Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A neural-network impact study of the proposed Chinese electron-ion collider finds that its projected DVCS measurements would reduce the uncertainties of all four leading-twist Compton form factors, particularly in the proton's sea-quark reg

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

2026-08-03 14:47 UTC pith:YEOKGKA3

load-bearing objection A genuine step beyond the earlier EicC impact study, but the sea-quark uncertainty reduction is partly inherited from the GK model used to generate pseudo-data, so the quantitative claim is model-dependent. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.19145 v2 pith:YEOKGKA3 submitted 2025-12-22 hep-ph

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

Yuan-Yuan Huang , Xu Cao , Taifu Feng , Kre\v{s}imir Kumeri\v{c}ki , Yu Lu This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 13.60.Fz13.88.+e12.38.-t
keywords deeply virtual Compton scatteringCompton form factorsgeneralized parton distributionsneural networkelectron-ion colliderpseudo-datasea quarksnucleon tomography
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 asks what the proposed electron-ion collider in China would add to our picture of the proton's three-dimensional quark structure. To answer it, the authors train a flexible neural-network parameterization of the leading-twist Compton form factors (H, E, H-tilde, E-tilde) on all existing deeply virtual Compton scattering data, then fold in simulated measurements from the future machine—spin asymmetries generated with a Monte Carlo event generator and a fast detector simulation that includes acceptance, efficiency, and recoil-proton detection. The central finding is that the projected data would reduce the uncertainties of all four form factors, with the largest gains in the small-x sea-quark region that current world data barely constrain. If this projection is correct, the spatial distribution of sea quarks in the proton could be imaged from the t-dependence of these form factors, and their Q²-dependence up to about 20 GeV² would provide a route toward deconvoluting generalized parton distributions.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a year of DVCS asymmetry measurements at the proposed Chinese collider, combined with the existing world dataset, would shrink the error bands of all four leading-twist chiral-even Compton form factors—in some kinematic regions by a large factor, and most dramatically at small x_B down to ξ ≈ 10⁻⁴, where today's data provide almost no constraint. The resulting t-dependence of the sea-quark-dominated form factors would be measured well enough up to |t| = 1 GeV² to support a first spatial tomography of the sea quarks; the Q²-dependence would extend to about 20 GeV², which the authors argue opens the possibility of GPD deconvolution through QCD scale evolution.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by a modular neural network that represents each Compton form factor as an independent function of (ξ, t, Q²), with separate sub-networks for the real and imaginary parts (architecture 3→90→90→90→90→1), trained with an uncertainty-weighted Huber loss and propagated through Monte Carlo replicas for error bands. On the experimental side, the input is the standard dictionary between azimuthal modulations of electron and proton spin asymmetries and particular CFF combinations: the sin φ modulation of the electron-spin asymmetry projects Im H, the corresponding proton-spin modulation projects Im H-tilde, transverse-spin asymmetries give access to E and E-tilde, and the dou

Load-bearing premise

The simulated measurements are centered on a single assumed model of the proton's sea-quark distribution; if that model is not close to nature, the claimed reduction in uncertainties is biased by the model choice.

What would settle it

Generate the same projected dataset from two or three independent GPD models and rerun the fit: if the inferred central values or error bands shift by more than the quoted uncertainties depending on which model generated the pseudo-data, the impact forecast is not robust. The definitive test would be a first real spin-asymmetry measurement at the proposed collider landing outside the predicted band by more than the statistical uncertainty.

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

If this is right

  • Sea-quark tomography becomes realistic: the t-dependence of the constrained CFFs at small ξ would support Fourier-transform imaging of the sea-quark spatial distribution.
  • A wide Q² lever arm (roughly 2 to 20 GeV² in the sea region) would let future data test QCD scale evolution of CFFs, a prerequisite for turning DVCS measurements into GPDs.
  • The valence-region results remain compatible with earlier extractions, so the main effect of the new machine would be to add precision where current data are weakest rather than shift established central values.
  • The closure test suggests the neural-network fitting strategy can be used reliably for impact forecasts, not just for retrospective fits of existing data.
  • Tighter CFFs feed directly into the proton's mechanical properties (pressure and shear distributions) via the connection to gravitational form factors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The forecast's strength is tied to the model used to generate the fake measurements; averaging over several independent GPD models would give a more honest estimate of the achievable precision.
  • A comparable exercise for the US electron-ion collider or the proposed LHeC, using the same neural-network machinery, would directly show which machine is best suited to shrink which form factor in which kinematic corner.
  • The assumption that the real parts of H-tilde and E-tilde vanish means the quoted improvements for those two quantities are effectively bounds on their imaginary parts; if unpolarized cross-section measurements at the new collider turn out to be precise, this assumption would have to be relaxed.
  • Because the biggest gains are claimed in the low-x region, the projection is sensitive to the machine's luminosity and to the small-angle acceptance of the Roman pots; any shortfall would erode exactly the advertised sea-quark precision.

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 a projection study of DVCS measurements at the proposed Electron-Ion Collider in China (EicC). A neural-network parametrization of the leading-twist chiral-even Compton Form Factors (CFFs), trained within the Gepard framework on existing world data, is extended with pseudo-data for single- and double-spin asymmetries generated under EicC detector assumptions from the EicC Conceptual Design Report. The authors report that including these pseudo-data substantially reduces the uncertainty bands of all CFFs, especially in the previously unconstrained sea-quark region (0.01 < xB < 0.1), and interpret the resulting t-dependence as enabling spatial tomography of sea quarks. The paper also presents a closure test of the NN methodology and discusses deviations in ReH and ReE that exceed 1σ after the pseudo-data are included.

Significance. If the projection is quantitatively reliable, the result would be an important input for the EicC physics case and for planning CFF extraction strategies. The study has several strengths: it uses a state-of-the-art global fit framework (Gepard), a flexible NN parametrization with replica-method uncertainties, realistic detector acceptance and efficiency from the EicC CDR, and it includes multiple asymmetry observables rather than a single channel. The qualitative conclusion that EicC data will sharpen CFF constraints in the sea-quark region is defensible. However, the quantitative uncertainty reductions are conditional on the GK GPD model used to generate the pseudo-data and on the assumption that the real parts of eH and eE vanish; the paper does not quantify how the projection changes under model variation. The reported numbers should therefore be read as a model-dependent forecast, not a robust, data-driven bound.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Fig. 2 caption and pseudo-data generation] The central values of the EicC pseudo-data are generated with the GK GPD model and smeared only by statistical uncertainties. In the sea-quark region (0.01 < xB < 0.1) the existing world data provide essentially no constraint, as the paper itself states (CFFs are 'consistent with zero within large uncertainties'). The post-fit red bands in Figs. 4–6 are therefore largely a measure of how well the NN can reproduce one specific model, GK, rather than a model-independent estimate of EicC's constraining power. The >1σ deviations in ReH and ReE noted in Sec. II show a tension between GK-generated pseudo-data and the world-data fit. To make the headline claim robust, please regenerate the pseudo-data with at least one independent GPD model and show whether the uncertainty reductions persist; alternatively, present a model-variation envelope.
  2. [Sec. II, paragraph on Re(eH)=Re(eE)=0] The analysis assumes the real parts of eH and eE vanish because current world data provide no constraint on them. Yet the abstract and conclusion claim uncertainty reductions for 'all CFFs'. These two real parts are not extracted; they are fixed by assumption, so they cannot exhibit an uncertainty reduction from EicC pseudo-data. Moreover, the zero values are adopted from Ref. [36] and enter the observables in Eqs. (2), (8), and (10); a non-zero real part would bias the central values of the extracted CFFs. Please clarify which CFF components are actually fitted and quantify the sensitivity to this assumption, e.g., by allowing Re(eH) and Re(eE) to be fitted or by varying them within plausible ranges.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (11) and Table I] The pseudo-data include only statistical uncertainties, and Table I reports the χ²/datum for existing world-data sets but not for the EicC pseudo-data. Without the χ² per point of the pseudo-data, the reader cannot assess whether the generated pseudo-data are consistent with the final fit; a large χ² would indicate that the GK-based pseudo-data are in tension with the extracted CFFs, while a very small χ² would indicate overfitting. Please report the χ²/datum for the EicC pseudo-data separately and discuss the impact of realistic systematic uncertainties on the width of the final error bands.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] Typo: 'statistic uncertainties' should be 'statistical uncertainties'.
  2. [References] References [94] and [103] are the same ZEUS paper, and [96] and [102] are the same H1 paper; please consolidate.
  3. [Eq. (5)] The numerator has an unmatched square bracket: '[dσ(ϕ)→⇒ + dσ(ϕ)←⇐] − [(dσ(ϕ)←⇒ + dσ(ϕ)→⇐]' is missing a closing bracket.
  4. [Figs. 4–6 captions and text] The text writes 'ξ=0.01 GeV²' in the captions of Figs. 5 and 6; ξ is dimensionless, so the units should be removed.
  5. [Sec. II, text near Fig. 4] Minor language issues: 'assymmetries' should be 'asymmetries', 'noticable' should be 'noticeable', and the sentence 'the presented global analysis clearly demonstrates...' is stronger than the evidence supports, given the model dependence noted above.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: pseudo-data model dependence is a stated input and limitation, not a recycled conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard pseudo-data impact study: existing world DVCS data are fit with a neural-network CFF parametrization, synthetic EicC measurements are generated from the GK GPD model with detector-related statistical uncertainties, and the two are combined to estimate the resulting uncertainty reduction. The GK-generated pseudo-data are explicitly disclosed in the Fig. 2 caption ('The central values of pseudo-data are generated using the GK GPD model [62,64,65] and smeared by the statistic uncertainties'), so there is no hidden fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The extraction inverts the nontrivial relations of Eqs. (7)-(10), and the headline claim concerns uncertainty reduction rather than model-independent central values. The paper itself flags the main caveats: it notes deviations exceeding 1 sigma in ReH and ReE, states that realistic systematics would enlarge the final error bands, and attributes the relatively small uncertainties partly to the vanishing-real-part assumption for eE and eH. That assumption is adopted from Ref. [36], which includes a coauthor, but the paper also justifies it by the independent statement that current world data provide essentially no constraint on those CFFs. This is a transparent modeling choice, not a self-citation chain used to force the conclusion. Model-dependence of pseudo-data is a real limitation of any impact study, but it is not circularity: the conclusion does not reduce by construction to the inputs, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; CFFs, GPDs, the GK model, and EicC detector parameters are pre-existing inputs. The load-bearing assumptions are the GK pseudo-data, the zero real parts of eH/eE, and the CDR detector performance.

free parameters (3)
  • NN hyperparameters = 3->90->90->90->90->1; exponential activation; Huber loss; early stopping
    Chosen for interpolation/extrapolation performance, not determined from theory; controls the flexibility of the CFF fit.
  • EicC beam and polarization inputs = P_e=80%, P_p=70%; L=4e33 and 1.1e33 cm^-2 s^-1; Roman-pot thresholds 10 and 5 mrad
    Assumed from the EicC CDR; directly determine pseudo-data statistics and kinematic coverage via Eq. (11).
  • Luminosity time split and dilution factor f_d = 3/4 high-luminosity, 1/4 small-angle mode; f_d from background assumptions
    Inputs to the statistical uncertainty scaling of pseudo-data; not fitted to world data.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Leading-twist DVCS factorization and the CFF relations in Eqs. (2) and (7)-(10)
    Standard pQCD framework accepted in the field and cited to Belitsky-Mueller-Kirchner and Diehl-Sapeta.
  • ad hoc to paper Pseudo-data generated with the GK GPD model are representative of future EicC measurements
    Load-bearing for all projected central values; the Fig. 2 caption states the pseudo-data central values are generated using the GK model and smeared with statistical uncertainties.
  • ad hoc to paper Re(eH)=Re(eE)=0
    Assumed because world data are unconstraining; adopted from Ref. [36], which includes a coauthor. Directly limits the claim of improvement for these CFFs.
  • domain assumption Systematic uncertainties will be comparable to or smaller than statistical uncertainties
    Stated as a design goal for EicC; no systematic errors are included in the quoted uncertainty bands.
  • domain assumption Detector acceptance, efficiency, and luminosity from the EicC CDR (Ref. [69], 'to appear')
    Underpins the pseudo-data statistics, angular coverage, and kinematic reach; currently not independently checkable.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11724 in / 12856 out tokens · 128634 ms · 2026-08-03T14:47:18.910917+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We assess the impact of future measurements of deeply virtual Compton scattering (DVCS) off protons using the planned detector at the Electron-Ion Collider in China (EicC), proposed as an upgrade to the High Intensity heavy-ion Accelerator Facility (HIAF). We develop a neural-network architecture to flexibly parameterize the Compton Form Factors (CFFs), extrapolate reliably into unmeasured kinematic regions, and provide robust uncertainty estimates through the replica method. The framework is fitted to the available worldwide DVCS data using the Gepard software. We find a significant reduction in the uncertainties of all CFFs after incorporating pseudo-data from single and double polarization asymmetries at the EicC, with particularly strong improvements in the sea-quark region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.19145 by Kre\v{s}imir Kumeri\v{c}ki, Taifu Feng, Xu Cao, Yuan-Yuan Huang, Yu Lu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The deeply virtual Compton scattering (left) and the accompanying Bethe-Heitler process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The simulated four-fold unpolarized cross sections with statistic uncertainties in the bins of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: A single neural network parameterizes the imaginary part of one of the CFFs, while a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The extraction of CFFs versus skewness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The extraction of CFFs versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The extraction of CFFs versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.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 1 Pith paper

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

  1. 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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 99 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Diehl, Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  2. [2]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Guidal, H

    M. Guidal, H. Moutarde, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Rept. Prog. Phys.76, 066202 (2013), 1303.6600

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Diehl, Prog

    S. Diehl, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.133, 104069 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    M¨ uller, D

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  6. [6]

    Ji, Phys

    X.-D. Ji, Phys. Rev. D55, 7114 (1997), hep-ph/9609381. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  7. [7]

    Ji, Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  8. [8]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D56, 5524 (1997), hep-ph/9704207

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  9. [9]

    Diehl and S

    M. Diehl and S. Sapeta, Eur. Phys. J. C41, 515 (2005), hep-ph/0503023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  10. [10]

    Accardi et al., Eur

    A. Accardi et al., Eur. Phys. J. A52, 268 (2016), 1212.1701

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    Abdul Khalek et al., Nucl

    R. Abdul Khalek et al., Nucl. Phys. A1026, 122447 (2022), 2103.05419

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Accardi et al., Eur

    A. Accardi et al., Eur. Phys. J. A60, 173 (2024), 2306.09360

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    X. Cao, L. Chang, N. Chang, et al., Nuclear Techniques43, 020001 (2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    X. Cao, X. Chen, C. Gong, et al., SCIENTIA SINICA Physica, Mechanica, Astronomica50, 112005 (2020)

    2020

  15. [15]

    D. P. Anderle et al., Front. Phys. (Beijing)16, 64701 (2021), 2102.09222

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    J. L. Abelleira Fernandez et al. (LHeC Study Group), J. Phys. G39, 075001 (2012), 1206.2913

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  17. [17]

    Agostini et al

    P. Agostini et al. (LHeC, FCC-he Study Group), J. Phys. G48, 110501 (2021), 2007.14491

    arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    J. P. Ralston and B. Pire, Phys. Rev. D66, 111501 (2002), hep-ph/0110075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  19. [19]

    Diehl, Eur

    M. Diehl, Eur. Phys. J. C25, 223 (2002), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 31, 277–278 (2003)], hep-ph/0205208

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  20. [20]

    Burkardt, Phys

    M. Burkardt, Phys. Rev. D62, 071503 (2000), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 66, 119903 (2002)], hep-ph/0005108

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  21. [21]

    Burkardt, Int

    M. Burkardt, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A18, 173 (2003), hep-ph/0207047

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  22. [22]

    M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B555, 57 (2003), hep-ph/0210165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  23. [23]

    Bertone, H

    V. Bertone, H. Dutrieux, C. Mezrag, H. Moutarde, and P. Sznajder, Phys. Rev. D103, 114019 (2021), 2104.03836

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Moffat, A

    E. Moffat, A. Freese, I. Clo¨ et, T. Donohoe, L. Gamberg, W. Melnitchouk, A. Metz, A. Prokudin, and N. Sato, Phys. Rev. D108, 036027 (2023), 2303.12006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Moutarde, Phys

    H. Moutarde, Phys. Rev. D79, 094021 (2009), 0904.1648

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  26. [26]

    Bo¨ er and M

    M. Bo¨ er and M. Guidal, J. Phys. G42, 034023 (2015), 1412.4651

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  27. [27]

    Kumeriˇ cki, D

    K. Kumeriˇ cki, D. M¨ uller, and M. Murray, Phys. Part. Nucl.45, 723 (2014), 1301.1230

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  28. [28]

    Forte, L

    S. Forte, L. Garrido, J. I. Latorre, and A. Piccione, JHEP05, 062 (2002), hep-ph/0204232

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  29. [29]

    X. Wang, X. Cao, Y. Lu, and W. Xiong (2025), 2509.14549

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Z. Ye, J. Arrington, R. J. Hill, and G. Lee, Phys. Lett. B777, 8 (2018), 1707.09063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    L. Kotz, A. Courtoy, P. Nadolsky, F. Olness, and M. Ponce-Chavez, Phys. Rev. D109, 16 074027 (2024), 2311.08447

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Kumericki, D

    K. Kumericki, D. Mueller, and A. Schafer, JHEP07, 073 (2011), 1106.2808

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  33. [33]

    Moutarde, P

    H. Moutarde, P. Sznajder, and J. Wagner, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 614 (2019), 1905.02089

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    Calero Diaz and D

    L. Calero Diaz and D. Keller, Phys. Rev. D112, 096001 (2025), 2509.18331

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Kumeriˇ cki, Nature570, E1 (2019)

    K. Kumeriˇ cki, Nature570, E1 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    ˇCui´ c, K

    M. ˇCui´ c, K. Kumeriˇ cki, and A. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 232005 (2020), 2007.00029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Hobart et al

    A. Hobart et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 211903 (2024), 2406.15539

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    I. V. Musatov and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D61, 074027 (2000), hep-ph/9905376

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  39. [39]

    Mueller and A

    D. Mueller and A. Schafer, Nucl. Phys. B739, 1 (2006), hep-ph/0509204

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  40. [40]

    K. A. Mamo and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 241901 (2024), 2411.04162

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    S. Xu, C. Mondal, J. Lan, X. Zhao, Y. Li, and J. P. Vary (BLFQ), Phys. Rev. D104, 094036 (2021), 2108.03909

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Dutrieux, H

    H. Dutrieux, H. Dutrieux, O. Grocholski, O. Grocholski, H. Moutarde, H. Moutarde, P. Sz- najder, and P. Sznajder, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 252 (2022), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 82, 389 (2022)], 2112.10528

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Dotson et al

    A. Dotson et al. (2025), 2504.13289

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Kumericki, D

    K. Kumericki, D. Mueller, and K. Passek-Kumericki, Nucl. Phys. B794, 244 (2008), hep- ph/0703179

    arXiv 2008

  45. [45]

    Kumeriˇ cki and D

    K. Kumeriˇ cki and D. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B841, 1 (2010), 0904.0458

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  46. [46]

    Moutarde, P

    H. Moutarde, P. Sznajder, and J. Wagner, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 890 (2018), 1807.07620

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    ˇCui´ c, G

    M. ˇCui´ c, G. Duplanˇ ci´ c, K. Kumeriˇ cki, and K. Passek-K., JHEP12, 192 (2023), [Erratum: JHEP 02, 225 (2024)], 2310.13837

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Y. Guo, X. Ji, M. G. Santiago, K. Shiells, and J. Yang, JHEP05, 150 (2023), 2302.07279

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Y. Guo, F. P. Aslan, X. Ji, and M. G. Santiago (2025), 2509.08037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Constantinou et al., Prog

    M. Constantinou et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.121, 103908 (2021), 2006.08636

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    Lin, Phys

    H.-W. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 182001 (2021), 2008.12474

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Holligan and H.-W

    J. Holligan and H.-W. Lin, Phys. Rev. D110, 034503 (2024), 2312.10829

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, A. Metz, N. Nurminen, and F. Steffens, Phys. Rev. D110, 054502 (2024), 2405.04414

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    M. J. Riberdy, H. Dutrieux, C. Mezrag, and P. Sznajder, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 201 (2024), 2306.01647. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Ji, Phys

    X. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 262002 (2013), 1305.1539

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  56. [56]

    X. Ji, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.57, 1407 (2014), 1404.6680

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  57. [57]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D96, 034025 (2017), 1705.01488

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    Cao and J

    X. Cao and J. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 505 (2023), 2301.06940

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    Bacchetta, U

    A. Bacchetta, U. D’Alesio, M. Diehl, and C. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D70, 117504 (2004), hep-ph/0410050

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  60. [60]

    A. V. Belitsky, D. Mueller, and A. Kirchner, Nucl. Phys. B629, 323 (2002), hep-ph/0112108

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  61. [61]

    A. V. Belitsky and D. Mueller, Phys. Rev. D82, 074010 (2010), 1005.5209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  62. [62]

    Kroll, H

    P. Kroll, H. Moutarde, and F. Sabatie, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2278 (2013), 1210.6975

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  63. [63]

    d’Hose, S

    N. d’Hose, S. Niccolai, and A. Rostomyan, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 151 (2016)

    2016

  64. [64]

    S. V. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C65, 137 (2010), 0906.0460

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  65. [65]

    S. V. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. A47, 112 (2011), 1106.4897

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  66. [66]

    Perez, L

    E. Perez, L. Schoeffel, and L. Favart (2004), hep-ph/0411389

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  67. [67]

    Aschenauer, S

    E.-C. Aschenauer, S. Fazio, K. Kumericki, and D. Mueller, JHEP09, 093 (2013), 1304.0077

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  68. [68]

    E. C. Aschenauer, S. Fazio, J. H. Lee, H. Mantysaari, B. S. Page, B. Schenke, T. Ullrich, R. Venugopalan, and P. Zurita, Rept. Prog. Phys.82, 024301 (2019), 1708.01527

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  69. [69]

    C. B. e. a. Luis Albino, Daniele P. Anderle (2025), EicC Conceptual Design Report Volume II - Physics & Detector, to appear

    2025

  70. [70]

    X. Wang, X. Cao, A. Guo, L. Gong, X.-S. Kang, Y.-T. Liang, J.-J. Wu, and Y.-P. Xie, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 684 (2024), 2311.07008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Cao, F.-K

    X. Cao, F.-K. Guo, Y.-T. Liang, J.-J. Wu, J.-J. Xie, Y.-P. Xie, Z. Yang, and B.-S. Zou, Phys. Rev. D101, 074010 (2020), 1912.12054

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    Cao, Front

    X. Cao, Front. Phys. (Beijing)18, 44600 (2023), 2301.11253

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    Cao, J.-P

    X. Cao, J.-P. Dai, and Z. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 184 (2021), 2011.09244

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  74. [74]

    Z. Yang, X. Cao, Y.-T. Liang, and J.-J. Wu, Chin. Phys. C44, 084102 (2020), 2003.06774

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  75. [75]

    Cao and J.-p

    X. Cao and J.-p. Dai, Phys. Rev. D100, 054033 (2019), 1904.06015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [76]

    Z. Lu, Z. Yu, T. Lin, Y.-T. Liang, R. Wang, W. Chang, and W. Xiong (2025), 2512.01720

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    C. Zeng, T. Liu, P. Sun, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D106, 094039 (2022), 2208.14620

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  78. [78]

    He et al., Nucl

    R. He et al., Nucl. Sci. Tech.34, 205 (2023)

    2023

  79. [79]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba (2014), 1412.6980

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  80. [80]

    Grigsby, B

    J. Grigsby, B. Kriesten, J. Hoskins, S. Liuti, P. Alonzi, and M. Burkardt, Phys. Rev. D104, 18 016001 (2021), 2012.04801

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.