Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Lattice QCD at the physical pion mass yields the first nucleon unpolarized Mellin moments through fourth order and the Q^{2} dependence of the associated generalized form factors.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 02:20 UTC pith:LL6UYX35

load-bearing objection First physical-pion-mass lattice values of the third and fourth unpolarized Mellin moments (plus associated GFFs) with careful renormalization and excited-state control; single-ensemble and neglected disconnected pieces are the real limits. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03458 v1 pith:LL6UYX35 submitted 2026-07-03 hep-lat

The nucleon unpolarized generalized form factors and Mellin moments up to fourth order

Constantia Alexandrou , Simone Bacchio , Martha Constantinou , Christian Kummer , Yan Li , Gregoris Spanoudes This is my paper
classification hep-lat
keywords lattice QCDMellin momentsgeneralized form factorsunpolarized PDFstwisted-mass fermionsphysical pion massnucleon structureoperator mixing
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 computes the Mellin moments of the nucleon's unpolarized parton distributions up to fourth order, together with the Q^{2} dependence of the corresponding generalized form factors, on a single twisted-mass ensemble at the physical pion mass. Boosted frames and carefully chosen multi-derivative operators are used so that higher moments become accessible while mixing is controlled. The forward-limit moments are extracted for the isovector, isoscalar and separate up and down combinations; the moments are then combined with a simple power-law Ansatz (and a phenomenological anti-quark correction) to reconstruct the isovector valence PDF. The resulting moments and PDF can be compared directly with global phenomenological fits and with other lattice determinations that use non-local operators. The calculation supplies the first physical-mass lattice benchmarks for these higher moments, which are needed both for sum rules that connect elastic and deep-inelastic processes and as constraints for future Electron-Ion Collider analyses.

Core claim

On a physical-pion-mass twisted-mass ensemble the authors obtain non-perturbatively renormalized nucleon unpolarized Mellin moments through fourth order, extract the associated generalized form factors as functions of Q^{2}, and reconstruct an isovector valence PDF that is larger at high x than current phenomenological determinations.

What carries the argument

The twist-two local operators with two and three covariant derivatives, evaluated in boosted frames and reduced via a weighted least-squares solution of the Lorentz decomposition into generalized form factors An,i, Bn,i, Cn,0.

Load-bearing premise

Disconnected quark-loop contributions to the isoscalar (and therefore separate up and down) moments are dropped on the claim that they become negligible for higher moments, even though the same ensemble shows they already reach about a quarter of the connected piece for the second moment.

What would settle it

A full calculation of the same three- and four-derivative matrix elements that includes the disconnected diagrams on this or a finer ensemble, or a continuum extrapolation of the local-operator moments, would show whether the reported high-x excess survives.

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

If this is right

  • The fourth-order moments and their Q^{2} dependence become available as lattice benchmarks for global GPD fits and for Ji’s angular-momentum sum rule.
  • The reconstructed isovector valence PDF supplies a lattice prediction of the large-x shape that can be tested against future EIC data.
  • Agreement between the two mixed three-derivative operators and the unmixed operator validates the practical use of the less-noisy mixed operators for higher moments.
  • The tabulated dipole parameters for all GFFs give a compact parametrization that can be inserted into phenomenological models without further lattice analysis.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the high-x excess persists after continuum and disconnected-systematics control, phenomenological PDFs may need a stiffer large-x tail for the isovector combination.
  • The same boosted-frame and mixed-operator strategy can be applied immediately to polarized and transversity moments on the same ensemble.
  • Wilson-flow methods mentioned in the paper would allow fifth- and higher-order moments on the same configurations once the flow-time matching is validated for nucleons.

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a lattice-QCD calculation of the unpolarized nucleon generalized form factors (GFFs) A_{n i}, B_{n i}, C_{n 0} and the associated forward Mellin moments ⟨x^{n-1}⟩ for n=2,3,4, performed on a single N_f=2+1+1 twisted-mass ensemble at the physical pion mass. Boosted frames are used to access operators with two and three derivatives; matrix elements are extracted via plateau and summation methods, renormalized non-perturbatively in RI′-MOM (with AIC-averaged continuum extrapolation of Z factors) and converted to MS-bar at 2 GeV. Dipole (or constant) fits describe the Q^{2} dependence of the accessible GFFs; the isovector moments are combined with external anti-quark moments from JAM to reconstruct a valence PDF that is compared with phenomenology and with other lattice results.

Significance. If the quoted values hold under further scrutiny, this is the first physical-pion-mass determination of the third and fourth unpolarized Mellin moments (and of the corresponding GFFs) with local operators. The isovector results supply a useful benchmark for quasi-/pseudo-PDF methods and for global PDF analyses that will be tested at the EIC. The careful documentation of excited-state control, operator-choice consistency checks, and non-perturbative renormalization (including one-loop artifact subtraction) constitutes a solid technical foundation that later multi-ensemble studies can build upon.

major comments (4)
  1. Sec. III B and the conclusions assert that disconnected contributions to the isoscalar (and therefore u and d) moments “become suppressed as the order of the moment increases.” The only quantitative information supplied is that the second-moment disconnected piece is already ~25 % of the connected piece on the same ensemble. No direct estimate, scaling argument or literature bound is given for n=3,4. Because the isoscalar and flavor-separated moments enter both the phenomenological comparison (Fig. 18) and the PDF reconstruction discussion, an O(10–20 %) residual disconnected piece would shift the central values by an amount comparable to the quoted errors. Either a quantitative bound or a clear restriction of the isoscalar claims is required.
  2. The entire analysis rests on a single ensemble (a≃0.08 fm, L≃5.1 fm). While the authors note that O(a^{2}) effects are expected to be small from earlier studies, neither a continuum nor an infinite-volume extrapolation is performed, and no dedicated estimate of residual cutoff or finite-volume systematics is provided for the higher-derivative operators. For a “first” result that is intended as a benchmark, these systematics must be quantified or the claims must be explicitly limited to the present lattice spacing and volume.
  3. Sec. IV: for the three-derivative operators O_{44ij} and O_{44ij}-O_{kkij} the authors neglect mixing with the five same-dimension operators that share the H(4) representation and approximate the renormalization as purely multiplicative (Eq. 28). Consistency with the non-mixing operator O_{1234} is shown only for A_{40} (Fig. 7). Because the remaining GFFs (A_{42}, B_{40}, B_{42}, C_{40}) are extracted solely from the mixed operators and are largely consistent with zero, an unquantified mixing contamination could alter the conclusion that only A_{40} is non-vanishing. A more complete treatment (or a clearer statement of the residual uncertainty) is needed.
  4. Sec. III D and V B: for the three-derivative operators the linear system is frequently rank-deficient at a single Q^{2}; the authors therefore cluster nearby Q^{2} values. The smoothness assumption underlying the clustering is not tested (e.g., by varying the bin width or by comparing with a global fit in Q^{2}). Given that the higher GFFs are already noise-dominated, any bias introduced by clustering directly affects the dipole parameters listed in Table IV and the claim that only A_{40} is non-zero.
minor comments (5)
  1. Throughout Sec. V the phrase “dipole Ansantz” appears; correct to “Ansatz”.
  2. Fig. 18 caption and surrounding text: the labels “x^{2} d”, “x^{3} d+” etc. are ambiguous; clarify whether the moments are isovector, isoscalar or flavor-separated and whether the anti-quark sign convention of Eq. (37) has been applied.
  3. Table IV: the entry for B_{u+d}^{30} lists no dipole mass because a constant fit was used; this should be stated explicitly in the table caption rather than only in the text.
  4. Eq. (13) for the effective-energy fit contains an undefined c_{1}; a brief definition or reference would help the reader.
  5. Several figure panels (e.g., Figs. 5, 9, 12) show only two source-sink separations for the non-mixing operator O_{1234}; a short remark on why higher separations were omitted would improve transparency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: lattice matrix elements, renormalization, and GFF extraction are independent of the phenomenological inputs used only for optional PDF reconstruction.

full rationale

The paper's central results are the non-perturbatively renormalized lattice matrix elements of local two- and three-derivative operators, the extraction of GFFs A_ni, B_ni, C_n0 via weighted least-squares solution of the kinematic decompositions (Eqs. 3, 6, 12-14), and the forward-limit Mellin moments obtained from plateau/summation fits. These steps are self-contained lattice computations on a single physical-pion-mass ensemble; they do not fit parameters to phenomenological PDFs and then re-predict those PDFs. The only external phenomenological input appears late, in Sec. VI B, where anti-quark moments from JAM are subtracted so that the lattice moments can be cast into a simple valence-quark Ansatz for visual comparison. That reconstruction is presented as an optional illustration, not as a first-principles prediction forced by the lattice data. Self-citations (prior ETMC renormalization factors, earlier <x> results, etc.) supply technical ingredients that are independently computed and do not close a definitional loop around the new third- and fourth-order moments. Consequently the derivation chain contains no self-definitional step, no fitted-input-called-prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness claim imported from the authors' own prior work. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard lattice QCD technology plus a handful of controlled approximations (single ensemble, neglected mixing and disconnected diagrams, dipole Ansatz). No new dynamical entities are postulated; free parameters appear only in the phenomenological dipole and PDF reconstructions that are secondary to the primary lattice numbers.

free parameters (3)
  • dipole masses M for each GFF
    Fitted to the discrete Q^{2} points after the lattice matrix elements are extracted; used only for interpolation/extrapolation to Q^{2}=0 and for presentation, not for the primary moment values.
  • PDF shape parameters α, β in q(x)=N x^α (1-x)^β
    Fitted to the three lattice moments (plus external anti-quark corrections) to produce the reconstructed PDF curve; secondary to the moment results themselves.
  • t_low^s and t_cut choices for plateau/summation
    Analysis cuts selected by visual convergence; systematic error estimated from the difference between plateau and summation, but the precise cut values remain free choices.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Twisted-mass fermions with clover term automatically improve O(a) discretization errors for the operators considered.
    Standard ETMC claim; invoked to justify working at a single lattice spacing without continuum extrapolation (Sec. III A).
  • ad hoc to paper Disconnected contributions to higher Mellin moments are negligible compared with statistical errors.
    Stated without direct calculation for n≥3; justified only by the observed suppression trend for the second moment (Sec. III B).
  • ad hoc to paper Mixing of the chosen three-derivative operators with same-dimension operators can be neglected at the present precision.
    Explicitly approximated as multiplicative renormalization (Sec. IV); residual O(a^{2}) effects argued to lie below statistics.
  • domain assumption The continuum and infinite-volume limits of the moments are already close to the single-ensemble values reported.
    Implicit in presenting the numbers as physical-point results; no multi-ensemble study is performed.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 30635 in / 2680 out tokens · 25827 ms · 2026-07-12T02:20:03.283437+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Nucleon Mellin moments of parton distribution are computed up to the fourth order in lattice QCD. The computation is performed using one ensemble of twisted mass fermions at the physical pion mass point. We employ boosted frames to access the higher-order Mellin moments of generalized parton distributions. We also extract the forward-limit Mellin moments $\langle x^{n-1}\rangle$ for $n=2,3,4$. These Mellin moments are used to construct unpolarized parton distribution functions and compare to phenomenological extractions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03458 by Christian Kummer, Constantia Alexandrou, Gregoris Spanoudes, Martha Constantinou, Simone Bacchio, Yan Li.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Extrapolated values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Left: We show results on the ratio of Eq. (11) yield [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig. 3, but for the isoscalar GFF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. We show results on the ratio of Eq. (11) yielding the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as Fig. 5, but for the isoscalar GFF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as Fig. 3, but for the up GFF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as Fig. 5, but for the up GFF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Results for the four isovector GFFs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Same as Fig. 10, but for the isoscalar GFFs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Three derivative isovector GFFs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Same as Fig. 12, but for the isoscalar combination. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The isovector (top) and isoscalar (bottom) GFFs as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Same as Fig. 14, but for the up (top) and down (bottom). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Resuls on the isovector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. A comparison of isovector PDFs. The blue band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Results on the third (left) and fourth (right) nucleon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_18.png] view at source ↗

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

63 extracted references · 48 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Burkardt, Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  2. [2]

    Diehl, Phys

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

    arXiv 2003

  3. [3]

    Hagler, Phys

    P. Hagler, Phys. Rept.490, 49 (2010), arXiv:0912.5483 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    X.-D. Ji, J. Phys. G24, 1181 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9807358

    arXiv 1998

  5. [5]

    Ji, Phys

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

    arXiv 1997

  6. [6]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  7. [7]

    Gockeler, R

    M. Gockeler, R. Horsley, D. Pleiter, P. E. L. Rakow, A. Schafer, G. Schierholz, H. Stuben, and J. M. Zanotti, Phys. Rev. D72, 054507 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0506017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Francis, P

    A. Francis, P. Fritzsch, R. Karur, J. Kim, G. Pederiva, D. A. Pefkou, A. Rago, A. Shindler, A. Walker-Loud, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Phys. Rev. D113, 074520 (2026), arXiv:2510.26738 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Franciset al., Phys

    A. Franciset al., Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 171903 (2026), arXiv:2509.02472 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    Detmold, A

    W. Detmold, A. V. Grebe, I. Kanamori, C. J. D. Lin, R. J. Perry, and Y. Zhao (HOPE), Phys. Rev. D113, 014510 (2026), arXiv:2509.04799 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Itzykson and J

    C. Itzykson and J. B. Zuber,Quantum Field Theory, In- ternational Series In Pure and Applied Physics (McGraw- Hill, New York, 1980)

    1980

  12. [12]

    Hagler, J

    P. Hagler, J. W. Negele, D. B. Renner, W. Schroers, T. Lippert, and K. Schilling (LHPC, SESAM), Phys. Rev. D68, 034505 (2003), arXiv:hep-lat/0304018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  13. [13]

    Beccarini, M

    G. Beccarini, M. Bianchi, S. Capitani, and G. Rossi, Nucl. Phys. B456, 271 (1995), arXiv:hep-lat/9506021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  14. [14]

    Gockeler, R

    M. Gockeler, R. Horsley, E.-M. Ilgenfritz, H. Perlt, P. E. L. Rakow, G. Schierholz, and A. Schiller, Phys. Rev. D54, 5705 (1996), arXiv:hep-lat/9602029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  15. [15]

    L¨ uscher, PoSLATTICE2013, 016 (2014), arXiv:1308.5598 [hep-lat]

    M. L¨ uscher, PoSLATTICE2013, 016 (2014), arXiv:1308.5598 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [16]

    Alexandrouet al., Phys

    C. Alexandrouet al., Phys. Rev. D98, 054518 (2018), arXiv:1807.00495 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Frezzotti and G

    R. Frezzotti and G. C. Rossi, JHEP08, 007, arXiv:hep- lat/0306014

    arXiv

  18. [18]

    Frezzotti, P

    R. Frezzotti, P. A. Grassi, S. Sint, and P. Weisz (Alpha), JHEP08, 058, arXiv:hep-lat/0101001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Sheikholeslami and R

    B. Sheikholeslami and R. Wohlert, Nucl. Phys. B259, 20 572 (1985)

    1985

  20. [20]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, M. Constantinou, J. Finken- rath, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, G. Koutsou, and A. Vaquero Aviles-Casco, Phys. Rev. D100, 014509 (2019), arXiv:1812.10311 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Gusken, F. Jegerlehner, K. Schilling, and R. Sommer, Nucl. Phys. B414, 815 (1994), arXiv:hep-lat/9211042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  22. [22]

    Gusken, Nucl

    S. Gusken, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.17, 361 (1990)

    1990

  23. [23]

    Albaneseet al.(APE), Phys

    M. Albaneseet al.(APE), Phys. Lett. B192, 163 (1987)

    1987

  24. [24]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, M. Constantinou, J. Finken- rath, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, G. Koutsou, H. Panagopoulos, and G. Spanoudes, Phys. Rev. D101, 094513 (2020), arXiv:2003.08486 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Alexandrou, M

    C. Alexandrou, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, C. Kallidonis, G. Koutsou, A. Vaquero Avil´ es- Casco, and C. Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 142002 (2017), arXiv:1706.02973 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, J. Finkenrath, C. Iona, G. Koutsou, C. Kummer, Y. Li, B. Prasad, and G. Spanoudes (2026), in preparation

    2026

  27. [27]

    Alexandrou, M

    C. Alexandrou, M. Constantinou, S. Dinter, V. Drach, K. Jansen, C. Kallidonis, and G. Koutsou, Phys. Rev. D 88, 014509 (2013), arXiv:1303.5979 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  28. [28]

    Alexandrou, M

    C. Alexandrou, M. Brinet, J. Carbonell, M. Constanti- nou, P. A. Harraud, P. Guichon, K. Jansen, T. Ko- rzec, and M. Papinutto, Phys. Rev. D83, 094502 (2011), arXiv:1102.2208 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  29. [29]

    Alexandrou, G

    C. Alexandrou, G. Koutsou, J. W. Negele, and A. Tsapalis, Phys. Rev. D74, 034508 (2006), arXiv:hep- lat/0605017

    arXiv 2006

  30. [30]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, M. G¨ ockeler, R. R¨ odl, A. Sch¨ afer, and A. Sternbeck, Phys. Rev. D100, 014507 (2019), arXiv:1812.08256 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    Alexandrouet al., Phys

    C. Alexandrouet al., Phys. Rev. D101, 034519 (2020), arXiv:1908.10706 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Martinelli, C

    G. Martinelli, C. Pittori, C. T. Sachrajda, M. Testa, and A. Vladikas, Nucl. Phys. B445, 81 (1995), arXiv:hep- lat/9411010

    arXiv 1995

  34. [34]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, P. Jana, M. Petschlies, L. A. R. Chacon, G. Spanoudes, F. Steffens, C. Urbach, and U. Wenger, arXiv:2605.29998 [hep-lat] (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Alexandrou, in42th International Symposium on Lat- tice Field Theory(2026) arXiv:2603.28604 [hep-lat]

    C. Alexandrou, in42th International Symposium on Lat- tice Field Theory(2026) arXiv:2603.28604 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Alexandrouet al.(Extended Twisted Mass), Phys

    C. Alexandrouet al.(Extended Twisted Mass), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 131902 (2025), arXiv:2405.08529 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, J. Finkenrath, C. Iona, G. Koutsou, Y. Li, and G. Spanoudes, Phys. Rev. D111, 054505 (2025), arXiv:2412.01535 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, G. Koutsou, B. Prasad, and G. Spanoudes, arXiv:2507.20910 [hep-lat] (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    J. A. Gracey, JHEP04, 127, arXiv:0903.4623 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    J. A. Gracey, Phys. Rev. D84, 016002 (2011), arXiv:1105.2138 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  41. [41]

    B. A. Kniehl and O. L. Veretin, Nucl. Phys. B961, 115229 (2020), arXiv:2009.11325 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    Gockeler, R

    M. Gockeler, R. Horsley, H. Perlt, P. E. L. Rakow, A. Schafer, G. Schierholz, and A. Schiller, Nucl. Phys. B717, 304 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0410009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  43. [43]

    J. A. Gracey, JHEP10, 040, arXiv:hep-ph/0609231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    Alexandrouet al.(Extended Twisted Mass), Phys

    C. Alexandrouet al.(Extended Twisted Mass), Phys. Rev. D104, 074515 (2021), arXiv:2104.13408 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    Gockeler, R

    M. Gockeler, R. Horsley, H. Oelrich, H. Perlt, D. Petters, P. E. L. Rakow, A. Schafer, G. Schierholz, and A. Schiller, Nucl. Phys. B544, 699 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9807044

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  46. [46]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, I. Clo¨ et, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, G. Koutsou, and C. Lauer (ETM), Phys. Rev. D104, 054504 (2021), arXiv:2104.02247 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    Alexandrou, M

    C. Alexandrou, M. Constantinou, and H. Panagopou- los (ETM), Phys. Rev. D95, 034505 (2017), arXiv:1509.00213 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    Gockeleret al., Phys

    M. Gockeleret al., Phys. Rev. D82, 114511 (2010), [Er- ratum: Phys.Rev.D 86, 099903 (2012)], arXiv:1003.5756 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  49. [49]

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. K¨ uhn, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc.261-262, 3 (2015), arXiv:1501.06739 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  50. [50]

    Herzog, S

    F. Herzog, S. Moch, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Ver- maseren, and A. Vogt, Phys. Lett. B790, 436 (2019), arXiv:1812.11818 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    W. I. Jay and E. T. Neil, Phys. Rev. D103, 114502 (2021), arXiv:2008.01069 [stat.ME]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Linet al., Prog

    H.-W. Linet al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.100, 107 (2018), arXiv:1711.07916 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), Phys

    Y. Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), Phys. Rev. D113, 014508 (2026), arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    Taggi, M

    E. Taggi, M. Engelhardt, J. R. Green, S. Krieg, S. Meinel, J. W. Negele, A. Pochinsky, M. Rodekamp, and S. Syrit- syn, arXiv:2605.02808 [hep-lat] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    Cocuzza, W

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    X. Gao, A. D. Hanlon, J. Holligan, N. Karthik, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, S. Syritsyn, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D107, 074509 (2023), arXiv:2212.12569 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Ji, Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  59. [59]

    X. Ji, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.57, 1407 (2014), arXiv:1404.6680 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [60]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D96, 034025 (2017), arXiv:1705.01488 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [61]

    Orginos, A

    K. Orginos, A. Radyushkin, J. Karpie, and S. Zafeiropou- los, Phys. Rev. D96, 094503 (2017), arXiv:1706.05373 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

    A. L. Kataev, in11th Lomonosov Conference on Ele- mentary Particle Physics(2003) pp. 194–200, arXiv:hep- ph/0311091

    arXiv 2003

  63. [63]

    J¨ ulich Supercomputing Centre, Journal of large-scale re- search facilities7, 10.17815/jlsrf-7-183 (2021)

    doi:10.17815/jlsrf-7-183 2021