Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

The paper claims that the cos2φ and sin2φ azimuthal modulations in exclusive heavy vector-meson electroproduction provide clean signatures of the gluon GTMDs F_{1,4} and G_{1,1}, which encode canonical gluon orbital angular momentum and spi

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 08:15 UTC pith:DQLAXRYV

load-bearing objection New analytic handle on gluon GTMDs through exclusive heavy meson production, but the 'exceptionally clean signatures' claim goes beyond what Eqs. (79) and (81) actually show. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.17506 v2 pith:DQLAXRYV submitted 2026-01-24 hep-ph hep-ex

Gluon Generalized TMD signatures at the EIC from exclusive heavy (axial-)vector meson production

Shohini Bhattacharya , David DeAngelo , Lei Yang , Duxin Zheng , Jian Zhou This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords gluon GTMDsexclusive heavy meson productionazimuthal asymmetriescanonical gluon orbital angular momentumspin-orbit correlationtwist-3 factorizationfuture electron-ion colliderWigner distributions
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.

This paper tries to show that one can finally get experimental access to two gluon Wigner-type distributions—F_{1,4} and G_{1,1}—that vanish when integrated over either transverse momentum or momentum transfer and therefore have no GPD or TMD counterpart. The proposed route is exclusive production of heavy vector mesons (J/ψ, Υ) and axial-vector mesons (χc1, χb1) in lepton–proton scattering, analyzed in collinear twist-3 factorization. The key result is that interference between different virtual-photon polarizations generates a polarization-independent cos2φ term and a polarization-dependent sin2φ term, both proportional to the k⊥-moments of these GTMDs. The calculation omits genuine twist-3 three-gluon correlations and meson twist-3 effects, which the authors explicitly defer to future work. If the derivation holds, a future electron-ion collider could measure canonical gluon orbital angular momentum and gluon spin–orbit correlation at higher rates than previously proposed channels.

Core claim

In exclusive heavy (axial-)vector meson production, the twist-3 part of the hard scattering, expanded to first order in the intrinsic parton momentum k⊥ and the recoil momentum Δ⊥, produces azimuthal modulations cos2φ (with an unpolarized beam) and sin2φ (with proton helicity). These modulations are proportional to |Δ⊥|² times specific k⊥-weighted moments of the gluon GTMDs F_{1,4}^g and G_{1,1}^g—the functions whose moments are the canonical gluon orbital angular momentum density and the gluon spin–orbit correlation. Because these functions vanish upon integration over either k⊥ or Δ⊥, they are invisible in the usual GPD and TMD limits; the proposed observables therefore provide a unique ex

What carries the argument

The collinear twist expansion of the hard-scattering kernel (Eq. 15), which expands the kernel linearly in k⊥ and Δ⊥ about zero transverse momenta. The linear terms convert the GTMD k⊥-moments into Compton form factors such as F^{TL}_{1,4} and G^{TL}_{1,4}; interference between the twist-3 amplitudes for different photon helicities then yields the cos2φ and sin2φ structure functions. The gluon GTMDs themselves are defined through an off-forward gluon–gluon correlator, and the moment identities (Eqs. 6–7) connect their k⊥²/M² moments to canonical gluon OAM and spin–orbit correlation.

Load-bearing premise

The whole derivation assumes that for exclusive heavy-meson production at the experiment's kinematics, the collinear twist expansion can be safely truncated at twist 3, so that linear terms in k⊥ and Δ⊥ dominate the subleading corrections and that genuine twist-3 three-gluon correlations and meson twist-3 contributions—which the authors explicitly leave to future work—are negligible.

What would settle it

Measure the cos2φ asymmetry in exclusive J/ψ electroproduction as a function of the recoil momentum |Δ⊥|. The prediction is that it should scale as |Δ⊥|² and vanish at |Δ⊥| → 0 (Eq. 79). Observing a substantial cos2φ asymmetry that does not vanish with |Δ⊥|, or that departs from the predicted meson-polarization pattern, would signal contamination from omitted meson-side twist-3 or tri-gluon effects. A dedicated model or lattice estimate of the size of genuine tri-gluon twist-3 contributions relative to the k⊥-moment terms would also settle the question.

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

If this is right

  • The polarization-independent cos2φ modulation can be measured with an unpolarized proton target, giving a high-rate handle on gluon orbital angular momentum without requiring polarization.
  • The polarization-dependent sin2φ modulation, weighted by proton helicity, provides access to the gluon spin–orbit correlation C^g.
  • Exclusive J/ψ and Υ production at a future electron-ion collider should be far more copious than diffractive dijet or double-Drell–Yan channels previously proposed for gluon GTMD access.
  • The same formalism extends to axial-vector mesons (χc1, χb1), where the amplitudes vanish at the symmetric momentum-fraction point z = 1/2 and must be measured away from it.
  • The authors note the framework transfers to light vector mesons like ρ0 provided Q² is large enough to supply the hard scale.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the twist-3 truncation is reliable, the same k⊥-moment mechanism likely operates in other exclusive channels (e.g., real-photon or pion production), suggesting a broader class of Wigner observables beyond heavy mesons.
  • Combining meson polarization and target polarization, the cos2φ and sin2φ modulations weight the two GTMD combinations differently, so a program varying both polarizations could disentangle the OAM density and the spin–orbit density.
  • A small-x measurement in this channel could be compared with saturation-model predictions that the spin–orbit correlation is maximal, providing a new test of that prediction across x.
  • If genuine twist-3 tri-gluon contributions were shown to be small, the extracted k⊥-moments could feed directly into model comparisons for the Jaffe–Manohar sum rule; if not, the present results would need reinterpretation.

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 proposes exclusive heavy vector-meson (and, in an appendix, axial-vector meson) electroproduction at the EIC as a new channel to access the gluon GTMDs F^g_{1,4} and G^g_{1,1}, which are related to canonical gluon OAM and gluon spin-orbit correlations. The calculation uses a collinear twist-3 expansion of the hard kernel, computes photon-helicity amplitudes in terms of GTMD moments, and decomposes the cross section into azimuthal modulations. The central claim is that the polarization-independent cos 2φ and polarization-dependent sin 2φ terms provide exceptionally clean signatures of F_{1,4} and G_{1,1}. An appendix gives the axial-vector amplitudes, and Appendix B checks the twist-2 limit against the known GPD results.

Significance. If the analytic derivation is correct, the paper identifies a potentially useful new process for gluon GTMD studies and provides explicit expressions that can be used in future phenomenological work. The tensor decomposition and the GPD-limit cross-check in Appendix B are valuable and increase confidence in the calculation. However, the headline claim of clean signatures is not supported by the paper's own formulas: the relevant cross-section terms are differences and interferences that also contain the twist-2 GPD-like combination F_{1,1}+G_{1,1}, and the paper provides no numerical estimate of the relative sizes. The connection to L^g and C^g is also incomplete because the observables involve nonzero Δ⊥ moments of F_{1,4}−G_{1,4}, not the Δ⊥=0 moments in Eqs. (6)–(7). These issues affect the central interpretation, so the manuscript needs substantial revision of its claims and a clear quantitative strategy.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.C, Eqs. (79)–(81)] The claim that cos2φ and sin2φ provide 'exceptionally clean signatures' of F_{1,4} and G_{1,1} is not supported by the explicit formulas. Eq. (79) gives dσ^0_TT/dt ∝ |F^TL_{1,4}−G^TL_{1,4}|² − |F^TL_{1,1}+G^TL_{1,1}|², and Eq. (81) gives dσ^0_sin2φ/dt ∝ Re[(F^TL_{1,1}+G^TL_{1,1})(F^TL_{1,4}−G^TL_{1,4})*]. In both cases the target GTMDs do not appear in isolation: the new term is the combination F_{1,4}−G_{1,4}, while G_{1,1} appears only in the 'background' combination F_{1,1}+G_{1,1} together with the twist-2 GPD-like F_{1,1}. The paper gives no estimate of the relative magnitude of these terms and no subtraction strategy. The statements in the abstract, Sec. III.C, and Sec. IV should be softened to 'sensitivity to specific linear combinations' unless a numerical demonstration is provided.
  2. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (15); Sec. IV] The entire proposal rests on truncating the collinear twist expansion at twist-3 and neglecting genuine twist-3 tri-gluon and meson-DA twist-3 contributions, which the paper explicitly defers to future work. For J/ψ production at EIC kinematics, Q² is not asymptotically large, and the paper provides no estimate of ⟨k⊥⟩/Q or ⟨Δ⊥⟩/Q, nor of the size of the neglected tri-gluon corrections. Without such estimates, the statement that these are experimentally accessible 'high-rate' observables at the EIC is an expectation rather than a demonstrated conclusion. The analytic derivation may still be correct, but the phenomenological claim needs quantitative backing or a clear caveat.
  3. [Sec. II, Eqs. (6)–(7); Sec. III.B, Eqs. (35)–(36)] The connection between the observables and the OAM/spin-orbit relations in Eqs. (6)–(7) is incomplete. Equations (6)–(7) define L^g and C^g through F_{1,4} and G_{1,1} at Δ⊥=0, whereas the cross section involves k⊥-moments at nonzero Δ⊥, specifically F^{(1)}_{1,4}(x,ξ,Δ⊥) and G_{1,4}(x,ξ,Δ⊥). In particular, the combination F^TL_{1,4}−G^TL_{1,4} in the proposed observables contains G_{1,4}, not G_{1,1}. The paper does not explain how the measured Δ⊥-dependent quantities can be extrapolated to Δ⊥=0, nor why this combination should be identified with the C^g of Eq. (7). This gap should be addressed explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A50)] Typo: 'mv2' should read 'm_AV^2'.
  2. [Sec. III.B, Eqs. (20)–(22)] The transverse spin vector S⊥ appears in the helicity-nonconserving amplitudes but is never defined. Please define it explicitly.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (7); Sec. III.B, Eq. (24)] The symbol C is used both for the spin-orbit correlation C^g in Eq. (7) and for the overall normalization constant in Eq. (24). This is a potential source of confusion and should be renamed or distinguished.
  4. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (37)] The shorthand f^{(n)} defined in Eq. (37) is not used in the subsequent equations, which instead use notations like F^{(1)} and G_{1,4}. Either use the shorthand consistently or remove it.
  5. [Sec. III.C, Eq. (67)] The structure functions dσ_sinφ/dt and dσ_sin2φ/dt appear without a meson-polarization superscript in Eq. (67), while the explicit results in Eqs. (80)–(81) are labelled dσ^0_sinφ/dt and dσ^0_sin2φ/dt. For clarity, the notation should be aligned.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper's azimuthal observables are analytic consequences of the GTMD amplitude parametrization and the hard-kernel expansion, not fitted inputs or self-referential predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a direct perturbative calculation: the authors introduce the standard gluon GTMD correlator and its parametrization (Eqs. 2-5), expand the hard-scattering kernel through first order in k_perp and Delta_perp (Eq. 15), compute photon-helicity amplitudes (Eqs. 16-23), and contract with the leptonic tensor to obtain the cross-section structure functions (Eqs. 67-81). The claimed cos2phi and sin2phi signatures are explicit algebraic expressions in terms of GTMD Compton form factors defined in Eqs. (25)-(36); no data are fitted, no parameter is extracted and then renamed as a prediction, and the target GTMDs are not inserted by construction into the final observables. The identifications of F_{1,4} and G_{1,1} with canonical gluon OAM and spin-orbit correlations are imported from earlier literature (e.g., Refs. [6,9,11,18]); one of those citations is co-authored by a present author, but this identification is not what forces the derived cross-section formulas and is not the conclusion of the present derivation. The twist-3 truncation and the neglect of genuine tri-gluon and meson-distribution-amplitude twist-3 effects are explicitly stated as limitations and deferred to future work (Sec. IV and footnote 2); these affect accuracy and completeness, not circularity. Appendix B provides an external benchmark by recovering the known twist-2 GPD limit. The 'exceptionally clean signatures' wording is stronger than Eqs. (79) and (81) alone justify, because the standard combination F_TL_{1,1}+G_TL_{1,1} and also G_{1,4} appear in those modulations, but that is a support/claim-strength concern, not circularity. No step in the paper reduces by definition to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central derivation introduces no new particles, forces, or fitted constants. It relies on standard QCD factorization assumptions, NRQCD quarkonium modeling, and previously established GTMD definitions and moment relations.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Collinear twist expansion: H(k⊥,Δ⊥) truncated at first order in k⊥ and Δ⊥ relative to hard scale Q² (Eq. 15) is valid for exclusive heavy meson electroproduction.
    Load-bearing; if k⊥/Q or Δ⊥/Q are not small, uncomputed genuine twist-3 terms can contaminate the proposed observables. The paper defers tri-gluon and meson-side twist-3 effects to future work.
  • domain assumption Leading-order perturbative gluon exchange and color-singlet NRQCD vertex with m_M = 2 m_q dominate heavy quarkonium production (Sec. III.B).
    Standard for heavy quarkonia but unquantified here; color-octet, relativistic, and higher-order corrections are neglected without numerical estimates.
  • domain assumption The gluon GTMD parametrizations and the OAM/spin-orbit moment relations in Eqs. (6)-(7), imported from Refs. [6,9,11,18], are correct.
    These prior results, some co-authored by the present authors, are external assumptions. If they are wrong, the connection between the derived observables and L^g/C^g fails.
  • domain assumption One-photon exchange, unpolarized-lepton tensor (Eq. 39), and neglect of nucleon-mass effects of order M²/Q² (Sec. III.A footnote).
    Standard kinematic and electroweak approximations, explicitly stated.
  • standard math The tensor basis {V_i^{μν}} (Eqs. 42-50) spans the hadronic tensor and the inverse tensors (Eqs. 52-60) are correct.
    The authors state that linear independence and invertibility were explicitly verified; this is a standard linear algebra construction.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22924 in / 13233 out tokens · 147908 ms · 2026-08-03T08:15:06.105000+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Potential experimental signatures of gluon generalized transverse momentum-dependent distributions (GTMDs) are proposed via exclusive heavy (axial-)vector meson production in lepton-proton collisions. Within the framework of collinear twist-3 factorization, we show that specific azimuthal-angle-dependent observables can provide sensitivity to the gluon GTMDs $F_{1,4}^g$ and $G_{1,1}^g$, which are related to partonic orbital angular momentum and spin-orbit correlations, respectively. These functions represent a unique sector of nucleon structure with no counterparts in the generalized parton distribution or transverse-momentum-dependent frameworks. We show that interference between different virtual-photon polarizations leads to distinct azimuthal modulations, including the polarization-independent $\cos 2\phi$ and polarization-dependent $\sin 2\phi$ terms, with $\phi$ defined as the angle between the lepton scattering plane and the hadron production plane. These observables provide signatures of the elusive gluon GTMDs $F_{1,4}^g$ and $G_{1,1}^g$, opening a new channel to access the spin structure of the nucleon at the future Electron-Ion Collider.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.17506 by David DeAngelo, Duxin Zheng, Jian Zhou, Lei Yang, Shohini Bhattacharya.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: One of the six leading-order Feynman diagrams contributing to exclusive heavy-meson production through gluon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The six leading-order subprocesses contributing to the amplitude. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.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 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Gluon GTMD at strong coupling: fixed-spin saddle factorization and Reggeization

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The paper derives factorization of fixed-spin conformal moments of unpolarized gluon GTMDs into a universal staple-worldsheet soft factor and a target-dependent Witten amplitude, with UV/IR reductions and Reggeization...

  2. Azimuthal decorrelation in diffractive dijet production

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    All-order resummation of soft gluons for transverse energy-energy correlators in diffractive dijet production demonstrates sensitivity of acoplanarity to diffractive TMDs.

  3. 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.

  4. Spin Structure of the Nucleon: Overview

    hep-ph 2026-07 unverdicted

    A pedagogical review consolidates the proton spin decomposition into quark/gluon spin and orbital angular momentum, emphasizing gauge-invariant OAM definitions, small-x cancellations, and EIC observables.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 41 linked inside Pith · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Adamczyk et al

    L. Adamczyk et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 092002 (2015), 1405.5134

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    de Florian, R

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Stratmann, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 012001 (2014), 1404.4293

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    E. R. Nocera, R. D. Ball, S. Forte, G. Ridolfi, and J. Rojo (NNPDF), Nucl. Phys. B887, 276 (2014), 1406.5539

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  4. [4]

    M. S. Abdallah et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. D105, 092011 (2022), 2110.11020

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    R. L. Jaffe and A. Manohar, Nucl. Phys. B337, 509 (1990)

    1990

  6. [6]

    Lorce and B

    C. Lorce and B. Pasquini, Phys. Rev. D84, 014015 (2011), 1106.0139

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    Lorce, B

    C. Lorce, B. Pasquini, X. Xiong, and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D85, 114006 (2012), 1111.4827

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Meissner, A

    S. Meissner, A. Metz, and M. Schlegel, JHEP08, 056 (2009), 0906.5323

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  9. [9]

    Hatta, Phys

    Y. Hatta, Phys. Lett. B708, 186 (2012), 1111.3547

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    Lorc´ e, Phys

    C. Lorc´ e, Phys. Lett. B735, 344 (2014), 1401.7784

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    Bhattacharya, R

    S. Bhattacharya, R. Boussarie, and Y. Hatta (2024), 2404.04208

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Bhattacharya, R

    S. Bhattacharya, R. Boussarie, and Y. Hatta, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 182002 (2022), 2201.08709

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    X. Ji, F. Yuan, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 192004 (2017), 1612.02438

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Hatta, Y

    Y. Hatta, Y. Nakagawa, F. Yuan, Y. Zhao, and B. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D95, 114032 (2017), 1612.02445

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    Bhattacharya, A

    S. Bhattacharya, A. Metz, and J. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B771, 396 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 810, 135866 (2020)], 1702.04387

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    Bhattacharya, D

    S. Bhattacharya, D. Zheng, and J. Zhou (2023), 2304.05784

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Bhattacharya, D

    S. Bhattacharya, D. Zheng, and J. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 051901 (2024), 2312.01309

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Bhattacharya, R

    S. Bhattacharya, R. Boussarie, and Y. Hatta (2024), 2404.04209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and B. Manley, Phys. Rev. D111, 054017 (2025), 2410.21260

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Lorc´ e and B

    C. Lorc´ e and B. Pasquini, JHEP09, 138 (2013), 1307.4497

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Bhattacharya, A

    S. Bhattacharya, A. Metz, V. K. Ojha, J.-Y. Tsai, and J. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B833, 137383 (2022), 1802.10550

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D5, 1956 (1972)

    1956

  23. [23]

    Diehl, Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  24. [24]

    Meissner, A

    S. Meissner, A. Metz, M. Schlegel, and K. Goeke, JHEP08, 038 (2008), 0805.3165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  25. [25]

    M. G. Echevarria, A. Idilbi, K. Kanazawa, C. Lorc´ e, A. Metz, B. Pasquini, and M. Schlegel, Phys. Lett. B759, 336 (2016), 1602.06953

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    Tan and Z

    C. Tan and Z. Lu, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 355 (2025), 2312.07997

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Manley, JHEP04, 055 (2024), [Erratum: JHEP 09, 017 (2024)], 2401.05508

    B. Manley, JHEP04, 055 (2024), [Erratum: JHEP 09, 017 (2024)], 2401.05508

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Bertone, M

    V. Bertone, M. G. Echevarria, ´O. del Rio, and S. Rodini, JHEP05, 183 (2025), 2502.07576. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Y. Yang, T. Liu, and B.-Q. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 504 (2025), 2505.06615

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Beni´ c and Y

    S. Beni´ c and Y. Hatta, Phys. Lett. B868, 139709 (2025), 2505.05172

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Lorc´ e, A

    C. Lorc´ e, A. Metz, B. Pasquini, and P. Schweitzer, in Parton Distribution Functions and their Generalizations (2025), 2507.12664

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Tan and Z

    C. Tan and Z. Lu (2025), 2508.15181

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Chakrabarti, B

    D. Chakrabarti, B. Gurjar, A. Mukherjee, and K. Saha, Phys. Rev. D112, 114031 (2025), 2509.14208

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Yu and C

    Y. Yu and C. D. Roberts, Chin. Phys. Lett.41, 121202 (2024), 2410.03966

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Hagiwara, C

    Y. Hagiwara, C. Zhang, J. Zhou, and Y.-j. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D104, 094021 (2021), 2106.13466

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    J. P. Vary, C. Mondal, S. Xu, X. Zhao, and Y. Li (2025), 2512.08283

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Puhan, S

    S. Puhan, S. Sharma, N. Kumar, and H. Dahiya (2025), 2504.14982

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Sharma, S

    S. Sharma, S. Jain, and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D110, 074025 (2024), 2408.07716

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Tan and Z

    C. Tan and Z. Lu, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 637 (2024), 2402.17162

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Duplanˇ ci´ c, P

    G. Duplanˇ ci´ c, P. Kroll, K. Passek-K., and L. Szymanowski (2023), 2312.13164

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    R. K. Ellis, W. Furmanski, and R. Petronzio, Nucl. Phys. B212, 29 (1983)

    1983

  42. [42]

    R. K. Ellis, W. Furmanski, and R. Petronzio, Nucl. Phys. B207, 1 (1982)

    1982

  43. [43]

    D. Y. Ivanov, A. Schafer, L. Szymanowski, and G. Krasnikov, Eur. Phys. J. C34, 297 (2004), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 75, 75 (2015)], hep-ph/0401131

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  44. [44]

    Braaten and J

    E. Braaten and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D67, 054007 (2003), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 72, 099901 (2005)], hep-ph/0211085

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  45. [45]

    Koike and J

    Y. Koike and J. Nagashima, Nucl. Phys. B660, 269 (2003), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 742, 312–316 (2006)], hep-ph/0302061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  46. [46]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  47. [47]

    S. V. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C53, 367 (2008), 0708.3569

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  48. [48]

    S. V. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C59, 809 (2009), 0809.4126

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  49. [49]

    Koempel, P

    J. Koempel, P. Kroll, A. Metz, and J. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D85, 051502 (2012), 1112.1334

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012