pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.26056 · v1 · pith:WOT7C4R7new · submitted 2026-06-24 · ✦ hep-ph

Impact of parity-violating deep-inelastic scattering on the weak mixing angle and high-x parton distributions

R. M. Whitehill , M. M. Dalton , T. Liu , W. Melnitchouk , N. Sato This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 18:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords parity-violating deep-inelastic scatteringweak mixing angleparton distribution functionshigh-x PDFsstrange quark distributiond/u ratioglobal QCD analysisJefferson Lab
0
0 comments X

The pith

Including future parity-violating deep-inelastic scattering data can constrain the weak mixing angle at low Q² and the high-x strange quark and d/u parton distributions.

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

The paper examines how pseudodata from parity-violating deep-inelastic scattering at Jefferson Lab energies would affect global fits of parton distributions and the weak mixing angle. It finds that such data would provide useful limits on sin²θ_W and on the high-x behavior of strange quarks and the d over u ratio. Because these quantities are strongly correlated in the fits, the analysis must treat QCD parton distributions and electroweak parameters together to avoid biased results for the mixing angle.

Core claim

Incorporating simulated PVDIS pseudodata for 11 GeV and 22 GeV kinematics into the JAM global QCD analysis yields important constraints on sin²θ_W at low Q² and on the high-x strange quark PDF and d/u ratio, while revealing strong correlations that require simultaneous QCD and electroweak fitting for an unbiased determination of the weak mixing angle.

What carries the argument

The JAM global QCD analysis framework applied to parity-violating deep-inelastic scattering pseudodata with factorized QED+QCD radiative corrections and higher-twist uncertainties in γZ exchange.

If this is right

  • Future PVDIS data would constrain sin²θ_W at low momentum transfers.
  • Such data would limit the high-x strange quark distribution.
  • The d/u PDF ratio at large x would be better determined.
  • Simultaneous fitting of PDFs and electroweak parameters is required to prevent bias in sin²θ_W.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The method could be extended to include data from other facilities to further reduce uncertainties on sin²θ_W.
  • If actual data deviates from the pseudodata assumptions, it could indicate new physics beyond the standard model or underestimated higher-twist effects.
  • Improved high-x PDFs from this approach would benefit predictions for other high-energy processes at colliders.

Load-bearing premise

The pseudodata generated for the projected 11 GeV and 22 GeV Jefferson Lab experiments, including their assigned uncertainties, accurately represent the statistical and systematic features of real future measurements.

What would settle it

A real measurement of the parity-violating asymmetry in electron-proton and electron-deuteron scattering at the simulated kinematics that produces a value of sin²θ_W differing by more than the quoted uncertainty from the value obtained in the joint fit would challenge the paper's conclusions on the necessity of simultaneous analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26056 by M. M. Dalton, N. Sato, R. M. Whitehill, T. Liu, W. Melnitchouk.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Reduced- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Strange quark PDF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Predictions for the deuteron parity-violating asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Deuteron PVDIS asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Parity-violating deuteron asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. [Left] Projected experimental kinematics for the SoLID detector at 11 GeV and 22 GeV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Uncertainty on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Reduced- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Joint 68% confidence regions for sin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Running of sin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We discuss the impact of neutral current parity-violating deep-inelastic scattering (PVDIS) of electrons from protons and deuterons on the determination of the weak mixing angle, $\sin^{2}{\theta_{\rm W}}$, and parton distribution functions (PDFs) at large parton momentum fractions $x$. Using the JAM global QCD analysis framework, we study the effect of incorporating pseudodata simulated for 11 GeV and 22 GeV Jefferson Lab kinematics, accounting for radiative corrections in a factorized QED+QCD approach and uncertainties from higher twist corrections in $\gamma Z$ exchange. We find that including future PVDIS pseudodata could yield important constraints on the value of $\sin^{2}{\theta_{\rm W}}$ at low $Q^2$ and on the high-$x$ behavior of the strange quark and $d/u$ PDF ratio. The strong correlation between $\sin^{2}{\theta_{\rm W}}$ and the $x$ dependence of the PDFs demonstrates the necessity for simultaneous analysis of QCD and electroweak quantities to ensure an unbiased determination of the weak mixing angle from PVDIS data.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses the JAM global QCD analysis framework to study the impact of simulated parity-violating deep-inelastic scattering (PVDIS) pseudodata at 11 GeV and 22 GeV Jefferson Lab kinematics on the weak mixing angle sin²θ_W and high-x PDFs. Accounting for factorized QED+QCD radiative corrections and higher-twist uncertainties in γZ exchange, it concludes that such data could yield important constraints on sin²θ_W at low Q² and on the high-x strange quark distribution and d/u ratio, while strong correlations between sin²θ_W and PDF x-dependence require simultaneous QCD+EW fits for unbiased results.

Significance. If the pseudodata model is shown to be faithful, the work would usefully illustrate the interplay between electroweak parameters and high-x PDFs in future JLab measurements and reinforce the value of joint analyses. The adoption of the established JAM framework and the factorized treatment of radiative corrections are methodological strengths that support reproducibility within the global-fit community.

major comments (2)
  1. [Pseudodata simulation section] Pseudodata generation procedure: The manuscript provides no explicit description of how the PVDIS pseudodata are constructed, including the assigned statistical and systematic uncertainties, the concrete implementation of the factorized QED+QCD radiative corrections, and the size and correlations of the higher-twist uncertainties in γZ exchange. Because the headline claims about constraints on sin²θ_W and high-x strange/d/u PDFs rest directly on these inputs (abstract), the absence of these details prevents evaluation of whether the reported error ellipses and correlations are robust.
  2. [Global analysis and results section] Fitting procedure and uncertainty propagation: No information is given on how the pseudodata are incorporated into the JAM fit, how the simultaneous QCD+EW parameter variation is performed, or how uncertainties are propagated to produce the quoted sin²θ_W–PDF correlations. This is load-bearing for the central claim that simultaneous analysis is necessary, as the strength of the reported correlations is generated by the simulation itself.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the data 'could yield important constraints' without any quantitative measure (e.g., reduction in uncertainty on sin²θ_W or on the high-x d/u ratio); adding even approximate improvement factors would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the need for greater methodological detail. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested information on pseudodata construction and the fitting procedure.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Pseudodata simulation section] Pseudodata generation procedure: The manuscript provides no explicit description of how the PVDIS pseudodata are constructed, including the assigned statistical and systematic uncertainties, the concrete implementation of the factorized QED+QCD radiative corrections, and the size and correlations of the higher-twist uncertainties in γZ exchange. Because the headline claims about constraints on sin²θ_W and high-x strange/d/u PDFs rest directly on these inputs (abstract), the absence of these details prevents evaluation of whether the reported error ellipses and correlations are robust.

    Authors: We agree that the pseudodata generation procedure requires a more explicit description to allow full evaluation of the results. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection that specifies: (i) the central values generated from the baseline JAM PDFs together with the input value of sin²θ_W, (ii) the statistical uncertainties assigned according to projected JLab luminosities, beam energies, and detector acceptances at 11 and 22 GeV, (iii) the systematic uncertainties and their correlations, (iv) the concrete implementation of the factorized QED+QCD radiative corrections, and (v) the magnitude and correlation structure of the higher-twist uncertainties in the γZ interference term. These additions directly address the concern that the headline claims rest on unspecified inputs. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Global analysis and results section] Fitting procedure and uncertainty propagation: No information is given on how the pseudodata are incorporated into the JAM fit, how the simultaneous QCD+EW parameter variation is performed, or how uncertainties are propagated to produce the quoted sin²θ_W–PDF correlations. This is load-bearing for the central claim that simultaneous analysis is necessary, as the strength of the reported correlations is generated by the simulation itself.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the description of the global-fit procedure was insufficient. The revised manuscript now includes an expanded account of how the PVDIS pseudodata are added to the existing JAM dataset, the joint parameterization of the PDF coefficients and the electroweak parameter sin²θ_W, the χ² minimization performed with simultaneous variation of all parameters, and the Hessian-based uncertainty propagation used to extract the sin²θ_W–PDF correlation matrix. These details make transparent why a simultaneous QCD+EW analysis is required to obtain unbiased results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward simulation of future pseudodata yields independent projections

full rationale

The paper simulates PVDIS pseudodata for specified JLab kinematics, applies factorized radiative corrections and higher-twist uncertainties, then incorporates the pseudodata into the JAM global fit to project constraints on sin²θ_W and high-x PDFs. The reported correlations and necessity of simultaneous QCD+EW fitting are direct numerical outputs of this procedure rather than reductions of any fitted parameter or self-citation to the target result by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear; the JAM framework supplies an external baseline and the pseudodata generation is an independent modeling choice. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the JAM global QCD analysis framework and on the assumption that the generated pseudodata correctly encode the statistical power and systematic uncertainties of future measurements.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The JAM global QCD analysis framework provides a reliable baseline for PDF extraction against which PVDIS pseudodata effects can be assessed.
    The paper states it uses the JAM framework to study the effect of incorporating the pseudodata.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5757 in / 1449 out tokens · 38325 ms · 2026-06-25T18:58:27.962362+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 53 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    At large values ofQ 2 ≫M 2, one also hasr 2 ≈1,Y 1 ≈1, andY 3 ≈ 1−(1−y) 2 / 1 + (1−y) 2 , which also givesR i ≈0. The parity-violating asymmetry then simplifies to APV ≈ GF Q2 2 √ 2πα P q eq 2ge Agq V q+ + 2ge V gq A Y3 q− P q e2 q q+ .(15) For the case of an isoscalar deuteron target, neglecting sea quark asymmetries (s − = c− = 0), the deuteron parity-v...

  2. [2]

    =δ(1−ξ),(22a) De/e(ζ, µ2

  3. [3]

    =δ(1−ζ).(22b) The effect of the QED corrections to the parity-violating asymmetry can be seen in Fig. 4. Generally, as the inelasticityybecomes larger, the radiative phase space, governed by (ξ, ζ), becomes larger and therefore also the cross sections. The unpolarized cross section dσ U U grows much faster in magnitude than the polarized cross section dσ ...

  4. [4]

    Schaelet al., Phys

    S. Schaelet al., Phys. Rep.427, 257 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0509008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    V. M. Abazovet al., Phys. Rev. D84, 012007 (2011), arXiv:1104.4590 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  6. [6]

    T. A. Aaltonenet al., Phys. Rev. D89, 072005 (2014), arXiv:1402.2239 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Chatrchyanet al., Phys

    S. Chatrchyanet al., Phys. Rev. D84, 112002 (2011), arXiv:1110.2682 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    T. A. Aaltonenet al., Phys. Rev. D97, 112007 (2018), arXiv:1801.06283 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al., Eur. Phys. J. C78, 701 (2018), arXiv:1806.00863 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    G. P. Zelleret al., Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 091802 (2002), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 239902 (2003)], arXiv:hep-ex/0110059

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  11. [11]

    J. T. Londergan and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D67, 111901 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0303155

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  12. [12]

    S. A. Kulagin, Phys. Rev. D67, 091301 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0301045

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  13. [13]

    Gluck, P

    M. Gluck, P. Jimenez-Delgado, and E. Reya, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 022002 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0503103

    arXiv 2005

  14. [14]

    Masonet al., Phys

    D. Masonet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 192001 (2007)

    2007

  15. [15]

    I. C. Cloet, W. Bentz, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 252301 (2009), arXiv:0901.3559 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  16. [16]

    Bentz, I

    W. Bentz, I. C. Cloet, J. T. Londergan, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B693, 462 (2010), arXiv:0908.3198 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

    P. A. Zylaet al.(Particle Data Group), PTEP2020, 083C01 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    C. Y. Prescottet al., Phys. Lett. B77, 347 (1978)

    1978

  19. [19]

    C. Y. Prescottet al., Phys. Lett. B84, 524 (1979)

    1979

  20. [20]

    Arringtonet al., J

    J. Arringtonet al., J. Phys. G50, 110501 (2023), arXiv:2209.13357 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. D18, 3239 (1978). 27

    1978

  22. [22]

    Kusina, T

    A. Kusina, T. Stavreva, S. Berge, F. I. Olness, I. Schienbein, K. Kovarik, T. Jezo, J. Y. Yu, and K. Park, Phys. Rev. D85, 094028 (2012), arXiv:1203.1290 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  23. [23]

    Accardi, L

    A. Accardi, L. T. Brady, W. Melnitchouk, J. F. Owens, and N. Sato, Phys. Rev. D93, 114017 (2016), arXiv:1602.03154 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, D. Stump, W. K. Tung, and C. P. Yuan, JHEP04, 089 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0702268

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  25. [25]

    Faura, S

    F. Faura, S. Iranipour, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, and M. Ubiali, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1168 (2020), arXiv:2009.00014 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Airapetianet al., Phys

    A. Airapetianet al., Phys. Lett. B666, 446 (2008), arXiv:0803.2993 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  27. [27]

    Jimenez-Delgado, W

    P. Jimenez-Delgado, W. Melnitchouk, and J. F. Owens, J. Phys. G40, 093102 (2013), arXiv:1306.6515 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  28. [28]

    Anderson, W

    T. Anderson, W. Melnitchouk, and N. Sato, Phys. Rev. D112, 094011 (2025), arXiv:2501.00665 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Khachatryanet al., Eur

    V. Khachatryanet al., Eur. Phys. J. C76, 469 (2016), arXiv:1603.01803 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Aadet al., Phys

    G. Aadet al., Phys. Rev. D108, 032012 (2023), arXiv:2302.00336 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Aadet al., Phys

    G. Aadet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 012001 (2012), arXiv:1203.4051 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  32. [32]

    Aaboudet al., Eur

    M. Aaboudet al., Eur. Phys. J. C77, 367 (2017), arXiv:1612.03016 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  33. [33]

    Aadet al., JHEP05, 068 (2014), arXiv:1402.6263 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al., JHEP05, 068 (2014), arXiv:1402.6263 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  34. [34]

    Adolphet al., Phys

    C. Adolphet al., Phys. Lett. B764, 1 (2017), arXiv:1604.02695 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  35. [35]

    Adolphet al., Phys

    C. Adolphet al., Phys. Lett. B767, 133 (2017), arXiv:1608.06760 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    Catani, D

    S. Catani, D. de Florian, G. Rodrigo, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 152003 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0404240

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  37. [37]

    D. A. Mason,Measurement of the strange—antistrange asymmetry at NLO in QCD from NuTeV dimuon data, Ph.D. thesis, Oregon U. (2006)

    2006

  38. [38]

    Goncharovet al., Phys

    M. Goncharovet al., Phys. Rev. D64, 112006 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0102049

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  39. [39]

    Olness, J

    F. Olness, J. Pumplin, D. Stump, J. Huston, P. M. Nadolsky, H. L. Lai, S. Kretzer, J. F. Owens, and W. K. Tung, Eur. Phys. J. C40, 145 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0312323

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  40. [40]

    S. J. Brodsky and B.-Q. Ma, Phys. Lett. B381, 317 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9604393

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  41. [41]

    R. S. Sufian, T. Liu, G. F. de T´ eramond, H. G. Dosch, S. J. Brodsky, A. Deur, M. T. Islam, and B.-Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. D98, 114004 (2018), arXiv:1809.04975 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    Li, X.-B

    X.-Q. Li, X.-B. Zhang, and B.-Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. D65, 014003 (2002), arXiv:hep- 28 ph/0111183

    arXiv 2002

  43. [43]

    Alwall and G

    J. Alwall and G. Ingelman, Phys. Rev. D70, 111505 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0407364

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  44. [44]

    Melnitchouk and M

    W. Melnitchouk and M. Malheiro, Phys. Lett. B451, 224 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9901321

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  45. [45]

    A. I. Signal and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B191, 205 (1987)

    1987

  46. [46]

    Burkardt and B

    M. Burkardt and B. J. Warr, Phys. Rev. D45, 958 (1992)

    1992

  47. [47]

    Houet al., Phys

    T.-J. Houet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 014013 (2021), arXiv:1912.10053 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    R. D. Ballet al., Eur. Phys. J. C82, 428 (2022), arXiv:2109.02653 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    Bailey, T

    S. Bailey, T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 341 (2021), arXiv:2012.04684 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Y.-B. Yang, J. Liang, Y.-J. Bi, Y. Chen, T. Draper, K.-F. Liu, and Z. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 212001 (2018), arXiv:1808.08677 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    Alexandrouet al., Phys

    C. Alexandrouet al., Phys. Rev. D101, 094513 (2020), arXiv:2003.08486 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    Cocuzza, W

    C. Cocuzza, W. Melnitchouk, N. Sato, and A. W. Thomas, (2026), arXiv:2605.00666 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    Accardi, X

    A. Accardi, X. Jing, J. F. Owens, and S. Park, Phys. Rev. D107, 113005 (2023), arXiv:2303.11509 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    Melnitchouk and A

    W. Melnitchouk and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B377, 11 (1996), arXiv:nucl-th/9602038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  55. [55]

    Abramset al., Phys

    D. Abramset al., Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 132003 (2022), arXiv:2104.05850 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Tkachenkoet al., Phys

    S. Tkachenkoet al., Phys. Rev. C89, 045206 (2014), [Addendum: Phys. Rev. C90, 059901 (2014)], arXiv:1402.2477 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  57. [57]

    S. Li, A. Accardi, M. Cerutti, I. P. Fernando, C. E. Keppel, W. Melnitchouk, P. Mon- aghan, G. Niculescu, M. I. Niculescu, and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D109, 074036 (2024), arXiv:2309.16851 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Cocuzza, C

    C. Cocuzza, C. E. Keppel, H. Liu, W. Melnitchouk, A. Metz, N. Sato, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 242001 (2021), arXiv:2104.06946 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    T. J. Hague, J. Arrington, S. Li, and S. N. Santiesteban, Phys. Rev. C110, L041302 (2024), arXiv:2312.13499 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Cocuzza, T

    C. Cocuzza, T. J. Hague, W. Melnitchouk, N. Sato, and A. W. Thomas, (2026), arXiv:2602.16589 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    V. A. Radescu, in12th International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS 2004) (2004) pp. 386–391, arXiv:hep-ex/0408006. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  62. [62]

    K. S. McFarlandet al., in33rd Rencontres de Moriond: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories(1998) pp. 19–24, arXiv:hep-ex/9806013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  63. [63]

    R. A. Johnsonet al., in17th International Workshop on Weak Interactions and Neutrinos (1999) pp. 62–66, arXiv:hep-ex/9904028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  64. [64]

    K. S. McFarlandet al., eConfC020620, SABT01 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0210010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  65. [65]

    B. G. Ticeet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 231801 (2014), arXiv:1403.2103 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  66. [66]

    J. M. Cruz-Martinez, M. Fieg, T. Giani, P. Krack, T. M¨ akel¨ a, T. R. Rabemananjara, and J. Rojo, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 369 (2024), arXiv:2309.09581 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Heweset al., Instruments5, 31 (2021), arXiv:2103.13910 [physics.ins-det]

    V. Heweset al., Instruments5, 31 (2021), arXiv:2103.13910 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2021

  68. [68]

    Wanget al., Phys

    D. Wanget al., Phys. Rev. C91, 045506 (2015), arXiv:1411.3200 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  69. [69]

    L. W. Mo and Y.-S. Tsai, Rev. Mod. Phys.41, 205 (1969)

    1969

  70. [70]

    D. Y. Bardin and N. M. Shumeiko, Nucl. Phys.B127, 242 (1977)

    1977

  71. [71]

    Badelek, D

    B. Badelek, D. Y. Bardin, K. Kurek, and C. Scholz, Z. Phys. C66, 591 (1995), arXiv:hep- ph/9403238

    arXiv 1995

  72. [72]

    T. Liu, W. Melnitchouk, J.-W. Qiu, and N. Sato, Phys. Rev. D104, 094033 (2021), arXiv:2008.02895 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    T. Liu, W. Melnitchouk, J.-W. Qiu, and N. Sato, JHEP11, 157 (2021), arXiv:2108.13371 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  74. [74]

    O. W. Greenberg and D. Bhaumik, Phys. Rev. D4, 2048 (1971)

    2048

  75. [75]

    Nachtmann, Nucl

    O. Nachtmann, Nucl. Phys.B63, 237 (1973)

    1973

  76. [76]

    Georgi and H

    H. Georgi and H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. D14, 1829 (1976)

    1976

  77. [77]

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

    1983

  78. [78]

    M. A. G. Aivazis, F. I. Olness, and W.-K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D50, 3085 (1994), arXiv:hep- ph/9312318

    arXiv 1994

  79. [79]

    Moffat, T

    E. Moffat, T. C. Rogers, W. Melnitchouk, N. Sato, and F. Steffens, Phys. Rev. D99, 096008 (2019), arXiv:1901.09016 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  80. [80]

    Schienbeinet al., J

    I. Schienbeinet al., J. Phys. G35, 053101 (2008), arXiv:0709.1775 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

Showing first 80 references.