Structure of lightest nuclei in the visible Universe

Chandan Mondal; Chueng-Ryong Ji; Satvir Kaur; Xingbo Zhao

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Structure of lightest nuclei in the visible Universe

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that describing the deuteron as a mixture of two color-singlet clusters and two hidden-color octet clusters reproduces its measured electromagnetic form factors, radii, and tensor-polarized structure function $b_1$.

desk verdict Genuinely new two-cluster light-front holography calculation of deuteron observables, but the hidden-color explanation of b1 is a narrative attached to a fitted binding energy, not a derived result. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09886 v1 pith:TX6UALVR submitted 2025-07-14 hep-ph

Satvir Kaur , Chandan Mondal , Xingbo Zhao , Chueng-Ryong Ji This is my paper

classification hep-ph

keywords deuteronstructurehiddencolorlight-frontholographytHooftequationtensor-polarizedfunctionb1electromagneticformfactorswavefunctionstwo-clustermodel

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 tries to establish that the deuteron's internal structure can be computed from QCD-inspired dynamics acting on two three-quark color clusters, rather than only on a proton and a neutron. The clusters are allowed to be either color singlets or color octets, the octet-octet configurations being hidden-color states that keep the whole nucleus colorless. Using a light-front wavefunction obtained by separating transverse and longitudinal motion, the authors find that three fitted parameters reproduce the deuteron's charge and magnetic form factors, radii, and unpolarized and helicity structure functions, and produce a nonzero tensor-polarized structure function $b_1$ that vanishes in a purely nucleonic description. If right, the result identifies hidden color as the source of the measured $b_1$ and makes the deuteron a clean place to study quark-gluon degrees of freedom in nuclei.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the separation ansatz for the light-front two-cluster bound state. The deuteron wavefunction is written as a product $\Psi(z,\zeta,\theta)=\phi(\zeta)/\sqrt{2\pi\zeta}\,e^{iL\theta}X(z)$, where the transverse wavefunction $\phi$ solves a holographic Schr\"odinger equation with potential $U_\perp(\zeta)=\kappa^4\zeta^2+2\kappa^2(J-1)$ and the longitudinal wavefunction $\chi(z)=X(z)/\sqrt{z(1-z)}$ solves the 't Hooft equation with a principal-value potential. Cluster spin structure is attached through the Melosh transformation, giving light-front wavefunctions from which helicity amplitudes produce the deuteron form factors and momentum distributions. Hidden color enters through the assumed singlet-singlet and octet-octet mixture; the same separated equations used in meson applications are now applied to two three-quark clusters with a free cluster mass $m_C$.

What would settle it

Measure the tensor-polarized structure function $b_1$ on a deuteron near $Q^2\approx5\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$ with total uncertainty smaller than the predicted first moment $(0.36\pm0.03)\times10^{-2}$ over $0.02<x<0.85$; a result consistent with zero, or with a different $x$-dependence than the model predicts, would rule out hidden color as the source of $b_1$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the deuteron is effectively a two-cluster bound state whose color configuration is an admixture of singlet-singlet and octet-octet components, and that this admixture is visible in experiment. With the transverse potential of light-front holography and the longitudinal 't Hooft potential separated into two Schr\"odinger-like equations, the authors construct $S$-wave light-front wavefunctions and compute electromagnetic form factors, charge and magnetic radii, longitudinal momentum distributions, and the structure functions $F_2$, $g_1$, and $b_1$. Their three parameters, cluster mass $m_C$, transverse scale $\kappa$, and longitudinal scale $g$, are fixed by the deuteron mass and low-$Q^2$ form-factor data, giving $\chi^2/\mathrm{d.o.f.}=0.98$. The resulting form factors and structure functions agree with data across a broad kinematic range, and $b_1$ matches the measured nonzero tensor-polarized signal; the authors take this as evidence that hidden-color degrees of freedom, which dominate at short distances, are responsible for $b_1$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on the premise that two three-quark clusters inside the deuteron obey the same separated wave equations that work for mesons, with a freely chosen cluster mass; the paper does not derive this from QCD for a nuclear bound state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The deuteron wavefunction acquires a short-distance octet-octet component, so pure proton-neutron descriptions miss part of the nuclear wavefunction.
The tensor-polarized structure function $b_1$ becomes a quantitative probe of hidden color: within this model it grows with binding energy and vanishes in the weakly bound limit.
The three fitted parameters and wavefunction machinery extend directly to a $D$-wave calculation, which the authors identify as the route to fixing the quadrupole moment.
The predicted first moment of $b_1$, $(0.36\pm0.03)\times10^{-2}$ at $5\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$ over $0.02<x<0.85$, is a concrete target for future tensor-polarized deuteron measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

A precise measurement of $b_1$'s $x$-dependence could be turned into an extraction of the octet-octet probability, a quantity this paper leaves unseparated.
The fitted binding energy is two orders of magnitude above the physical deuteron binding energy, so the cluster mass $m_C$ likely absorbs multiple short-distance effects; separating those effects would test whether hidden color specifically is the driver of $b_1$.
Because hidden-color states proliferate faster in larger multi-quark systems, the same two-cluster machinery could be extended to triton or alpha and would predict larger tensor or color-correlation effects there.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, my read: the genuinely new thing here is applying the light-front holography + 't Hooft machinery to a two-cluster deuteron and computing b1, which is a real open problem. Three fitted parameters give a decent account of the deuteron EM form factors, charge and magnetic radii, F2, g1, and a nonzero b1 roughly matching HERMES. The first moment of b1 agrees with the measured value. That is a legitimate phenomenological contribution.

But the headline claim—that hidden color generates b1—is not supported by the calculation. There is no color-space wavefunction or octet-octet amplitude anywhere in the formalism. The paper itself says the singlet-singlet/octet-octet decomposition cannot be identified. The only evidence for hidden color is the large binding energy, B.E. = M_D − 2 m_C with m_C a fitted parameter. That is a restatement of the fit, not a prediction, and it cannot discriminate color configurations. So the stress-test note is right: the b1 explanation is a narrative attached to the model, not a consequence of it. The nonzero b1 comes from the fitted cluster mass and the 't Hooft longitudinal potential, not from any color dynamics.

Other soft spots: the quadrupole moment is off by two orders of magnitude, and g_Q(0) is normalized to experiment before comparison. The authors acknowledge the D-wave omission, so this is a known limitation, but it does mean the EM form factor success is partial. The missing derivation of Eqs. (1)-(2) for two clusters is also a real weakness; borrowing meson dynamics for a nuclear bound state is an assumption, not a result.

That said, this is not a sloppy paper. It is honest about its limitations, the fit is reasonable, and the b1 attempt is genuine. The right verdict is not "reject as unserious" but "the central claim overreaches." As a parameterized cluster model, it is legitimate; as a demonstration of hidden color, it fails.

My recommendation: send it to review. A referee can force the authors to either add a real color-mixing amplitude or soften the claim substantially. The phenomenological comparisons deserve an outlet, but the hidden-color attribution needs to be fixed or removed. I would not cite it as evidence for hidden color, but I would mention it as a parametrization that gets b1's sign and magnitude roughly right.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a light-front two-cluster model of the deuteron, with transverse dynamics governed by a holographic Schrödinger equation and longitudinal dynamics by the 't Hooft equation. Three parameters—cluster mass m_C, transverse scale κ, and longitudinal scale g—are fitted to the deuteron mass and low-Q^2 charge and magnetic form factors, yielding a binding energy of about 200 MeV. The paper presents predictions for electromagnetic form factors, radii, longitudinal momentum distribution functions, and structure functions, and reports agreement with experimental data, including a nonzero tensor-polarized structure function b1 compatible with the HERMES measurement. The authors interpret the large binding energy and the nonzero b1 as evidence for hidden-color (octet-octet) configurations in the deuteron.

Significance. If the claimed results were supported by the calculation, this would be a significant step: a light-front two-cluster model reproducing deuteron electromagnetic form factors, radii, and the tensor structure function b1 would offer a rare partonic-level description of a nucleus. The paper also makes concrete, falsifiable predictions, such as the x-dependence of b1 and its first moment, and it correctly identifies the b1 puzzle as an important open problem. However, the central novelty claimed in the title and abstract—the incorporation of hidden-color degrees of freedom—is not present in the formalism. The calculation is a color-blind two-cluster model with three fitted parameters. Its empirical success cannot, therefore, be taken as evidence for any specific color configuration. The paper's real contribution, if any, is a phenomenological two-cluster wavefunction that reproduces several deuteron observables; that contribution is independent of the hidden-color interpretation and would need to be presented without the unsupported claims.

major comments (4)

[Formalism, Eq. (6)] The central claim of the paper—that the deuteron is modeled as an effective mixture of singlet-singlet and octet-octet color clusters—is not realized in the calculation. The light-front wavefunction in Eq. (6) depends only on the cluster spin, the momentum fraction z, and the transverse coordinate b_perp; there is no color index, no octet-octet amplitude, and no mixing parameter. The statement in the main text that 'the precise decomposition into singlet-singlet and octet-octet components cannot be identified in the present stage of our analysis' concedes that the calculation is color-blind. The abstract's assertion that hidden-color degrees of freedom are incorporated is therefore unsupported by the formalism.
[Observables, B.E. calculation] The B.E. ≈ 200 MeV presented as evidence for hidden color is a fitted quantity, not an independent prediction. The paper states that the three parameters {m_C, κ, g} are fixed by fitting M_D and the low-Q^2 behavior of G_C and G_M. The binding energy is then computed as M_D − 2m_C with m_C = 0.838 ± 0.083 GeV and M_D = 1.875 ± 0.185 GeV. Since m_C is fitted to reproduce the deuteron mass and form factors, the resulting B.E. is a restatement of the fit. The large adopted uncertainty on M_D (0.185 GeV, versus the actual deuteron mass uncertainty of a few keV) further weakens any claim that the B.E. is constrained by the deuteron mass. No observable in the calculation distinguishes an octet-octet cluster from a singlet-singlet one.
[Conclusions and Outlook] The conclusion that hidden-color degrees of freedom 'play a crucial role in generating a nonzero b1' is not established. The tensor-polarized structure function b1 is computed from the tensor LMDF f1LL, which arises from the spin structure of two spin-1/2 clusters through the Melosh transformation, not from any color-space dynamics. Since the model is color-blind, the agreement with the HERMES data tests the phenomenological two-cluster wavefunction and the fitted parameters, but it cannot discriminate between a hidden-color and a conventional two-nucleon interpretation of the clusters. The claim that b1 vanishes at small B.E. and grows at large B.E. reflects the dependence on the fitted cluster mass, not on a color-mixing amplitude.
[Formalism, Eqs. (1)-(4)] The foundational assumption of the calculation—that the deuteron is governed by the separated light-front equations (1) and (2) with the holographic transverse potential (3) and the 't Hooft longitudinal potential (4)—is introduced without justification for a two-cluster nuclear bound state. These equations are derived in the context of mesons and quark-antiquark bound states. The paper states 'we assume the dynamics of the clusters inside the deuteron are governed by' these equations, but no derivation or arguments are given as to why a nucleon-nucleon or six-quark system should satisfy the same potentials with a free cluster mass m_C. This is the load-bearing premise of the entire calculation; if it is not satisfied, the computed wavefunctions, form factors, and structure functions lose their justification.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction] The expression '42−1 5−1 = 41 4 > 10' is garbled and should be rewritten with appropriate parentheses or superscripts so that the reader can follow the counting of hidden-color states; as printed it is not comprehensible.
[Formalism, Eq. (2)] For the 't Hooft equation, it would be helpful to specify the boundary conditions imposed on χ(z) and the normalization convention used when solving the integro-differential equation with the principal-value prescription.
[Observables, quadrupole moment] The calculated quadrupole moment (0.079 GeV^{-2}) differs by about two orders of magnitude from the quoted experimental value (7.34 GeV^{-2}); although the paper attributes this to the missing D-wave, it does not quantify whether the D-wave is expected to account for the entire discrepancy, and a rough estimate would make the limitation more concrete.
[Structure functions, scale dependence] The paper compares its predictions with experimental data at different scales while stating that the NNPDF input is at μ^2 ~ 5 GeV^2; it should clarify whether any QCD evolution has been applied to the computed structure functions, or whether all data have been adjusted to a common scale, because the comparison may otherwise be scale-inconsistent.
[Conclusions and Outlook] The quantification of agreement with the HERMES b1 data would be strengthened by a comparison over the entire measured x range including the correlated systematic uncertainties, rather than only the first moment; the same applies to the F2 and g1 comparisons in Figure 5, where a chi-squared or similar metric would be useful.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The hidden-color claim is circular: B.E. ≈ MD − 2mC is a fitted quantity, and no color amplitude appears in the wavefunction; b1 itself is still a genuine model prediction.

fitted input called prediction [Observables section (after Eq. (7) and Fig. 3 discussion)]
"These predictions involve only three parameters: cluster mass mC, transverse scale κ, and longitudinal scale g. They are fixed by fitting the deuteron mass MD = 1.875 ± 0.185 GeV and the low- Q2 behavior ( Q2 ≤ 0.5 GeV 2) of GC and GM, achieving χ2/d.o.f. = 0.98. The best-fit values are {mC,κ,g} = {0.838± 0.083, 0.13± 0.013, 0.50± 0.05} GeV. Notably, the B.E. of the deuteron in our framework is attained as ∼ 200 MeV, calculated using B.E. ≈ MD− 2mC."

Here B.E. is not an output of the calculation: MD is one of the fitted targets and mC is one of the fitted parameters. Therefore B.E. ≈ MD − 2mC is a rearrangement of the fit, and the value ~200 MeV is algebraically forced by the best-fit mC once MD is fitted to the physical deuteron mass. The paper nevertheless presents this B.E. as 'attained' and uses it as the quantitative evidence for a significant octet-octet hidden-color contribution. That is the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern: the hidden-color evidence is a renaming of fit parameters, not an independent observable.
other [Structure functions / Fig. 5 discussion and Conclusions and Outlook]
"Our results indicate that hidden-color degrees of freedom, which become more significant at higher B.E., play a crucial role in generating a nonzero b1, offering a possible explanation for the HERMES data."

The wavefunctions in Eqs. (5)-(6) and the observables in Eqs. (7)-(13) contain no color index, no octet-octet amplitude, and no singlet-octet mixing parameter. The paper itself concedes 'the precise decomposition into singlet-singlet and octet-octet components cannot be identified in the present stage of our analysis.' The only connection between the calculation and hidden color is the fitted B.E. (MD − 2mC) from Step 1. Attributing the nonzero b1 to hidden-color degrees of freedom therefore reduces to renaming a fit-dependent B.E. effect; the b1 itself is generated by the spin-dependent two-cluster LFWFs, not by any color dynamics introduced in the model.

full rationale

The paper's numerical machinery is not globally circular: the LFWFs from Eqs. (1)-(6), the form-factor convolutions of Eqs. (7)-(8), and the structure-function convolutions of Eqs. (12)-(13) produce observables (EMFFs, radii, F2, g1, b1) that are compared with external data (JLab, HERMES, SMC, NNPDF). Fitting {mC, κ, g} to MD and low-Q2 GC,GM and then computing b1 is a legitimate prediction of a different observable. The circularity is localized to the hidden-color interpretation. The paper defines B.E. ≈ MD − 2mC using two fitted quantities and then presents the resulting ~200 MeV as 'attained' evidence for octet-octet configurations; this is a fitted input renamed as a result. In addition, no octet-octet amplitude, color index, or mixing parameter appears in the wavefunction, so the statement that hidden-color degrees of freedom generate b1 is not derived from color dynamics. The b1 comparison with HERMES is independent evidence for the two-cluster spin model, but not for hidden color. Self-citations to earlier holographic/'t Hooft applications are not the load-bearing circular step; they support the model equations as an openly stated ansatz. Hence score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central calculation rests on an assumed factorized two-cluster light-front dynamics, on the undeclared color-blindness of the wavefunction, and on three fitted parameters. The paper introduces no new fundamental entity; the octet-octet hidden-color state is taken from prior SU(3) literature, but this paper provides no independent handle on it. The B.E. used as evidence is a derived function of fitted parameters, which is why the circularity score is elevated.

free parameters (4)

m_C (cluster mass) = 0.838 ± 0.083 GeV
Cluster mass fitted to deuteron mass and low-Q2 GC and GM; it controls the reported binding energy B.E. = M_D - 2 m_C.
kappa (transverse confinement scale) = 0.13 ± 0.013 GeV
Strength of transverse confinement in the holographic potential, fitted along with m_C.
g (longitudinal scale) = 0.50 ± 0.05 GeV
Strength of the 't Hooft longitudinal interaction, fitted with the other parameters.
Binding-energy scan values = 3, 40, 200 MeV (chosen by hand)
The paper plots structure and form factors at B.E. of about 3, 40, and 200 MeV to argue hidden color controls b1, but B.E. is not independently predicted; it is varied by adjusting the fitted cluster mass, so these curves are scenario dials.

assumptions (5)

ad hoc to paper The deuteron wavefunction obeys the separated light-front equations (1) and (2) with transverse potential U_perp = kappa^4 zeta^2 + 2 kappa^2 (J-1) and the 't Hooft longitudinal potential.
This is the central modeling input, borrowed from meson applications [43,46-48]; no derivation from QCD for a two-cluster deuteron is given in the text.
ad hoc to paper The total mass squared separates as M^2 = M_perp^2 + M_parallel^2, and the wavefunction factorizes into transverse and longitudinal parts as in Eq. (5).
Separation of variables is assumed without proof for the two-cluster bound-state equation.
ad hoc to paper An effective mixture of singlet-singlet and octet-octet color clusters can be represented by the same color-blind cluster LFWFs, despite the precise proportionality being unknown.
The paper never introduces color indices or a mixing amplitude; the hidden-color statement is narrative, not part of the wavefunction construction.
domain assumption The quark PDF of each cluster is taken from NNPDF nucleon fits, and the cluster form factor is the nucleon dipole form factor.
Standard external input from [74] and [8,55-57]; reasonable for clusters of three valence quarks but an approximation.
domain assumption The spin-1 cluster helicity structure is built from the Melosh transformation with only L=0 (S-wave).
Melosh is standard; the S-wave-only restriction is explicit and is blamed for the quadrupole failure.

invented entities (1)

Octet-octet hidden-color configuration in the deuteron
purpose: To justify the large effective binding energy and the nonvanishing tensor-polarized structure function b1.
Hidden-color states are known from SU(3) color symmetry and prior literature [3,4,40], but this paper provides no falsifiable handle that isolates them: no color-mixing probability is computed and the claimed signatures are generated by fitted B.E. values, not by a color-dependent term in the wavefunction.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structure of lightest nuclei in the visible Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TX6UALVR

@misc{pith2026250709886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structure of lightest nuclei in the visible Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TX6UALVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09886}
}

read the original abstract

The simplest atomic nucleus, deuteron, provides key insights into the strong nuclear interactions among quarks and gluons that shape the visible universe. We present the first attempt to calculate the internal structure of the deuteron by incorporating hidden-color degrees of freedom, modeling it as an effective mixture of singlet-singlet and octet-octet color clusters beyond the traditional proton-neutron picture. By employing the separation of variables for the light-front two-cluster bound-state equation, we explore how these hidden color correlations shape both its spin and electromagnetic structure. We incorporate the transverse and longitudinal dynamics by two Schr\"odinger-like equations, namely the light-front holography and the 't Hooft equation, respectively. Our predictions of the electromagnetic form factors and structure functions, including tensor-polarized function, align well with experimental data, offering insights into the partonic structure of the deuteron. Its tensor property could pave the way for a new era in spin physics, guiding future experimental investigations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09886 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Probability distributions of transverse (Λ = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Comparison of the reduced electromagnetic form factors—charge, magnetic, and quadrupole—with available [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: The longitudinal momentum distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Comparison of the unpolarized, helicity, and tensor-polarized structure functions of deuteron at scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Quark contribution to the deuteron’s spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

[1]

D. P. Anderle et al. , Front. Phys. (Beijing) 16, 64701 (2021), arXiv:2102.09222 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2021
[2]

C. G. Callan, Jr., R. F. Dashen, and D. J. Gross, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2717 (1978)

work page 1978
[3]

C. R. Ji, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 543, 012004 (2014)

work page 2014
[4]

B. L. G. Bakker and C.-R. Ji, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 74, 1 (2014)

work page 2014
[5]

V. A. Matveev and P. Sorba, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 20, 435 (1977)

work page 1977
[6]

V. A. Matveev and P. Sorba, Nuovo Cim. A 45, 257 (1978)

work page 1978
[7]

Hogaasen, P

H. Hogaasen, P. Sorba, and R. Viollier, Z. Phys. C 4, 131 (1980)

work page 1980
[8]

S. J. Brodsky, C.-R. Ji, and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 83 (1983)

work page 1983

Show all 74 references

[9]

G. R. Farrar, K. Huleihel, and H.-y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 650 (1995)

1995
[10]

Bashkanov, S

M. Bashkanov, S. J. Brodsky, and H. Clement, Phys. Lett. B 727, 438 (2013), arXiv:1308.6404 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[11]

G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C 89, 045203 (2014), arXiv:1311.4561 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[12]

Gutsche, V

T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, and I. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 94, 116006 (2016), arXiv:1607.04124 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[13]

Gutsche, V

T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, I. Schmidt, and A. Vega, Phys. Rev. D 91, 114001 (2015), arXiv:1501.02738 [hep- ph]

2015 arXiv
[14]

Sun and Y.-b

B.-d. Sun and Y.-b. Dong, Chin. Phys. C 41, 013102 (2017), arXiv:1605.02517 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[15]

W. Shi, R. Peng, T.-X. Liu, S. Lyu, and B. Long, Phys. Rev. C 106, 015505 (2022), arXiv:2205.02000 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[16]

Huseynova, S

N. Huseynova, S. Mamedov, and J. Samadov, Chin. Phys. C 47, 013104 (2023), arXiv:2204.06205 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[17]

L. E. Marcucci, F. Gross, M. T. Pena, M. Piarulli, R. Schiavilla, I. Sick, A. Stadler, J. W. Van Or- den, and M. Viviani, J. Phys. G 43, 023002 (2016), arXiv:1504.05063 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[18]

Khachi, L

A. Khachi, L. Kumar, M. R. G. Kumar, and O. S. K. S. Sastri, Phys. Rev. C 107, 064002 (2023)

2023
[19]

Chemtob, E

M. Chemtob, E. J. Moniz, and M. Rho, Phys. Rev. C 10, 344 (1974)

1974
[20]

Blankenbecler and J

R. Blankenbecler and J. F. Gunion, Phys. Rev. D 4, 718 (1971)

1971
[21]

Piller, W

G. Piller, W. Melnitchouk, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C 54, 894 (1996), arXiv:nucl-th/9605045

1996 arXiv
[22]

V. A. Karmanov and A. V. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. A 575, 520 (1994)

1994
[23]

V. A. Karmanov and A. V. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. A 546, 691 (1992)

1992
[24]

Abbott et al

D. Abbott et al. (JLAB t20), Eur. Phys. J. A 7, 421 (2000), arXiv:nucl-ex/0002003

2000 arXiv
[25]

Sick and D

I. Sick and D. Trautmann, Nucl. Phys. A637, 559 (1998)

1998
[26]

Zhang et al

C. Zhang et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 252501 (2011)

2011
[27]

D. M. Nikolenko et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 072501 (2003)

2003
[28]

Garcon and J

M. Garcon and J. W. Van Orden, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 26, 293 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0102049

2001 arXiv
[29]

Kumano, Eur

S. Kumano, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 205 (2024), arXiv:2406.01180 [hep-ph]

2024
[30]

Airapetian et al

A. Airapetian et al. (HERMES), Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 242001 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0506018

2005 arXiv
[31]

The Deuteron Tensor Struc- ture Function b1 (Report No. E12-13-011),

K. Slifer et al. , “The Deuteron Tensor Struc- ture Function b1 (Report No. E12-13-011),” https://www.jlab.org/sites/default/files/PAC/ PAC51/PAC51_REPORT_2023.pdf
[32]

Poudel, A

J. Poudel, A. Bacchetta, J.-P. Chen, D. Keller, I. Fer- nando, E. Long, D. Ruth, N. Santiesteban, and K. Slifer, (2025), arXiv:2502.20044 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[33]

SeaQuest with a Transversely Polar- ized Target (E1039),

M. Brooks et al. , “SeaQuest with a Transversely Polar- ized Target (E1039),” https://twist.phys.virginia. edu/work/E1039proposal_final.pdf
[34]

Keller (SpinQuest), (2022), arXiv:2205.01249 [nucl- ex]

D. Keller (SpinQuest), (2022), arXiv:2205.01249 [nucl- ex]

2022 arXiv
[35]

Hoodbhoy, R

P. Hoodbhoy, R. L. Jaffe, and A. Manohar, Nucl. Phys. B 312, 571 (1989)

1989
[36]

Khan and P

H. Khan and P. Hoodbhoy, Phys. Rev. C44, 1219 (1991)

1991
[37]

Edelmann, G

J. Edelmann, G. Piller, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C 57, 3392 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9709455

1998 arXiv
[38]

Cosyn, Y.-B

W. Cosyn, Y.-B. Dong, S. Kumano, and M. Sargsian, Phys. Rev. D 95, 074036 (2017), arXiv:1702.05337 [hep- ph]

2017 arXiv
[39]

Accardi et al

A. Accardi et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 268 (2016), arXiv:1212.1701 [nucl-ex]

2016 arXiv
[40]

Ji and S

C.-R. Ji and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 34, 1460 (1986)

1986
[41]

S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de Teramond, H. G. Dosch, and J. Erlich, Phys. Rept. 584, 1 (2015), arXiv:1407.8131 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[42]

’t Hooft, Nucl

G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 75, 461 (1974)

1974
[43]

Ahmady, H

M. Ahmady, H. Dahiya, S. Kaur, C. Mondal, R. San- dapen, and N. Sharma, Phys. Lett. B 823, 136754 (2021), arXiv:2105.01018 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[44]

S. S. Chabysheva and J. R. Hiller, Annals Phys. 337, 143 (2013), arXiv:1207.7128 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[45]

Sharma, Phys

N. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D 109, 014019 (2024), arXiv:2311.09152 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[46]

Ahmady, S

M. Ahmady, S. Kaur, S. L. MacKay, C. Mondal, and R. Sandapen, Phys. Rev. D 104, 074013 (2021), arXiv:2108.03482 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[47]

Ahmady, S

M. Ahmady, S. Kaur, C. Mondal, and R. Sandapen, Phys. Lett. B 836, 137628 (2023), arXiv:2208.08405 [hep- ph]

2023 arXiv
[48]

Gurjar, C

B. Gurjar, C. Mondal, and S. Kaur, Phys. Rev. D 109, 094017 (2024), arXiv:2401.13514 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[49]

H. J. Melosh, Phys. Rev. D 9, 1095 (1974)

1974
[50]

C. R. Ji, P. L. Chung, and S. R. Cotanch, Phys. Rev. D 45, 4214 (1992)

1992
[51]

J. R. Forshaw and R. Sandapen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 081601 (2012), arXiv:1203.6088 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[52]

The et al

I. The et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 173 (1991)

1991
[53]

Benaksas, D

D. Benaksas, D. Drickey, and D. Frerejacque, Phys. Rev. 148, 1327 (1966)

1966
[54]

Choi and C.-R

H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D70, 053015 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402114

2004 arXiv
[55]

S. J. Brodsky and B. T. Chertok, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 269 (1976)

1976
[56]

A. P. Kobushkin and A. I. Syamtomov, Phys. Atom. 7 Nucl. 58, 1477 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9409411

1995 arXiv
[57]

S. J. Brodsky and C.-R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 33, 2653 (1986)

1986
[58]

T. E. O. Ericson and M. Rosa-Clot, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 35, 271 (1985)

1985
[59]

Afanasev, V

A. Afanasev, V. D. Afanasev, and S. V. Trubnikov, (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9808047

1998 arXiv
[60]

Bacchetta and P

A. Bacchetta and P. J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. D 62, 114004 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0007120

2000 arXiv
[61]

Bacchetta and P

A. Bacchetta and P. J. Mulders, Phys. Lett. B 518, 85 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0104176

2001 arXiv
[62]

Transverse momentum dependence in structure functions in hard scattering processes (2001),

P. Mulders, “Transverse momentum dependence in structure functions in hard scattering processes (2001),” https://www.nat.vu.nl/˜mulders/correlations-0. pdf

2001
[63]

S. Kaur, C. Mondal, and H. Dahiya, JHEP 01, 136 (2021), arXiv:2009.04288 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[64]

Arneodo et al

M. Arneodo et al. (New Muon), Phys. Lett. B 364, 107 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9509406

1995 arXiv
[65]

Arneodo et al

M. Arneodo et al. (New Muon), Nucl. Phys. B 483, 3 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9610231

1997 arXiv
[66]

D. D. Gabbert, Determination of the structure function F2 at HERMES , Ph.D. thesis, Hamburg U. (2008)

2008
[67]

Adeva et al

B. Adeva et al. (Spin Muon), Phys. Rev. D 58, 112001 (1998)

1998
[68]

Adeva et al

B. Adeva et al. (Spin Muon), Phys. Lett. B 302, 533 (1993)

1993
[69]

Adams et al

D. Adams et al. (Spin Muon), Phys. Lett. B 357, 248 (1995)

1995
[70]

Adeva et al

B. Adeva et al. (Spin Muon), Phys. Rev. D 60, 072004 (1999), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 62, 079902 (2000)]

1999
[71]

Airapetian et al

A. Airapetian et al. (HERMES), Phys. Rev. D75, 012007 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0609039

2007 arXiv
[72]

Abe et al

K. Abe et al. (E143), Phys. Rev. D 58, 112003 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9802357

1998 arXiv
[73]

E. S. Ageev et al. (COMPASS), Phys. Lett. B 612, 154 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0501073

2005 arXiv
[74]

R. D. Ball et al. (NNPDF), Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 663 (2017), arXiv:1706.00428 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

D. P. Anderle et al. , Front. Phys. (Beijing) 16, 64701 (2021), arXiv:2102.09222 [nucl-ex]

arXiv 2021

[2] [2]

C. G. Callan, Jr., R. F. Dashen, and D. J. Gross, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2717 (1978)

work page 1978

[3] [3]

C. R. Ji, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 543, 012004 (2014)

work page 2014

[4] [4]

B. L. G. Bakker and C.-R. Ji, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 74, 1 (2014)

work page 2014

[5] [5]

V. A. Matveev and P. Sorba, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 20, 435 (1977)

work page 1977

[6] [6]

V. A. Matveev and P. Sorba, Nuovo Cim. A 45, 257 (1978)

work page 1978

[7] [7]

Hogaasen, P

H. Hogaasen, P. Sorba, and R. Viollier, Z. Phys. C 4, 131 (1980)

work page 1980

[8] [8]

S. J. Brodsky, C.-R. Ji, and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 83 (1983)

work page 1983