arxiv: 2604.28164 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex· hep-lat· nucl-ex· nucl-th

Recognition: unknown

Deeply virtual pion production through two-loop order

Wen Chen , Feng Feng , Yu Jia , Qin-Tao Song , Guang Tang , Zhe-Yu Wang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 05:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-exhep-latnucl-exnucl-th

keywords deeply virtual pion productionNNLO QCD correctionscollinear factorizationgeneralized parton distributionsJLab datatransverse single-spin asymmetriesvirtual photon

0 comments

The pith

The first NNLO QCD calculation of deeply virtual pion production finds substantial positive two-loop corrections that improve agreement with JLab data.

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

This paper calculates the next-to-next-to-leading order QCD radiative corrections to deeply virtual pion production off the proton for both charged and neutral pions. The computation is carried out for the first time at two-loop accuracy using the leading-twist collinear factorization in the generalized Bjorken limit. These corrections are positive and sizable, which leads to a better description of the longitudinal cross section data from JLab. The authors further analyze the resulting changes to transverse single-spin asymmetries in kinematics accessible at JLab and planned electron-ion colliders.

Core claim

We calculate for the first time the NNLO QCD radiative corrections to the DVπP processes γ_L^* p → π^+ n and γ_L^* p → π^0 p in the generalized Bjorken limit Q² ≫ |t|, Λ_QCD², accurate at the leading twist within the collinear factorization framework. The impact of the two-loop QCD corrections appears to be positive and substantial, which considerably improves the agreement between the perturbative QCD prediction and the available JLab data. In addition, we study the impact of the two-loop QCD corrections on the transverse single-spin asymmetries in some benchmark kinematics at JLab, EIC and EicC.

What carries the argument

The NNLO hard coefficient function for the leading-twist DVMP amplitude in collinear factorization, computed through two-loop order in QCD.

If this is right

The two-loop corrections increase the longitudinal DVπP cross section predictions.
These corrections lead to considerably better agreement with JLab data on the differential cross sections.
The NNLO terms modify the transverse single-spin asymmetries in benchmark kinematics at JLab, EIC, and EicC.
The calculation enables more precise perturbative predictions for extracting GPDs from DVMP observables.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Extending this NNLO computation to other deeply virtual meson production channels would provide a consistent higher-order framework for GPD studies.
Data from the upcoming EIC could test the perturbative series by checking if the NNLO results continue to describe the cross sections accurately at higher Q².
Global fits of GPDs may benefit from including these corrections to reduce the theoretical error in nucleon tomography.

Load-bearing premise

Higher-twist contributions can be neglected relative to the leading-twist term in the region of large photon virtuality compared to the momentum transfer squared and the QCD scale.

What would settle it

An experimental value for the longitudinal cross section at Q² = 15 GeV² and |t| = 0.1 GeV² that is 30 percent lower than the NNLO prediction, exceeding the combined uncertainties, would show that higher-twist effects are important.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.28164 by Feng Feng, Guang Tang, Qin-Tao Song, Wen Chen, Yu Jia, Zhe-Yu Wang.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2: Some representative parton-level diagrams for view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3: The predicted d view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: The predicted TSSA for DV view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: The predicted TSSA for DV view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: The predicted d view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: The predicted TSSA at various level of perturbative accuracy. The meaning of the labels NNLO’ and view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Deeply virtual meson production (DVMP) is among the most prominent channels to extract the nucleon's generalized parton distributions (GPDs) at $ep$ scattering facilities such as {\tt JLab} and the upcoming {\tt EIC/EicC} experiments, which plays a vital role in unravelling the three-dimensional internal structure of nucleon. In this work we calculate for the first time the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) QCD radiative corrections to the DV$\pi$P processes $\gamma_L^* p\to \pi^+ n$ and $\gamma_L^* p\to \pi^0 p$ in the generalized Bjorken limit $Q^2\gg \vert t\vert, \Lambda_{\text{QCD}}^2$, accurate at the leading twist within collinear factorization framework. The impact of the two-loop QCD corrections appears to be positive and substantial, including which considerably improves the agreement between the perturbative QCD prediction and the available {\tt JLab} data. In addition to the differential longitudinal DV$\pi$P cross section, we also study the impact of the two-loop QCD corrections on the transverse single-spin asymmetries (TSSA) in some benchmark kinematics at {\tt JLab}, {\tt EIC} and {\tt EicC}.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

First NNLO hard kernels for DV pion production, but the JLab data improvement claim needs a check on higher-twist size.

read the letter

Hi colleague, this paper computes the NNLO QCD corrections to the leading-twist hard-scattering amplitudes for deeply virtual pion production, specifically for the processes with longitudinal virtual photon to pi+ n and pi0 p. It's the first time anyone has done the two-loop piece for these DVMP channels. They stick to the standard collinear factorization setup, work out the two-loop diagrams, deal with the renormalization and the infrared poles, and then show numerical results for the cross sections and for the transverse single-spin asymmetries in a few benchmark points. The corrections are positive and they say it helps match the JLab data better. What stands out is that they actually deliver the coefficient functions at this order, which is a real technical lift from the NLO calculations that were available before. People who fit GPDs from DVMP data will be able to use this to tighten the perturbative error bars. The soft spot is the interpretation of the data. At the Q^2 values where JLab has measured these, power corrections are not guaranteed to be tiny, especially for pions where chiral-odd GPDs and endpoint regions can boost higher-twist terms. The paper does not give a separate calculation or bound on those effects, so it's possible that part of the better agreement comes from how they chose scales or the GPD model rather than from the NNLO term. The stress test note got this right. This is for the small group of people who work on higher-order QCD in exclusive reactions and on GPD phenomenology. A reader who wants to include NNLO in their own analysis will get immediate value from the kernels. It should go to peer review; the calculation is the kind of incremental but necessary advance that the field needs, and referees can check the two-loop details and ask for more on the power corrections if needed.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the first next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) QCD corrections to the deeply virtual pion production processes γ_L^* p → π^+ n and γ_L^* p → π^0 p in the leading-twist collinear factorization framework, valid in the generalized Bjorken limit Q^2 ≫ |t|, Λ_QCD^2. The authors report that the two-loop corrections are positive and substantial and that their inclusion considerably improves the agreement between perturbative predictions and existing JLab data on the longitudinal differential cross section. The work also examines the effect of these NNLO corrections on transverse single-spin asymmetries in benchmark kinematics relevant to JLab, EIC, and EicC.

Significance. If the NNLO results are technically correct and the leading-twist approximation remains valid with higher-twist effects sufficiently suppressed, this constitutes the first complete two-loop calculation for DVπP and supplies a necessary ingredient for precision GPD phenomenology at current and future facilities. The explicit study of both cross sections and asymmetries adds practical value for experimental planning.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and numerical results / data comparison] The central claim that the two-loop corrections are 'positive and substantial' and 'considerably improve' agreement with JLab data (abstract and results section) rests on the assumption that higher-twist power corrections remain negligible throughout the measured kinematics (Q^2 ~ 1–10 GeV^2). No quantitative bound, model estimate of twist-3 amplitudes, or 1/Q^2 scaling test is supplied to demonstrate that these corrections are smaller than the NNLO term; without such evidence the observed improvement could be driven by scale choice, GPD parametrization, or residual power corrections rather than the two-loop piece itself.
[Kinematics and validity of leading-twist approximation] In the kinematic region relevant to JLab data, Q^2 is only moderately larger than |t| and Λ_QCD^2. The manuscript applies the NNLO leading-twist formula without an explicit assessment of the size of power-suppressed contributions (e.g., via the ratio of twist-3 to twist-2 amplitudes or a dedicated uncertainty band). This omission is load-bearing for the interpretation that the perturbative series is converging and that the NNLO term can be meaningfully compared to data.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract sentence 'including which considerably improves' is grammatically awkward and should be rephrased for clarity.
[Figures and numerical results] Ensure that all figures comparing NNLO predictions to JLab data include explicit uncertainty bands from scale variation and GPD parametrization so that the improvement can be assessed quantitatively.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting important points regarding the interpretation of our results in the context of JLab data. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments and indicate the changes we will make in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The central claim that the two-loop corrections are 'positive and substantial' and 'considerably improve' agreement with JLab data (abstract and results section) rests on the assumption that higher-twist power corrections remain negligible throughout the measured kinematics (Q^2 ~ 1–10 GeV^2). No quantitative bound, model estimate of twist-3 amplitudes, or 1/Q^2 scaling test is supplied to demonstrate that these corrections are smaller than the NNLO term; without such evidence the observed improvement could be driven by scale choice, GPD parametrization, or residual power corrections rather than the two-loop piece itself.

Authors: We agree with the referee that the central claim in the abstract and results relies on the leading-twist approximation being a good description in the relevant kinematics. Our calculation provides the NNLO corrections to the leading-twist amplitude, and the numerical study shows that these corrections are positive and increase the cross section, bringing it closer to the JLab measurements when using a standard GPD parametrization. However, we do not claim to have demonstrated that higher-twist effects are smaller than the NNLO correction; such a demonstration would require a dedicated study of twist-3 contributions. In the revision, we will update the abstract to read that the inclusion of NNLO corrections 'considerably improves the agreement with JLab data within the leading-twist approximation'. We will also add a new paragraph in the results section discussing the applicability of the leading-twist framework to the JLab data, including a qualitative estimate based on power counting and citing relevant literature on higher-twist effects in DVMP. This revision will make the limitations explicit. revision: partial
Referee: In the kinematic region relevant to JLab data, Q^2 is only moderately larger than |t| and Λ_QCD^2. The manuscript applies the NNLO leading-twist formula without an explicit assessment of the size of power-suppressed contributions (e.g., via the ratio of twist-3 to twist-2 amplitudes or a dedicated uncertainty band). This omission is load-bearing for the interpretation that the perturbative series is converging and that the NNLO term can be meaningfully compared to data.

Authors: We acknowledge that the JLab data are taken in a kinematic regime where Q^2 is not asymptotically large compared to |t| and Λ_QCD^2, so power-suppressed terms may play a role. The manuscript focuses on the computation of the two-loop hard coefficient in the leading-twist collinear factorization, which is valid in the generalized Bjorken limit. We do not provide an explicit ratio of twist-3 to twist-2 or an uncertainty band from power corrections because computing the twist-3 amplitudes is a separate and substantial task not undertaken here. To address the referee's concern, we will revise the manuscript by adding an explicit discussion of the kinematic validity in the introduction and a subsection on theoretical uncertainties in the results. This will include a statement that the perturbative convergence is observed within the leading-twist framework and that comparisons to data should be interpreted with the understanding that higher-twist effects could be comparable in size at the lowest Q^2 values. We believe this will clarify the scope of our conclusions without requiring new computations. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved

Quantitative assessment of higher-twist (twist-3) contributions to the cross section in the JLab kinematics, as this lies beyond the leading-twist NNLO calculation presented in the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; direct perturbative computation

full rationale

The paper performs an explicit two-loop QCD calculation of the DVπP amplitudes in leading-twist collinear factorization. The central result is the NNLO hard-scattering kernel obtained from Feynman diagrams or equivalent methods; this is not obtained by fitting parameters to the target observables nor by renaming a prior result. Comparison to JLab data is presented as a post-computation check and does not enter the derivation of the kernels. No self-citation is used to justify a uniqueness theorem or to smuggle an ansatz that would make the NNLO term tautological. The leading-twist assumption is stated explicitly but is an external modeling choice, not a definitional reduction. Hence the derivation chain remains self-contained and non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of leading-twist collinear factorization in the stated kinematic limit and on standard perturbative QCD techniques for two-loop calculations. No new particles or forces are introduced. The only free parameters are conventional renormalization and factorization scales whose variation is expected to be studied in the full paper.

free parameters (1)

renormalization and factorization scales
Standard pQCD scale choices that enter at NNLO and affect the size of the reported corrections; their specific values or variation ranges are not given in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Collinear factorization holds at leading twist for DVMP in the generalized Bjorken limit Q^2 ≫ |t|, Λ_QCD^2
Invoked in the abstract to justify the perturbative calculation and the neglect of higher-twist contributions.
standard math Standard QCD renormalization and infrared subtraction procedures apply to the two-loop diagrams
Implicit in any NNLO pQCD computation; no non-standard regularization is mentioned.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5545 in / 1659 out tokens · 46149 ms · 2026-05-07T05:56:11.445866+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

M¨ uller, D

D. M¨ uller, D. Robaschik, B. Geyer, F. M. Dittes and J. Hoˇ rejˇ si, Fortsch. Phys.42(1994), 101-141

1994
[2]

X. D. Ji, Phys. Rev. D55(1997), 7114-7125. 8 LO NLO NNLO' NNLO 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Q2=4.44 GeV2, xB=0.36 GK+RQCD LO NLO NNLO' NNLO 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Q2=20 GeV2, xB=0.4 GK+RQCD FIG. 7: The predicted dσ L/dtat various level of perturbative accuracy. The curve labelled with NNLO’ implies that only the two-lo...

1997
[3]

A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B380(1996), 417-425

1996
[4]

Burkardt, Phys

M. Burkardt, Phys. Rev. D62(2000), 071503 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D66(2002), 119903]

2000
[5]

X. D. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett.78(1997), 610-613

1997
[6]

Leader and C

E. Leader and C. Lorc´ e, Phys. Rept.541(2014) no.3, 163-248

2014
[7]

C. A. Aidala, S. D. Bass, D. Hasch and G. K. Mallot, Rev. Mod. Phys.85(2013), 655-691

2013
[8]

X. Ji, F. Yuan and Y. Zhao, Nature Rev. Phys.3(2021) no.1, 27-38

2021
[9]

V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri, F. X. Girod, C. Lorc´ e, P. Schweitzer and P. E. Shanahan, Rev. Mod. Phys.95 (2023) no.4, 041002

2023
[10]

Kumano, Q

S. Kumano, Q. T. Song and O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) no.1, 014020

2018
[11]

Freese and I

A. Freese and I. C. Clo¨ et, Phys. Rev. C100(2019) no.1, 015201 [erratum: Phys. Rev. C105(2022) no.5, 059901]

2019
[12]

B. D. Sun and Y. B. Dong, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no.9, 096008

2020
[13]

Duran, Z

B. Duran, Z. E. Meziani, S. Joosten, M. K. Jones, S. Prasad, C. Peng, W. Armstrong, H. Atac, E. Chu- dakov and H. Bhatt,et al.Nature615(2023) no.7954, 813-816

2023
[14]

D. C. Hackett, D. A. Pefkou and P. E. Shanahan, Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) no.25, 251904

2024
[15]

X. H. Cao, F. K. Guo, Q. Z. Li and D. L. Yao, Nature Commun.16(2025), 6979

2025
[16]

Y. Guo, F. Yuan and W. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.135 (2025) no.11, 111902

2025
[17]

Tanaka, D

M. Tanaka, D. Fujii and M. Kawaguchi, Phys. Rev. D 112(2025) no.5, 054048

2025
[18]

Hatta and J

Y. Hatta and J. Schoenleber, Phys. Rev. Lett.134 (2025) no.25, 251901

2025
[19]

M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B555(2003), 57-62

2003
[20]

M. V. Polyakov and P. Schweitzer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33(2018) no.26, 1830025

2018
[21]

V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri and F. X. Girod, Nature 557(2018) no.7705, 396-399

2018
[22]

Lorc´ e, H

C. Lorc´ e, H. Moutarde and A. P. Trawi´ nski, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) no.1, 89

2019
[23]

Kumeriˇ cki, Nature570(2019) no.7759, E1-E2

K. Kumeriˇ cki, Nature570(2019) no.7759, E1-E2

2019
[24]

P. E. Shanahan and W. Detmold, Phys. Rev. Lett.122 (2019) no.7, 072003

2019
[25]

Lorc´ e and Q

C. Lorc´ e and Q. T. Song, Phys. Lett. B864(2025), 139433

2025
[26]

Freese and G

A. Freese and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D103(2021), 094023. 9

2021
[27]

Diehl, Phys

M. Diehl, Phys. Rept.388(2003), 41-277

2003
[28]

A. V. Belitsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rept.418 (2005), 1-387

2005
[29]

Boffi and B

S. Boffi and B. Pasquini, Riv. Nuovo Cim.30(2007) no.9, 387-448

2007
[30]

Goeke, M

K. Goeke, M. V. Polyakov and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.47(2001), 401-515

2001
[31]

Vanderhaeghen, P

M. Vanderhaeghen, P. A. M. Guichon and M. Guidal, Phys. Rev. D60(1999), 094017

1999
[32]

S. V. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C65 (2010), 137-151

2010
[33]

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

2011
[34]

Kroll, H

P. Kroll, H. Moutarde and F. Sabatie, Eur. Phys. J. C 73(2013) no.1, 2278

2013
[35]

S. V. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C53 (2008), 367-384

2008
[36]

Kumeriˇ cki and D

K. Kumeriˇ cki and D. M¨ uller, EPJ Web Conf.112 (2016), 01012

2016
[37]

Kumericki, S

K. Kumericki, S. Liuti and H. Moutarde, Eur. Phys. J. A52(2016) no.6, 157

2016
[38]

Moutarde, P

H. Moutarde, P. Sznajder and J. Wagner, Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019) no.7, 614

2019
[39]

Kriesten, P

B. Kriesten, P. Velie, E. Yeats, F. Y. Lopez and S. Liuti, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) no.5, 056022

2022
[40]

Y. Guo, F. P. Aslan, X. Ji and M. G. Santiago, Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) no.26, 261903

2025
[41]

H. T. Ding, X. Gao, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, Q. Shi, S. Syritsyn and Y. Zhao, JHEP02(2025), 056

2025
[42]

X. Gao, S. Mukherjee, Q. Shi, F. Yao and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D113(2026) no.1, 014505

2026
[43]

H. W. Lin, Phys. Lett. B846(2023), 138181

2023
[44]

Bhattacharya, K

S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, J. Dodson, X. Gao, A. Metz, J. Miller, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky and F. Steffens,et al.Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no.3, 034508

2024
[45]

Bhattacharya, K

S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, X. Gao, A. Metz, J. Miller, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, F. Stef- fens and Y. Zhao, JHEP01(2025), 146

2025
[46]

M. H. Chu, M. Cola¸ co, S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, A. Metz and F. Steffens, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.9, 094510

2025
[47]

Cichy, S

K. Cichy, S. Bhattacharya, M. Constantinou, J. Dodson, X. Gao, A. Metz, J. Miller, S. Mukherjee, A. Scapellato and F. Steffens,et al.Acta Phys. Polon. Supp.16(2023) no.7, 7-A6

2023
[48]

Alexandrou, K

C. Alexandrou, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, K. Had- jiyiannakou, K. Jansen, A. Scapellato and F. Steffens, Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) no.26, 262001

2020
[49]

H. W. Lin, Phys. Lett. B824(2022), 136821

2022
[50]

A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B385(1996), 333-342

1996
[51]

Mankiewicz, G

L. Mankiewicz, G. Piller and T. Weigl, Eur. Phys. J. C 5(1998), 119-128

1998
[52]

L. L. Frankfurt, M. V. Polyakov, M. Strikman and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. Lett.84(2000), 2589- 2592

2000
[53]

L. L. Frankfurt, P. V. Pobylitsa, M. V. Polyakov and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. D60(1999), 014010

1999
[54]

Mankiewicz, G

L. Mankiewicz, G. Piller and A. Radyushkin, Eur. Phys. J. C10(1999), 307-312

1999
[55]

F. D. Aaronet al.[H1], Phys. Lett. B681(2009), 391- 399

2009
[56]

Chekanovet al.[ZEUS], JHEP05(2009), 108

S. Chekanovet al.[ZEUS], JHEP05(2009), 108

2009
[57]

Airapetianet al.[HERMES], JHEP10(2012), 042

A. Airapetianet al.[HERMES], JHEP10(2012), 042

2012
[58]

Hirlinger Sayloret al.[CLAS], Phys

N. Hirlinger Sayloret al.[CLAS], Phys. Rev. C98 (2018) no.4, 045203

2018
[59]

Hattawyet al.[CLAS], Phys

M. Hattawyet al.[CLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019) no.3, 032502

2019
[60]

Akhunzyanovet al.[COMPASS], Phys

R. Akhunzyanovet al.[COMPASS], Phys. Lett. B793 (2019), 188-194 [erratum: Phys. Lett. B800(2020), 135129]

2019
[61]

Hobartet al.[CLAS], Phys

A. Hobartet al.[CLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) no.21, 211903

2024
[62]

Airapetianet al.[HERMES], Phys

A. Airapetianet al.[HERMES], Phys. Lett. B659 (2008), 486-492

2008
[63]

T. Horn, X. Qian, J. Arrington, R. Asaturyan, F. Benmokthar, W. Boeglin, P. Bosted, A. Bruell, M. E. Christy and E. Chudakov,et al.Phys. Rev. C 78(2008), 058201

2008
[64]

Airapetianet al.[HERMES], Phys

A. Airapetianet al.[HERMES], Phys. Lett. B682 (2010), 345-350

2010
[65]

S. A. Morrowet al.[CLAS], Eur. Phys. J. A39(2009), 5-31

2009
[66]

Bedlinskiyet al.[CLAS], Phys

I. Bedlinskiyet al.[CLAS], Phys. Rev. C90(2014) no.2, 025205

2014
[67]

Defurneet al.[Jefferson Lab Hall A], Phys

M. Defurneet al.[Jefferson Lab Hall A], Phys. Rev. Lett.117(2016) no.26, 262001

2016
[68]

Mazouzet al.[Jefferson Lab Hall A], Phys

M. Mazouzet al.[Jefferson Lab Hall A], Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) no.22, 222002

2017
[69]

Dlaminiet al.[Jefferson Lab Hall A], Phys

M. Dlaminiet al.[Jefferson Lab Hall A], Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) no.15, 152301

2021
[70]

G. D. Alexeevet al.[COMPASS], Eur. Phys. J. C83 (2023) no.10, 924

2023
[71]

Diehlet al.[CLAS], Phys

S. Diehlet al.[CLAS], Phys. Lett. B839(2023), 137761

2023
[72]

G. D. Alexeevet al.[COMPASS], Phys. Lett. B870 (2025), 139832

2025
[73]

Accardi, P

A. Accardi, P. Achenbach, D. Adhikari, A. Afanasev, C. S. Akondi, N. Akopov, M. Albaladejo, H. Albataineh, M. Albrecht and B. Almeida-Zamora,et al.Eur. Phys. J. A60(2024) no.9, 173

2024
[74]

Abdul Khalek, A

R. Abdul Khalek, A. Accardi, J. Adam, D. Adamiak, W. Akers, M. Albaladejo, A. Al-bataineh, M. G. Alex- eev, F. Ameli and P. Antonioli,et al.Nucl. Phys. A 1026(2022), 122447

2022
[75]

D. P. Anderle, V. Bertone, X. Cao, L. Chang, N. Chang, G. Chen, X. Chen, Z. Chen, Z. Cui and L. Dai,et al. Front. Phys. (Beijing)16(2021) no.6, 64701

2021
[76]

V. M. Braun, Y. Ji and J. Schoenleber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129(2022) no.17, 172001

2022
[77]

Ji and J

Y. Ji and J. Schoenleber, JHEP01(2024), 053

2024
[78]

V. M. Braun, P. Gotzler and A. N. Manashov,
[79]

V. M. Braun, H. Y. Jiang, A. N. Manashov and A. von Manteuffel, JHEP01(2025), 069

2025
[80]

Diehl and W

M. Diehl and W. Kugler, Eur. Phys. J. C52(2007), 933-966

2007

Showing first 80 references.