Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 17 cited by

A single set of generalized parton distributions describes 2,646 data points from exclusive scattering, PDFs, form factors, and lattice QCD at next-to-leading order, and yields a proton spin decomposition.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 21:24 UTC pith:VYJMOH64

load-bearing objection A serious, well-executed global NLO GPD fit; the spin/tomography outputs are provisional because they inherit the untested proportionality assumption on E GPDs. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.08037 v1 pith:VYJMOH64 submitted 2025-09-09 hep-ph hep-latnucl-exnucl-th

GUMP1.0 -- First global extraction of generalized parton distributions from experiment and lattice data with NLO accuracy

Yuxun Guo , Fatma P. Aslan , Xiangdong Ji , M. Gabriel Santiago This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-latnucl-exnucl-th
keywords generalized parton distributionsdeeply virtual Compton scatteringdeeply virtual meson productionnucleon tomographyproton spin decompositionlattice QCDglobal QCD analysisnext-to-leading order
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reports the first global extraction of generalized parton distributions (GPDs)—the functions that describe where quarks and gluons sit inside the proton—by fitting 2,646 data points drawn from exclusive scattering experiments, global parton density fits, nucleon form factors, and lattice QCD simulations. It claims a single set of GPDs, GUMP1.0, describes deeply virtual Compton scattering and rho-meson production at both low and high momentum fraction at next-to-leading-order accuracy, with a chi2 per degree of freedom near 1.09. If correct, this yields three-dimensional images of the proton in impact-parameter space and a benchmark against which future experiments at electron-ion colliders can be compared. The proton angular momentum decomposition is reported as well: up quarks carry 0.334(9), down quarks -0.108(12), and gluons 0.258(8) of the proton spin.

Core claim

The authors claim to have constructed GUMP1.0, the first global extraction of generalized parton distributions (GPDs) with NLO accuracy, by simultaneously fitting deeply virtual Compton scattering and rho-meson production cross sections, beam-spin asymmetries, globally fitted unpolarized and polarized parton distributions, nucleon charge form factors, and lattice QCD results for generalized form factors and x-dependent GPDs. The full dataset comprises 2,646 points in 13 input categories; the best fit has chi2/dof = 1.09. The extracted zero-skewness GPDs are used to produce impact-parameter images of the proton for gluons and quarks, and the proton angular momentum is decomposed as Ju = 0.334

What carries the argument

Conformal moment space parametrization (GUMP): GPDs are reconstructed from their conformal moments through a Mellin-Barnes integral; moments are expanded in powers of skewness and parametrized in the forward limit with a PDF-like ansatz times a Regge or exponential/dipole t-dependence. Off-forward moments are taken proportional to forward ones (F_{j,k}(t)=R_k F_{j-k,0}(t)), and unconstrained GPDs like E are fixed to H by proportionality constants. This construction enforces the polynomiality, endpoint, and evolution constraints while keeping the number of free parameters manageable.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction's least-constrained GPDs—especially the E-type spin GPDs—are fixed by assuming they have the same shape as the better-known H GPDs up to a constant factor, so the proton spin decomposition and polarized tomography would change if that proportionality is wrong.

What would settle it

A precise measurement of the transverse target-spin asymmetry in deeply virtual Compton scattering, or a lattice calculation of the E GPD with controlled systematic errors at nonzero skewness, that conflicts with the fitted E/H proportionality would show the extracted angular momentum and polarized sea images are artifacts of the ansatz rather than data-driven.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Simultaneously describes 2,646 points from 13 input categories with chi2/dof = 1.09, indicating consistency between small- and moderate-x exclusive data, PDFs, form factors, and lattice QCD.
  • Provides the first NLO-accurate, unified GPD set spanning sea and valence regions, enabling three-dimensional nucleon imaging in impact parameter space.
  • Yields a specific proton angular momentum decomposition (Ju=0.334(9), Jd=-0.108(12), Jg=0.258(8)) that future measurements of E GPDs can test.
  • Establishes a benchmark and open-source codebase that future combined analyses at existing and planned colliders can extend to new observables like exclusive J/psi production and double DVCS.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the proportionality ansatz for E GPDs is relaxed in a future fit, the central spin values could move by more than the quoted Hessian uncertainties; the cross-section description would likely survive because exclusive observables mostly constrain the H-type Compton form factors.
  • The paper's decision to exclude J/psi production and gluon gravitational form factors signals a limit of the factorized t-dependence; extending the framework to non-factorized t-dependence would likely be the next structural step.
  • The 30% inflation added to lattice uncertainties is a placeholder; replacing it with quantified systematic errors could reweight lattice versus experimental inputs and sharpen or shift the extracted sea-quark tomography.
  • The predicted cancellation of up- and down-quark sea contributions to the spin is a concrete, testable pattern that dedicated flavor-separated measurements at a future electron-ion collider could confirm or overturn.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents GUMP1.0, the first GPD extraction that simultaneously fits JLab DVCS data, HERA DVCS and rho-meson production, global PDFs, nucleon form factors, and lattice QCD results, using a conformal-moment-space parametrization at NLO. The fit reports chi2/dof=1.09 over 2,646 data points from 13 input classes. The paper then uses the extracted zero-skewness GPDs to construct impact-parameter-space tomography and reports the angular momentum decomposition J_u=0.334(9), J_d=-0.108(12), J_g=0.258(8), J_tot=0.484(17). The central technical tool is the conformal-moment ansatz of Eq. (5), with off-forward moments set proportional to forward moments and with the little-constrained E GPDs linked to H GPDs by constant ratios. The manuscript is candid about the resulting limitations, but the headline benchmark claims rest on these choices.

Significance. If the extraction is robust, this is a substantial step: it is one of the first global GPD fits to combine exclusive measurements from both JLab and HERA with PDF, form-factor, and lattice inputs, all at NLO, and it provides a public framework (GUMP) for future studies. The good description of 2,646 points from very different experimental and lattice inputs is a genuine achievement, and the paper is commendably explicit about which inputs are included, which are omitted, and which systematic uncertainties are not yet assessed. However, the highest-profile outputs—the angular momentum decomposition and the transversely polarized tomography of Fig. 5—are not determined by the data but are strongly shaped by the proportionality ansatz for E GPDs and for off-forward moments. As presented, these outputs should be regarded as model-dependent predictions of a particular parametrization, not as model-independent extractions. The appropriate journal-level contribution is therefore conditional on demonstrating that the headline results do not change substantially when the E-shape and off-forward-moment assumptions are relaxed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theoretical framework and GPD parametrization, Eqs. (4)-(5) and Table S.1] The off-forward moments are fixed by F_{j,k}=R_k F_{j-k,0}, and the sea and gluon E GPDs are set proportional to H: E_baru=R^baru_E H_baru, E_bard=R^bard_E H_bard, E_g=R^g_E H_g. Since DVCS/DVMP Compton form factors are dominated by H, the experimental cross sections have very little sensitivity to the x- and t-shape of E. Consequently the reported J_u, J_d, J_g and the Fig. 5 tomography are, to a large extent, consequences of this ansatz rather than constraints from the data. The paper acknowledges the assumption in words, but the abstract and conclusion still present the spin decomposition and "benchmark" as results. A robustness re-fit with an independent x- and/or t-shape for E (at least for the sea and gluon sectors) is needed before these quantities can be quoted as extracted values.
  2. [Extracted GPDs and proton tomography, Fig. 5 and the paragraph after Eq. (6)] The text states that the factorized t parametrization "may limit the accuracy" and that "errors due to parametrization bias have not been included." This is a candid admission but it directly undermines the quantitative claims attached to the extracted quantities. The 90% Hessian bands in Figs. 4-5 and the uncertainties on J_u, J_d, and J_g are therefore not complete uncertainties. For a paper that proposes GUMP1.0 as a benchmark, the authors should provide at least one alternative parametrization variant (e.g., a different t-profile for sea/gluon or a more flexible E dependence) and show how the central values shift. Without such a test, the statistical precision quoted for the spin decomposition is misleading.
  3. [Setup of the analysis and Supplemental Material, Table S.2] The lattice gluon gravitational form factors [69] and the J/psi data [83] are explicitly excluded because their t-dependence is in tension with the factorized ansatz. The omitted gluon GFF data are among the most direct lattice constraints on the gluon contribution to the proton angular momentum, yet the paper quotes J_g=0.258(8). The exclusion is reasonable given the stated parametrization limitations, but it means that J_g is not constrained by those data. The paper should state this connection explicitly and, ideally, test the stability of J_g under inclusion of these inputs with an extended t-dependence. As it stands, the quoted uncertainty on J_g cannot be interpreted as a measure of how constrained the gluon spin really is.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction, Eq. (1)] The light-like vector n is defined with "n2=0"; this should be n^2=0.
  2. [Supplemental Material, Table S.1] The row for the non-fully-parametrized axial-vector GPDs appears to have duplicated entries: "✘ eEdV, eE¯u, eE¯d, and eEg ✘ eEdV, eE¯u, eE¯d, and eEg". Please clean up the table formatting.
  3. [Fig. 3] The top panel of Fig. 3 lacks an explicit axis label; it would be clearer to label the vertical axis as chi2/Npts. Also, the naming of some input classes (e.g., "H E H E H E") is cryptic and should be expanded.
  4. [Setup of the analysis and results] The phrase "kinematical accuracy of twist three" is awkward; consider "kinematic twist-three accuracy." Also, the term "Cq,g terms" is introduced in the Theoretical Framework section but never defined; either define it or add a reference.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase "the first global extraction" is stronger than what the body supports, given that earlier global GPD analyses exist and that the current analysis excludes J/psi and gluon-GFF lattice data. Please qualify the claim, e.g., "first global extraction combining these specific inputs at NLO with GUMP1.0."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: GUMP1.0 is a global fit to independent external data; the E-GPD proportionality and F_{j,k}=R_k F_{j-k,0} are disclosed model priors, not self-referential predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a chi-square fit of parametrized conformal moments against 2,646 external data points (DVCS/DVMP cross sections and asymmetries from JLab and HERA, JAM PDFs, charge form factors, and lattice generalized form factors/GPDs). The headline outputs—the NLO description, chi2/dof=1.09, impact-parameter tomography, and the angular-momentum decomposition Ju=0.334(9), Jd=-0.108(12), Jg=0.258(8)—are all results of this fit, not inputs used to define the fit. The ansatze F_{j,k}(t)=R_k F_{j-k,0}(t) and E_g proportional to H_g are empirical modeling choices introduced in the 'Theoretical framework' section; the paper explicitly labels them as imposed constraints because the E and eE GPDs are weakly constrained ('we impose empirical constraints, such as Eg proportional to Hg, to avoid unconstrained GPDs'). It also explicitly warns in the tomography section that the factorized t-dependence may limit accuracy and that parametrization-bias errors are not included. This is a limitation and model-dependence caveat, not circularity: no fitted parameter is defined in terms of the headline decomposition, and no predicted quantity is statistically forced by using a subset of the same data to determine itself. Self-citations to the GUMP program and to prior KM/GUMP parametrization papers describe the methodology and historical lineage; the relevant equations are written out in the paper and SM, so the argument does not reduce to an unverified self-citation. Because the central derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks, no significant circularity is found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are proposed. The fit rests on roughly 60 shape parameters (fitted), the seven structural assumptions listed above, and no invented particles, forces, or conserved quantities.

free parameters (10)
  • Forward-moment amplitudes and exponents (N_i, alpha_i, beta_i) for H, E, Htilde, Etilde of each flavor = e.g., N^H_uV = 0.3023(7), alpha^H_uV = 0.227(5), beta^H_uV = 3.219(18); full set in Table S.3
    Shape of the x-dependence of every GPD species, fit to all 2,646 points; the central flexibility of the model.
  • Regge slopes alpha'_i for t-dependence = alpha'^H_uV = 0.753(7), alpha'^H_dV = 0.47(5); alpha' for sea and gluon fixed at 0.15
    Controls how the Regge intercept shifts with t; weakly constrained, fixed for sea/gluon.
  • t-slopes b_Hsea, b_Hg, b_eHsea = 2.96(9), 2.64(13), 7.9(5)
    Exponential t-dependence of sea and gluon GPDs; directly shapes the tomography images of Figs. 4 and 5.
  • Dipole masses M^-2 for valence and gluon t-dependence = M^-2_{H,dV} = 0.46(8), M^-2_{H,g} = 5.00(13), M^-2_{H,uV} = 0.0000(15)
    Alternative t-shape for valence; the uV dipole mass is consistent with zero (essentially no dipole suppression).
  • Off-forward ratios R_k (F_{j,k} = R_k F_{j-k,0}) = e.g., R^H_uV,xi2 = -1.577(27), R^H_uV,xi4 = 0.336(7), R^H_g,xi2 = 0.06(6)
    Sets the xi-dependence of conformal moments; absorbs most of the DVCS/DVMP constraint; a rigid proportionality ansatz.
  • E-to-H proportionality constants R_E = R_E_baru = 3.22(30), R_E_bard = -4.80(28), R_E_g = 0.30(4)
    Forces E sea/gluon GPDs to be constant multiples of H; these constants plus the valence E parameters set the spin decomposition J_u, J_d, J_g.
  • Second-term parameters for H in sea and gluon (N_2, alpha_2, beta_2) = N^H_baru,2 = 0.0022(2), alpha^H_baru,2 = 0.25(11), beta^H_baru,2 = 20.0(27); similar for d and g
    Added flexibility to cover x in [0.0005, 0.6]; the wide-x-coverage claim rests on these parameters.
  • Lattice truncation cutoff f0 = not reported
    Ad hoc cutoff: inputs with F(x, xi, t) < f0 are truncated and errors set to max(deltaF, f0); value not given, affects the lattice GPD constraints.
  • Flat 30% lattice systematic inflation = 30%
    Added to every lattice point to reconcile discrepancies with global charge form factors; a fit-slackening constant, not derived from a systematic study.
  • xi-series truncation order = k <= 4 (even powers)
    Modeling choice for the polynomiality expansion; assumed sufficient for the xi <= 1/2 kinematics of interest.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Leading-twist collinear factorization for DVCS (with kinematical twist-3 accuracy) and leading-twist factorization for DV rho production.
    Invoked in 'Setup of the analysis and results'; the cross-section formulas of Refs. [81,82] and [45-47] are trusted at NLO. Failure would bias the extracted GPDs.
  • standard math Conformal moment expansion plus Mellin-Barnes resummation reconstructs the x-space GPD.
    Eqs. (2)-(3); relies on convergence of the partial-wave expansion and completeness of the conformal basis at the order used.
  • standard math Polynomiality: conformal moments are polynomials in xi of degree j+1 (even powers).
    Eq. (4), following Ref. [4]; truncation to k <= 4 is the practical form actually used.
  • domain assumption Forward limit equals JAM22 PDFs; first moments equal charge form factors.
    Used to attach the PDF and form-factor data to the GPD parameters; see SM Table S.2 inputs.
  • domain assumption Lattice QCD determinations of GFFs and x-dependent GPDs are reliable to within the stated errors plus an added 30%.
    All lattice inputs carry the flat inflation; the paper calls this 'a rough estimate.'
  • domain assumption Charge form factors assume isospin symmetry.
    SM Table S.2: 'Both proton and neutron form factors assuming isospin symmetry.'
  • ad hoc to paper The proportionality F_{j,k}(t) = R_k F_{j-k,0}(t) preserves the physical constraints after resummation.
    Off-forward moments are modeled proportional to forward ones; this is a practical ansatz, not derived. It is the load-bearing rigidity of the xi-dependence.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19430 in / 23206 out tokens · 251710 ms · 2026-08-04T21:24:21.566398+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We report the first global extraction of generalized parton distributions (GPDs), GUMP1.0, by combining deeply virtual Compton scattering and $\rho$-meson production data from Jefferson Lab and Hadron-Electron Ring Accelerator with global fits of parton distribution functions, charge form factors, and lattice quantum chromodynamics simulations. Using a conformal moment space parametrization, we achieve a unified description across low- and high-$x$ regions at next to leading order (NLO) accuracy in perturbative corrections. The results provide state-of-the-art GPDs consistent with almost all known facts, enabling three-dimensional nucleon imaging in impact parameter space and, at the same time, establishing a benchmark for future theoretical and experimental studies of the nucleon structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08037 by Fatma P. Aslan, M. Gabriel Santiago, Xiangdong Ji, Yuxun Guo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Representative fits to differential cross sections: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The transverse space gluon distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The intrinsic transverse space distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 17 Pith papers

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

  1. Mapping data sensitivities in global QCD analysis with linear response and influence functions

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A framework based on linear response and influence functions maps data sensitivities in global QCD analyses to show how experiments determine central values, uncertainties, and correlations of non-perturbative functions.

  2. Holographic Open/Closed Exchange in Double Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering: Fixed-$j$ Structural Matching to the $\pm$-Basis Wilson Kernels

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Holographic fixed-j DDVCS amplitude structurally matches pQCD ±-basis Wilson coefficients via open/closed string channels and Gauss hypergeometric kernel at a single matching scale.

  3. From Vacuum to Nucleon: Fixed-$j$ Kernel Matching of Holographic Current Correlators to QCD

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Holographic QCD achieves exact fixed-scale matching of the hadronic current-current correlator to the singlet conformal OPE Wilson coefficients in perturbative QCD via a factorized Compton amplitude with a Gauss hyper...

  4. Conformal moments of the two-loop coefficient functions in DVCS

    hep-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Conformal moments of the two-loop DVCS coefficient functions have been computed with a new technique.

  5. Benchmarking the Nearside Energy-Energy Correlators with Mellin Transform

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A Mellin-transform framework with one fitted transition scale Λ describes nearside EECs in e+e− annihilation at NNLO+NNLL accuracy across ALEPH and earlier data.

  6. Exclusive Quark and Gluon Dijet Production as Probes of GPDs at Collider Energies

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Exclusive dijet electroproduction probes GPDs via new LO amplitudes for quark (with helicity and QED) and gluon channels, with HERA comparison and EIC projections.

  7. Generalized parton distributions of valence, sea, and gluon components of the proton

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Using basis light-front quantization wave functions, the authors calculate GPDs for proton components at low resolution scale and obtain results qualitatively similar to but smaller than the GUMP1.0 global extraction.

  8. Holographic Open/Closed Exchange in Double Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering: Fixed-$j$ Structural Matching to the $\pm$-Basis Wilson Kernels

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Fixed-j holographic DDVCS and DVCS structurally match the singlet conformal-OPE Wilson-kernel family of QCD via open- and closed-string Witten vertices.

  9. From Vacuum to Nucleon: Fixed-$j$ Kernel Matching of Holographic Current Correlators to QCD

    hep-th 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.5

    A vacuum-normalized holographic photon profile in a fixed-j Witten diagram reproduces the QCD conformal hard kernel for DVCS/DDVCS, with the Mellin exponent fixed by z-power counting.

  10. Revisiting Quark Confinement in the Proton through the Force on Quarks

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Using light-cone sum-rule input and Tikhonov-regularized inversion, the paper reconstructs the quark confining force in the proton and confirms an attractive, approximately linear-potential force at intermediate distances.

  11. Exclusive Quark and Gluon Dijet Production as Probes of GPDs at Collider Energies

    hep-ph 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Exclusive quark and gluon dijet electroproduction is analyzed in collinear factorization as a GPD probe, extending prior work with helicity GPDs and an electromagnetic channel, with HERA comparisons and EIC projections.

  12. Constraining DVCS Compton Form Factors Using Lattice QCD informed Neural Network

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A neural network framework informed by lattice QCD uses all-order dispersion relations to significantly constrain both real and imaginary parts of Compton Form Factors extracted from DVCS proton data.

  13. On the Two $R$-Factors in the Small-$x$ Shockwave Formalism

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Replacing the rapidity argument of the dipole amplitude with ln min{1/|x|, 1/|ξ|} and refining initial conditions for non-linear evolution can eliminate two R-factors in small-x shockwave calculations.

  14. Assessing the impact of the electron ion collider in China on Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0

    Projected EicC DVCS asymmetry data would substantially reduce uncertainties on all leading-order Compton form factors, most strongly in the sea-quark region.

  15. GTMDs, orbital angular momentum, and pretzelosity

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    In the bag model, GTMD calculations are consistent, orbital angular momentum is tied to F_{1,4}^q through the Ji sum rule, and a deeper link to pretzelosity TMD is established.

  16. Generalized parton distributions of a deuteron in an AdS/QCD hard-wall model

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Deuteron GFFs and GPDs calculated in hard-wall AdS/QCD agree in momentum dependence with soft-wall results and match experimental gravitational mean square radius.

  17. Three-dimensional imaging of hadrons with hard exclusive reactions: advances in experiment, theory, phenomenology, and lattice QCD

    hep-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A community white paper reviewing GPD-based 3D imaging of hadrons — experiment, theory, phenomenology, lattice QCD — and the roadmap toward precision tomography at JLab, COMPASS, J-PARC, and future electron-ion colliders.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 14 Pith papers · 13 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Ji, Phys

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

    arXiv 1995

  2. [2]

    Ji, Phys

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

    arXiv 1997

  3. [3]

    M¨ uller, D

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

    arXiv 1994

  4. [4]

    X.-D. Ji, J. Phys. G 24, 1181 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9807358

    arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    Goeke, M

    K. Goeke, M. V. Polyakov, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 47, 401 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0106012

    arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    Diehl, Phys

    M. Diehl, Phys. Rept. 388, 41 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0307382. 6

    arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    A. V. Belitsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rept. 418, 1 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Ji, Natl

    X. Ji, Natl. Sci. Rev. 4, 213 (2017), arXiv:1605.01114 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    Boussarie et al

    R. Boussarie et al. , (2023), arXiv:2304.03302 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Burkardt, Phys

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

    arXiv 2000

  11. [11]

    Burkardt, Int

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  12. [12]

    Ji, Phys

    X.-d. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 062001 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0304037

    arXiv 2003

  13. [13]

    A. V. Belitsky, X.-d. Ji, and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 69, 074014 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0307383

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  14. [14]

    M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 555, 57 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0210165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  15. [15]

    Ji and C

    X. Ji and C. Yang, (2025), arXiv:2508.16727 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Ji, Phys

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

    arXiv 1997

  17. [17]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B 385, 333 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9605431

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  18. [18]

    J. C. Collins, L. Frankfurt, and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. D 56, 2982 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9611433

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  19. [19]

    E. R. Berger, M. Diehl, and B. Pire, Eur. Phys. J. C 23, 675 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0110062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  20. [20]

    Chatagnon et al

    P. Chatagnon et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 262501 (2021), arXiv:2108.11746 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    A. V. Belitsky and D. Mueller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 022001 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0210313

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  22. [22]

    Guidal and M

    M. Guidal and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 012001 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0208275

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  23. [23]

    K. Deja, V. Martinez-Fernandez, P. Sznajder, J. Wag- ner, and B. Pire, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 16, 7 (2023), arXiv:2304.03704 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Pedrak, B

    A. Pedrak, B. Pire, L. Szymanowski, and J. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 96, 074008 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 100, 039901 (2019)], arXiv:1708.01043 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Duplanˇ ci´ c, S

    G. Duplanˇ ci´ c, S. Nabeebaccus, K. Passek-Kumeriˇ cki, B. Pire, L. Szymanowski, and S. Wallon, Phys. Rev. D 107, 094023 (2023), arXiv:2302.12026 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Qiu and Z

    J.-W. Qiu and Z. Yu, JHEP 08, 103 (2022), arXiv:2205.07846 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Qiu and Z

    J.-W. Qiu and Z. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 107, 014007 (2023), arXiv:2210.07995 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Qiu and Z

    J.-W. Qiu and Z. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 161902 (2023), arXiv:2305.15397 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Grocholski, B

    O. Grocholski, B. Pire, P. Sznajder, L. Szymanowski, and J. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 105, 094025 (2022), arXiv:2204.00396 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Nabeebaccus, J

    S. Nabeebaccus, J. Schoenleber, L. Szymanowski, and S. Wallon, (2023), arXiv:2311.09146 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Qiu and Z

    J.-W. Qiu and Z. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 109, 074023 (2024), arXiv:2401.13207 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Accardi et al

    A. Accardi et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 173 (2024), arXiv:2306.09360 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Accardi et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    Abdul Khalek et al

    R. Abdul Khalek et al. , (2021), arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Bertone, H

    V. Bertone, H. Dutrieux, C. Mezrag, H. Moutarde, and P. Sznajder, Phys. Rev. D 103, 114019 (2021), arXiv:2104.03836 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Ji, Phys

    X. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 262002 (2013), arXiv:1305.1539 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  38. [38]

    Ji, Y.-S

    X. Ji, Y.-S. Liu, Y. Liu, J.-H. Zhang, and Y. Zhao, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 035005 (2021), arXiv:2004.03543 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Alexandrou, K

    C. Alexandrou, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, K. Had- jiyiannakou, K. Jansen, A. Scapellato, and F. Steffens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 262001 (2020), arXiv:2008.10573 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [40]

    Lin, Phys

    H.-W. Lin, Phys. Lett. B 824, 136821 (2022), arXiv:2112.07519 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Holligan, H.-W

    J. Holligan, H.-W. Lin, R. Zhang, and Y. Zhao, JHEP 207, 241 (2025), arXiv:2501.19225 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Y. Guo, X. Ji, and K. Shiells, JHEP 09, 215 (2022), arXiv:2207.05768 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Y. Guo, X. Ji, M. G. Santiago, K. Shiells, and J. Yang, JHEP 05, 150 (2023), arXiv:2302.07279 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Y. Guo, X. Ji, M. G. Santiago, J. Yang, and H.-C. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2409.17231 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Kumericki, D

    K. Kumericki, D. Mueller, and K. Passek-Kumericki, Nucl. Phys. B 794, 244 (2008), arXiv:hep-ph/0703179

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  46. [46]

    Kumeriˇ cki and D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  47. [47]

    ˇCui´ c, G

    M. ˇCui´ c, G. Duplanˇ ci´ c, K. Kumeriˇ cki, and K. Passek- K., (2023), arXiv:2310.13837 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Kumeriˇ cki, D

    K. Kumeriˇ cki, D. M¨ uller, and M. Murray, Phys. Part. Nucl. 45, 723 (2014), arXiv:1301.1230 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  49. [49]

    Berthou et al

    B. Berthou et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 478 (2018), arXiv:1512.06174 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [50]

    Dupre, M

    R. Dupre, M. Guidal, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D 95, 011501 (2017), arXiv:1606.07821 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [51]

    Moutarde, P

    H. Moutarde, P. Sznajder, and J. Wagner, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 614 (2019), arXiv:1905.02089 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  52. [52]

    Kumericki, S

    K. Kumericki, S. Liuti, and H. Moutarde, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 157 (2016), arXiv:1602.02763 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    Dutrieux, H

    H. Dutrieux, H. Dutrieux, O. Grocholski, O. Grochol- ski, H. Moutarde, H. Moutarde, P. Sznajder, and P. Sznajder, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 252 (2022), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 82, 389 (2022)], arXiv:2112.10528 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    Almaeen, T

    M. Almaeen, T. Alghamdi, B. Kriesten, D. Adams, Y. Li, H.-W. Lin, and S. Liuti, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 499 (2025), arXiv:2405.05826 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Lin, Phys

    H.-W. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 182001 (2021), arXiv:2008.12474 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [56]

    Goharipour, H

    M. Goharipour, H. Hashamipour, F. Irani, and K. Az- izi (MMGPDs), Phys. Rev. D 109, 074042 (2024), arXiv:2403.19384 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Exploring the Structure of the Bound Proton with Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering

    M. Hattawy et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 032502 (2019), arXiv:1812.07628 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    Beam charge asymmetries for deeply virtual Compton scattering off the proton

    V. Burkert et al. (CLAS), Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 186 (2021), arXiv:2103.12651 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    Georges (Jefferson Lab Hall A), PoS Hadron2017, 170 (2018)

    F. Georges (Jefferson Lab Hall A), PoS Hadron2017, 170 (2018)

    2018

  60. [60]

    Deeply virtual Compton scattering cross section at high Bjorken $x_B$

    F. Georges et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 252002 (2022), arXiv:2201.03714 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    First CLAS12 measurement of DVCS beam-spin asymmetries in the extended valence region

    G. Christiaens et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 211902 (2023), arXiv:2211.11274 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    F. D. Aaron et al. (H1), Phys. Lett. B 681, 391 (2009), arXiv:0907.5289 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  63. [63]

    Chekanov et al

    S. Chekanov et al. (ZEUS), PMC Phys. A 1, 6 (2007), arXiv:0708.1478 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  64. [64]

    F. D. Aaron et al. (H1), JHEP 05, 032 (2010), arXiv:0910.5831 [hep-ex]. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  65. [65]

    Cocuzza, W

    C. Cocuzza, W. Melnitchouk, A. Metz, and N. Sato (Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM)), Phys. Rev. D 106, L031502 (2022), arXiv:2202.03372 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  66. [66]

    Z. Ye, J. Arrington, R. J. Hill, and G. Lee, Phys. Lett. B 777, 8 (2018), arXiv:1707.09063 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  67. [67]

    Alexandrou et al., Phys

    C. Alexandrou et al., Phys. Rev. D 101, 034519 (2020), arXiv:1908.10706 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  68. [68]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, M. Constantinou, K. Had- jiyiannakou, K. Jansen, and G. Koutsou, Phys. Rev. D 104, 074503 (2021), arXiv:2106.13468 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    D. C. Hackett, D. A. Pefkou, and P. E. Shanahan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 251904 (2024), arXiv:2310.08484 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, X. Gao, A. Metz, J. Miller, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, F. Stef- fens, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 108, 014507 (2023), arXiv:2305.11117 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, X. Gao, A. Metz, J. Miller, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, F. Steffens, and Y. Zhao, JHEP 01, 146 (2025), arXiv:2410.03539 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    M.-H. Chu, M. Cola¸ co, S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, A. Metz, and F. Steffens, (2025), arXiv:2508.17998 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Mueller and A

    D. Mueller and A. Schafer, Nucl. Phys. B 739, 1 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0509204

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  74. [74]

    M¨ uller, T

    D. M¨ uller, T. Lautenschlager, K. Passek-Kumericki, and A. Schaefer, Nucl. Phys. B 884, 438 (2014), arXiv:1310.5394 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  75. [75]

    Generalized Parton Distributions: visions, basics, and realities

    D. Mueller, Few Body Syst. 55, 317 (2014), arXiv:1405.2817 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  76. [76]

    Hou et al

    T.-J. Hou et al. , Phys. Rev. D 103, 014013 (2021), arXiv:1912.10053 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    K. A. Mamo and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 110, 114016 (2024), arXiv:2404.13245 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    K. A. Mamo and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 241901 (2024), arXiv:2411.04162 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    Dembinski and P

    H. Dembinski and P. O. et al., (2020), 10.5281/zen- odo.3949207

    doi:10.5281/zen- 2020

  80. [80]

    James and M

    F. James and M. Roos, Comput. Phys. Commun. 10, 343 (1975)

    1975

Showing first 80 references.