distribution' displaced 'operator expansion' in the literature could quantify that.
  • The same integro-differential evolution structure appears beyond QCD, for example in scale-dependent correlation functions elsewhere in physics; the historical lesson that a reformulation can be as important as a new calculation may transfer to those settings.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper is a historical account, written by Giorgio Parisi, of the development from Bjorken scaling to scaling violations in deep inelastic scattering and the emergence of QCD. It interleaves the standard narrative—SLAC experiments, Wilson's operator product expansion, the discovery of asymptotic freedom, and the Altarelli-Parisi equations—with personal recollections. The paper's central novel claim, stated in §6.2, is that the evolution equations Parisi published in 1974–1976 [54,58,59] are 'formally the same as the Altarelli-Parisi' equations apart from a few typos, which would give Parisi priority for the operator-product derivation of the DGLAP equations. The paper also argues that the physical parton-level interpretation introduced by Altarelli and Parisi was a decisive conceptual shift, enabling application to processes beyond deep inelastic scattering.

Significance. If the priority claim is correct, the paper materially revises the standard historical account by showing that the full DGLAP system was written down earlier from the operator product expansion, even if it was not given a parton-model interpretation. The manuscript is valuable as a first-person source with many primary references, and the mainstream physics narrative is accurate and well aligned with the cited literature. There is no circular derivation or fitting of parameters in the paper, and the account of the experimental and theoretical milestones is generally reliable. However, the paper's most novel assertion is currently not checkable from the manuscript: the original equations from [54] and [58] are not reproduced, and the equations that are printed contain typos that obscure the comparison. The evidence for the priority claim is therefore incomplete and needs to be strengthened before the paper can be accepted as a definitive historical record.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.2, Eq. (16)] The central claim that the equations in [54,58,59] are 'formally the same as the Altarelli-Parisi' equations is not substantiated because the original equations are not reproduced. The manuscript's own Eq. (16) contains typos: the integrand should contain Nqi(y, log q2) and Ng(y, log q2), not the x-arguments, and the second line contains pqg(x/y) where the standard form requires pgq(x/y). These are precisely the 'few typos' mentioned in the text, but they prevent the reader from comparing the formulas with Altarelli-Parisi. If [54] contains only the non-singlet moment evolution, as §6.1 implies, then the coupled singlet/gluon system of Altarelli-Parisi is not established, and the priority claim is substantially weaker than stated. To make the claim load-bearing, the author should reproduce the exact equations from [54] and [58] (for instance, in an appendix) and provide a line-by-line comparison with the Altarelli-Parisi equations.
  2. [§6.1, Eq. (14) and preceding convolution equation] Eq. (14) states ∂Mn(q2)/∂ log(q2) = γn(α(q2)), which is missing the factor Mn; the standard result is dMn/d log q2 = γn(α(q2)) Mn. In addition, the convolution equation before Eq. (14) has F(x, q2) inside the y-integral, where F(y, q2) is required. These are presentation errors, but they occur in the exact passage where the author claims to have derived the scaling-violation formulae in [54]. Because the historical argument depends on the reader being able to compare the 1974 formulas with the modern ones, the errors undermine the verifiability of the claim and must be corrected.
  3. [§5.1 and §6.2] The paper explicitly labels some passages as 'more based on personal recollections' (§5.1) and later states that the equations in [54] are 'formally the same as the Altarelli-Parisi (apart from a few typos)' (§6.2). Personal recollection is a legitimate source for a historical memoir, but the priority claim relies on the accuracy of a fifty-year-old memory and on a comparison that cannot be performed from the manuscript. The author should clearly distinguish, for each part of the claim, which elements are documented in published papers and which are recalled from memory, and should provide independent evidence (e.g., contemporaneous written material) where available.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1 caption and §6.1 text] The text says 'Curve I of fig. 1 was our prediction', while the caption says 'Curve I is their prediction'; please make the wording consistent.
  2. [References] Several references are incomplete or inconsistently formatted; for example, [25] lacks publisher details, [50] lacks page numbers, and [57] is a CERN preprint with no publication venue. Please check the reference list against a standard style.
  3. [Eq. (5)] The summation index C in Eq. (5) is used both as an operator label and in the exponent dC; consider using a different notation for the operator label to avoid confusion.
  4. [§2, 'Crucial Steps' list] The list item on Gell-Mann's 1964 paper uses a quotation with a French cuisine metaphor; the quotation is likely accurate, but a page number or other locator would be helpful for the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the physics narrative is externally benchmarked, and the §6.2 priority claim, although self-cited and unverifiable from the manuscript alone, is a testimonial assertion rather than a derivation.

full rationale

The paper is a historical memoir rather than a derivation, and its physics content is benchmarked against the external literature (Bjorken scaling, Wilson's OPE, Gross–Wilczek–Politzer asymptotic freedom, Altarelli–Parisi, SLAC data). No equation in the paper is constructed so as to equal its own input: in §5.2 the x-space evolution equation is explicitly described as 'a simple rewriting of the formula for the moments,' an honest statement rather than a disguised circularity, and in §6.1 the Parisi–Petronzio α_s = 0.4 is extracted from moment fits while Curve I's x-dependence of d log F2/d log q2 is theory-determined, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The one load-bearing self-referential element is the priority claim in §6.2 that the 1974–1976 equations of [54,58,59] are 'formally the same as the Altarelli-Parisi (apart from a few typos).' This is asserted from the author's own recollection and is not demonstrated inside the manuscript: the displayed Eq. (16) misplaces Nqi(x, log q2) and Ng(x, log q2) inside the y-integrals, and [54] is not reproduced for comparison, so the claimed equivalence is not checkable from the paper itself. That is a genuine verifiability gap in a central historical assertion, and the cited support is self-authored; however, it is testimony rather than circular derivation, since the paper does not derive the equivalence from premises that already assume it, and [54] is an externally published, falsifiable artifact. The concern therefore belongs to correctness and verifiability risk, not to circularity, and no equation-to-equation reduction can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted because the paper performs no data analysis or derivation. No new entities are postulated. The only implicit input is the reliability of the author's memory and his characterization of his own earlier papers.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Parisi's first-person recollections and priority claims are faithful to the historical record.
    Sections 5.1-5.3 and 6.2 rely on personal memory (e.g., conversations with Symanzik and 't Hooft, the contents of [54]) that cannot be cross-checked within the manuscript.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Bjorken Scaling to Scaling Violations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YVBFNHUH

@misc{pith2026250603383,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Bjorken Scaling to Scaling Violations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YVBFNHUH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03383}
}
read the original abstract

This paper traces the historical and conceptual journey from Bjorken scaling to the discovery of scaling violations in deep inelastic scattering, culminating in the development of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). Beginning with the challenges faced by early strong interaction theories in the 1950s, we explore the emergence of agnostic approaches such as the bootstrap philosophy and current algebra, which sought to describe hadronic phenomena without relying on specific field theories. The pivotal role of experimental results from SLAC in the late 1960s is highlighted, leading to Bjorken's proposal of scaling in deep inelastic scattering and Feynman's parton model. We then delve into the theoretical breakthroughs of the 1970s, including Wilson's operator product expansion and the renormalization group, which provided the framework for understanding scaling violations. The discovery of asymptotic freedom in non-Abelian gauge theories by Gross, Wilczek, and Politzer marked a turning point, establishing QCD as the theory of strong interactions. Finally, we discuss the formulation of the Altarelli-Parisi equations, which elegantly describe the evolution of parton distribution functions and scaling violations, and their profound impact on the study of hard processes in particle physics. This paper not only recounts the key developments but also reflects on the interplay between theory and experiment that drove the field forward.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03383 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The prediction of Parisi and Petronzio [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Perturbative QCD as a quantitative tool in the years 1976-2000

    physics.hist-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    Historical review tracing the evolution of precision perturbative QCD calculations and tools between 1976 and 2000.

  2. Energy Correlators: A Journey From Theory to Experiment

    hep-ph 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    A review of energy correlators and their role in QCD, collider experiments, and formal quantum field theory.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [54]

    Detailed predictions for the pn structure functions in theories with computable large momenta behaviour,

    G. Parisi, “Detailed predictions for the pn structure functions in theories with computable large momenta behaviour,” Physics Letters B , vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 367–368, 1974

    work page 1974

  2. [58]

    Parisi, An introduction to scaling violations in Moriond Proceeding: Weak interactions and neutrino physics

    G. Parisi, An introduction to scaling violations in Moriond Proceeding: Weak interactions and neutrino physics . Orsay, 1976

    work page 1976

  3. [1]

    A meeting with enrico fermi,

    F. Dyson et al., “A meeting with enrico fermi,” Nature, vol. 427, no. 6972, pp. 297–297, 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [2]

    Nobel lecture: The discovery of asymptotic freedom and the emergence of qcd,

    D. J. Gross, “Nobel lecture: The discovery of asymptotic freedom and the emergence of qcd,” Reviews of Modern Physics , vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 837–849, 2005. 4We used the wording master equations because they were classical probabilistic equations derived in a quantum setting. 11

    work page 2005

  5. [3]

    R. F. Streater and A. S. Wightman, PCT, Spin and Statistics, and all that . W A Benjamin, 1964

    work page 1964

  6. [4]

    On the formulation of quantized field theories—ii,

    H. Lehmann, K. Symanzik, and W. Zimmermann, “On the formulation of quantized field theories—ii,” Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965) , vol. 6, pp. 319–333, 1957

    work page 1955

  7. [5]

    Determination of the pion-nucleon scattering amplitude from dispersion relations and unitarity. general theory,

    S. Mandelstam, “Determination of the pion-nucleon scattering amplitude from dispersion relations and unitarity. general theory,” Physical Review, vol. 112, no. 4, p. 1344, 1958

    work page 1958

  8. [6]

    The symmetry group of vector and axial vector currents,

    M. Gell-Mann, “The symmetry group of vector and axial vector currents,” Physics Physique Fizika, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 63, 1964

    work page 1964

Show all 64 references
  1. [7]

    Statistical thermodynamics of strong interactions at high energies,

    R. Hagedorn, “Statistical thermodynamics of strong interactions at high energies,” Nuovo Cimento, Suppl. , vol. 3, no. CERN-TH-520, pp. 147–186, 1965

    1965

  2. [8]

    Exponential hadronic spectrum and quark liberation,

    N. Cabibbo and G. Parisi, “Exponential hadronic spectrum and quark liberation,” Physics Letters B, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 67–69, 1975

    1975

  3. [9]

    Unitary symmetry and leptonic decays,

    N. Cabibbo, “Unitary symmetry and leptonic decays,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 10, no. 12, p. 531, 1963

    1963

  4. [10]

    The axial vector current in beta decay,

    M. Gell-Mann and M. L´ evy, “The axial vector current in beta decay,” Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965), vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 705–726, 1960

    1955

  5. [11]

    Theory of the fermi interaction,

    R. P. Feynman and M. Gell-Mann, “Theory of the fermi interaction,”Physical Review, vol. 109, no. 1, p. 193, 1958

    1958

  6. [12]

    Nonrenormalization theorem for the strangeness-violating vector currents,

    M. Ademollo and R. Gatto, “Nonrenormalization theorem for the strangeness-violating vector currents,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 13, no. 7, p. 264, 1964

    1964

  7. [13]

    Spin and unitary spin independence of strong interactions,

    F. G¨ ursey and L. Radicati, “Spin and unitary spin independence of strong interactions,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 13, no. 5, p. 173, 1964

    1964

  8. [14]

    Approximate symmetry and the algebra of current com- ponents,

    R. F. Dashen and M. Gell-Mann, “Approximate symmetry and the algebra of current com- ponents,” tech. rep., California Institute of Technology (CalTech), Pasadena, CA (United States), 1965

    1965

  9. [15]

    A dispersion theory of symmetry breaking,

    S. Fubini, G. Furlan, and C. Rossetti, “A dispersion theory of symmetry breaking,” Il Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970) , vol. 40, pp. 1171–1193, 1965

    1965

  10. [16]

    Applications of the chiral u(6) × u(6) algebra of current densities,

    J. D. Bjorken, “Applications of the chiral u(6) × u(6) algebra of current densities,” Physical Review, vol. 148, no. 4, p. 1467, 1966

    1966

  11. [17]

    Current algebra at small distances,

    J. D. Bjorken, “Current algebra at small distances,” in Conf. Proc. C, vol. 670717, pp. 55–81, Citeseer, 1967

    1967

  12. [18]

    Crucial test of a theory of currents,

    C. Callan Jr and D. J. Gross, “Crucial test of a theory of currents,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 21, no. 5, p. 311, 1968

    1968

  13. [19]

    Current commutators and electron scattering at high momentum transfer,

    J. M. Cornwall and R. E. Norton, “Current commutators and electron scattering at high momentum transfer,” Physical Review, vol. 177, no. 5, p. 2584, 1969

    1969

  14. [20]

    Asymptotic sum rules at infinite momentum,

    J. D. Bjorken, “Asymptotic sum rules at infinite momentum,” Physical Review, vol. 179, no. 5, p. 1547, 1969

    1969

  15. [21]

    Very high-energy collisions of hadrons,

    R. P. Feynman, “Very high-energy collisions of hadrons,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 23, no. 24, p. 1415, 1969

    1969

  16. [22]

    Inelastic electron-proton and γ-proton scattering and the structure of the nucleon,

    J. D. Bjorken and E. A. Paschos, “Inelastic electron-proton and γ-proton scattering and the structure of the nucleon,” Physical Review, vol. 185, no. 5, p. 1975, 1969

    1975

  17. [23]

    Observed behavior of highly inelastic electron-proton scattering,

    M. Breidenbach, J. I. Friedman, H. W. Kendall, E. D. Bloom, D. Coward, H. DeStaebler, J. Drees, L. W. Mo, and R. E. Taylor, “Observed behavior of highly inelastic electron-proton scattering,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 23, no. 16, p. 935, 1969

    1969

  18. [24]

    Planck’s legacy to statistical mechanics,

    G. Parisi, “Planck’s legacy to statistical mechanics,” arXiv preprint cond-mat/0101293, 2001

    2001 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Relativistic quantum mechanics,

    J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell, “Relativistic quantum mechanics,” 1965. 12

    1965

  20. [26]

    Asymptotic estimates in quantum electrodynamics,

    C. Itzykson, G. Parisi, and J. Zuber, “Asymptotic estimates in quantum electrodynamics,” Physical Review D , vol. 16, no. 4, p. 996, 1977

    1977

  21. [27]

    Can we make sense out of “quantum chromodynamics

    G. ’t Hooft, “Can we make sense out of “quantum chromodynamics”?,” in The whys of subnuclear physics, pp. 943–982, Springer, 1979

    1979

  22. [28]

    Model hamiltonians for local quantum field theory,

    K. G. Wilson, “Model hamiltonians for local quantum field theory,” Physical Review, vol. 140, no. 2B, p. B445, 1965

    1965

  23. [29]

    On products of quantum field operators at short distances,

    K. Wilson, “On products of quantum field operators at short distances,” Cornell report, 1964

    1964

  24. [30]

    Derivation of renormalized relativistic perturbation theory from finite local field equations,

    R. A. Brandt, “Derivation of renormalized relativistic perturbation theory from finite local field equations,” Annals of Physics , vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 221–265, 1967

    1967

  25. [31]

    Non-lagrangian models of current algebra,

    K. G. Wilson, “Non-lagrangian models of current algebra,” Physical Review, vol. 179, no. 5, p. 1499, 1969

    1969

  26. [32]

    Broken scale invariance in scalar field theory,

    C. G. Callan Jr, “Broken scale invariance in scalar field theory,” Physical Review D , vol. 2, no. 8, p. 1541, 1970

    1970

  27. [33]

    Small distance behaviour in field theory and power counting,

    K. Symanzik, “Small distance behaviour in field theory and power counting,” Communications in Mathematical Physics , vol. 18, pp. 227–246, 1970

    1970

  28. [34]

    Small-distance-behaviour analysis and wilson expansions,

    K. Symanzik, “Small-distance-behaviour analysis and wilson expansions,” Communications in mathematical physics , vol. 23, pp. 49–86, 1971

    1971

  29. [35]

    Operator product expansions near the light cone,

    R. A. Brandt and G. Preparata, “Operator product expansions near the light cone,” Nuclear Physics B , vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 541–567, 1971

    1971

  30. [36]

    Light-cone behavior of perturbation theory,

    N. Christ, B. Hasslacher, and A. H. Mueller, “Light-cone behavior of perturbation theory,” Physical Review D , vol. 6, no. 12, p. 3543, 1972

    1972

  31. [37]

    Canonical scaling and conformal invariance,

    S. Ferrara, A. Grillo, G. Parisi, and R. Gatto, “Canonical scaling and conformal invariance,” Physics Letters B , vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 333–334, 1972

    1972

  32. [38]

    Serious difficulties with canonical dimensions,

    G. Parisi, “Serious difficulties with canonical dimensions,” tech. rep., Comitato Nazionale per l’Energia Nucleare, 1972

    1972

  33. [39]

    Bjorken scaling and the parton model,

    G. Parisi, “Bjorken scaling and the parton model,” Physics Letters B , vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 114– 116, 1972

    1972

  34. [40]

    How to measure the dimension of the parton field,

    G. Parisi, “How to measure the dimension of the parton field,” Nuclear Physics B , vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 641–646, 1973

    1973

  35. [41]

    A field theory with computable large-momenta behaviour,

    K. Symanzik, “A field theory with computable large-momenta behaviour,” Lettere al Nuovo Cimento (1971-1985) , vol. 6, pp. 77–80, 1973

    1971

  36. [42]

    Deep inelastic scattering in a field theory with computable large-momenta be- haviour,

    G. Parisi, “Deep inelastic scattering in a field theory with computable large-momenta be- haviour,” Lettere al Nuovo Cimento (1971-1985) , vol. 7, pp. 84–88, 1973

    1971

  37. [43]

    Covariant expansion of the conformal four- point function,

    S. Ferrara, A. Grillo, G. Parisi, and R. Gatto, “Covariant expansion of the conformal four- point function,” Nuclear Physics B , vol. 49, pp. 77–98, 1972

    1972

  38. [44]

    Experimental limits on the values of anomalous dimensions,

    G. Parisi, “Experimental limits on the values of anomalous dimensions,” Physics Letters B , vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 207–208, 1973

    1973

  39. [45]

    A similarity hypothesis in the strong interactions. 1. multiple hadron production in e+ e- annihilation,

    A. Polyakov, “A similarity hypothesis in the strong interactions. 1. multiple hadron production in e+ e- annihilation,” Sov. Phys. JETP , vol. 32, p. 296, 1971

    1971

  40. [46]

    Parton models and asymptotic freedom,

    J. Kogut and L. Susskind, “Parton models and asymptotic freedom,” Physical Review D , vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 3391–3399, 1974

    1974

  41. [47]

    Green’s funtions in theories with non-abelian gauge group,

    I. Khriplovich, “Green’s funtions in theories with non-abelian gauge group,” Sov.J.Nucl.Phys., vol. 10, p. 409, 1969

    1969

  42. [48]

    Ultraviolet behavior of non-abelian gauge theories,

    D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, “Ultraviolet behavior of non-abelian gauge theories,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 30, no. 26, p. 1343, 1973. 13

    1973

  43. [49]

    Reliable perturbative results for strong interactions?,

    H. D. Politzer, “Reliable perturbative results for strong interactions?,” Physical Review Let- ters, vol. 30, no. 26, p. 1346, 1973

    1973

  44. [50]

    Parisi, In a flight of starlings: the wonders of complex systems

    G. Parisi, In a flight of starlings: the wonders of complex systems . Penguin, 2023

    2023

  45. [51]

    Advantages of the color octet gluon picture,

    H. Fritzsch, M. Gell-Mann, and H. Leutwyler, “Advantages of the color octet gluon picture,” Physics Letters B , vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 365–368, 1973

    1973

  46. [52]

    Electroproduction scaling in an asymptotically free theory of strong interactions,

    H. Georgi and H. D. Politzer, “Electroproduction scaling in an asymptotically free theory of strong interactions,” Physical Review D , vol. 9, no. 2, p. 416, 1974

    1974

  47. [53]

    Asymptotically free gauge theories. ii,

    D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, “Asymptotically free gauge theories. ii,” Physical Review D, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 980, 1974

    1974

  48. [55]

    On the breaking of bjorken scaling,

    G. Parisi and R. Petronzio, “On the breaking of bjorken scaling,” Physics Letters B , vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 331–334, 1976

    1976

  49. [56]

    Tests of scaling of the proton electromagnetic struc- ture functions,

    E. Riordan, A. Bodek, M. Breidenbach, D. Dubin, J. Elias, J. Friedman, H. Kendall, J. Poucher, M. Sogard, and D. Coward, “Tests of scaling of the proton electromagnetic struc- ture functions,” Physics Letters B , vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 249–252, 1974

    1974

  50. [57]

    The rho bremsstrahlung,

    N. Cabibbo and M. Rocca, “The rho bremsstrahlung,” tech. rep., CERN, 1974

    1974

  51. [59]

    Parisi, Field theory, disorder and simulations

    G. Parisi, Field theory, disorder and simulations . World Scientific, 1992

    1992

  52. [60]

    Asymptotic freedom in parton language: the birth of perturbative qcd,

    S. Forte, “Asymptotic freedom in parton language: the birth of perturbative qcd,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13158, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Leptoproduction and drell-yan processes beyond the leading approximation in chromodynamics,

    G. Altarelli, R. K. Ellis, and G. Martinelli, “Leptoproduction and drell-yan processes beyond the leading approximation in chromodynamics,” Nuclear Physics B , vol. 143, no. 3, pp. 521– 545, 1978

    1978

  54. [62]

    Transverse momentum of jets in electroproduction from quan- tum chromodynamics,

    G. Altarelli and G. Martinelli, “Transverse momentum of jets in electroproduction from quan- tum chromodynamics,” Physics Letters B , vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 89–94, 1978

    1978

  55. [63]

    Transverse momentum in drell-yan processes,

    G. Altarelli, G. Parisi, and R. Petronzio, “Transverse momentum in drell-yan processes,” Physics Letters B , vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 351–355, 1978

    1978

  56. [64]

    Processes involving fragmentation functions beyond the leading order in qcd,

    G. Altarelli, R. K. Ellis, G. Martinelli, and S.-Y. Pi, “Processes involving fragmentation functions beyond the leading order in qcd,” Nuclear Physics B , vol. 160, no. 2, pp. 301–329, 1979. 14

    1979

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.