Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 68 references

What are the consequences of independent factorization and renormalization scales?

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Preserving renormalization-group invariance, PDF sum rules, and gauge Ward identities forces every auxiliary scale to collapse to one, making the standard two-scale error estimate inconsistent unless sum rules and the coupling move with it.

desk verdict An explicit one-loop proof that independent factorization and renormalization scales break PDF sum rules, with the decisive higher-order step and QCD transfer asserted rather than demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01489 v1 pith:2MHXQDMN submitted 2026-08-02 hep-ph hep-thnucl-th

T.C. Rogers , R.M. Whitehill This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-thnucl-th
keywords factorizationscalerenormalizationpartondistributionfunctionsquarknumbersumrulemomentumWardidentitiesgroupinvariancegeneralizedminimalsubtraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the common practice of treating the factorization scale $\mu_F$ as an independent auxiliary parameter, separate from the renormalization scale $\mu$, is incompatible with the defining properties of parton distribution functions (PDFs) — specifically the quark-number and momentum sum rules, the constraints that the PDFs' integrated quark number and momentum come out to their fixed physical values. Using a massive Yukawa theory with generalized minimal-subtraction counterterms that each carry their own scale, explicit next-to-leading-order calculations show that the sum rules survive only if the PDF subtraction scale, the quark wavefunction scale, and the scalar wavefunction scale all coincide (Eq. 54); gauge Ward identities then force the coupling scale onto the same value. The authors present this as a general consequence of UV renormalization in any finite-distance renormalizable theory, with QCD as the intended target. If correct, the standard method of varying $\mu$ and $\mu_F$ independently to estimate missing higher-order uncertainties is inconsistent as usually stated, and global fits of Standard Model parameters alongside PDFs, as well as comparisons with lattice QCD, would need to respect a single auxiliary scale.

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the proof. (1) Generalized minimal subtraction: each counterterm — the wavefunction factors $Z_s$, $Z_q$, the coupling, and the PDF factors $Z_{\mathrm{pdf}}$ — has its own subtraction constant; $A_{\mathrm{pdf}} = (\mu^2/\mu^2_{\mathrm{pdf}})A$ means a separate factorization scale $\mu_F$ is exactly such a scheme. (2) Sum rules as non-renormalization theorems: the number sum rule is an integrated conserved current (Eq. 11), surviving renormalization only when $\int d\xi\, Z_{\mathrm{pdf}} = \delta$ (Eq. 31), failing when scales differ. The engine is the $O(a_g)$ results (Eqs. 48–52): self-energy and real-emission divergences (involving $Z_q$ and $Z_{\mathrm{pdf}}$) must

What would settle it

The direct check is the $O(a_g^2)$ momentum-sum-rule calculation the paper points to in Fig. 3 but does not perform: compute graphs (a)–(c) of Fig. 3 with distinct scales $\mu_s$, $\mu_q$, $\mu_{\mathrm{pdf}}$; if the sum rule survives without $\mu_s = \mu_q$, the claim fails already at the next order. In QCD itself the $O(\alpha_s)$ prediction is explicit — the number sum rule is violated by $\frac{a_g}{2}\ln(\mu^2_{\mathrm{pdf},qq}/\mu^2_q)$ (Eq. 51) — so any scheme that maintains the exact number sum rule at $O(\alpha_s)$ with distinct PDF and wavefunction scales would refute the central cl

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that any generalized minimal-subtraction scheme with distinct scales for different counterterms (a separate factorization scale $\mu_F$ is exactly such a scheme) cannot give a renormalized PDF that obeys both PDF sum rules and, in gauge theories, the Ward identities, unless every auxiliary scale equals the single UV scale $\mu$ (Eq. 54). Next-to-leading-order calculation in a massive Yukawa theory shows the violations (Eqs. 51–52) vanish only here; Ward identities fix the coupling scale (Sec. VI B). The authors' point: sum rules are the renormalized shadow of bare-current conservation, so multi-scale schemes either break symmetries or need compensating corrections together.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the claim that the cancellation pattern computed in the massive Yukawa theory — sum rules survive only when every subtraction scale coincides — transfers unchanged to QCD; the paper asserts this universality for any finite-distance renormalizable theory, but the gauge-invariance leg is checked only at lowest order and the $O(a_g^2)$ condition $\mu_s = \mu_q$ is cited from a figure without the calculation shown, so a different higher-order cancellation patt

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Standard missing-higher-order uncertainty estimates that vary the renormalization and factorization scales independently (the usual $r, r_F \in \{1/2, 1, 2\}$ envelope) are inconsistent with exact PDF sum rules and Ward identities; a consistent version must vary $\mu_F$ as a function of $\mu$ and carry compensating corrections to sum rules, coupling, and operator definitions.
  • Global QCD analyses that extract Standard Model parameters, notably $\alpha_s$, alongside PDFs should use a single renormalization-group scale throughout: with a separate factorization scale, the running coupling acquires extra $\mu_F$-dependence (Eq. 67) and the extracted initial-scale value would shift.
  • Processes with several non-perturbative functions — semi-inclusive DIS with fragmentation functions, which carry their own scale $\mu_D$ — require all auxiliary scales to be equated; the paper concludes this is a requirement of the symmetries, not a numerical convenience.
  • For first-principles lattice QCD calculations, the operator definition of the PDF that carries the sum-rule constraints must be the single-scale one; multi-scale scheme modifications would propagate into the matching between lattice-calculable objects and lightcone PDFs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extension the authors leave implicit: their Eq. (71) suggests a concrete MHOU protocol — treat $\mu_F = \mu_F(\mu)$ as a path in the scale plane and require the total derivative of the truncated structure function along the path to stay small; this converts 'scale variation' from an ad hoc envelope into a path-sensitivity criterion.
  • If the forced-equality claim transfers to QCD — as the authors assert — the usual distinction between 'renormalization scheme' and 'factorization scheme' for collinear PDFs collapses: a PDF's scheme is fixed entirely by its UV renormalization, and any independent factorization scale is either a relabeling of $\mu$ or an explicit symmetry-violating modification.
  • A testable diagnostic follows for existing PDF sets: a global fit that enforces exact sum rules while evolving with a distinct factorization scale must be compensating somewhere — in its coefficient functions, its coupling evolution, or its fitted inputs — and comparing its DGLAP kernels against single-scale evolution would expose those compensations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies auxiliary-scale dependence in PDFs defined via operator matrix elements in generalized minimal-subtraction schemes. It argues that simultaneously requiring RG invariance, Ward identities, and the quark-number and momentum sum rules leaves no freedom to introduce an independent factorization scale: all auxiliary scales must coincide (Eq. (54), plus the coupling scale in gauge theories via Eq. (60)). The explicit demonstration is in a massive Yukawa theory: O(a_g) computations of the quark-in-quark and scalar-in-quark PDFs, with analytic integrals in Appendix A, yield Eqs. (51)-(52), from which mu_q = mu_pdf,qq = mu_pdf,sq follows. A short paragraph and Fig. 3 are used to extend this to mu_s = mu_q at O(a_g^2). The paper then argues that separate mu and mu_F variation in MHOU estimates or global fits is inconsistent unless sum-rule corrections, coupling shifts, and Ward-identity constraints are simultaneously applied.

Significance. If the claim holds, it is a substantive observation about the meaning of factorization-scale variation in QCD phenomenology and about the consistency of multi-scale MS-type schemes with PDF sum rules. The paper's strengths are explicit, self-contained O(a_g) computations, the analytic Appendix A integrals that allow the sum-rule violations to be checked directly, and a clear distinction between operator-defined PDFs and track-B constructions where sum rules are imposed by fiat. The main limitation is that the decisive O(a_g^2) step and the QCD/Wilson-line generalization are asserted rather than computed.

major comments (2)
  1. [§VI.A, Eq. (54)] The central equality mu_s = mu_q is introduced by the paragraph following Eq. (52) with 'Considering the next order in a_g, it becomes clear...' and a reference to Fig. 3, but no O(a_g^2) computation, counterterm matching, or analytic expression is given. Eq. (54) is the quantitative content of the abstract's unconditional claim that the scales are forced to be equal. Before this step, the O(a_g) results in Eqs. (51)-(52) establish only mu_q = mu_pdf,qq = mu_pdf,sq. A weaker condition such as mu_s = mu_pdf,sq, or a condition involving the coupling scale, would leave Eq. (54) overconstrained. Please supply the O(a_g^2) calculation or revise the claim to a conjecture and soften the abstract and Sec. VIII accordingly.
  2. [§VI opening and §VI.B, Eq. (60)] The transfer of the Yukawa-theory result to QCD is asserted in the opening paragraph of Sec. VI ('general consequences of UV renormalization in any finite-distance renormalizable theory'), but the only gauge-theory check is the O(a_g) Ward identity Z_1 = Z_q (Eq. (60)). No argument is provided that the O(a_g^2) cancellation pattern, including the role of Wilson lines and the non-abelian vertex, is identical. Since the QCD conclusion is the paper's headline, this is a correctness-risk gap. A concrete test would be to repeat the O(a_g^2) momentum-sum-rule check in the Yukawa+Maxwell theory, and, if the general claim is retained, to outline the non-abelian generalization.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§III, Eq. (16)] The product Z_q Z_pdf in Eq. (16) is written without an explicit convolution symbol, which is confusing because Z_pdf acts by convolution in ξ. Adding a convolution symbol would clarify the flavor-index structure.
  2. [§VI.A, Eq. (48)] The LSZ factor is written as (sqrt(residue))^2, but 'residue' is not defined. Define it, or replace by the standard on-shell wavefunction renormalization factor.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says 'Example graphs that require mu_q = mu_s', which states a conclusion rather than describing the content. Since no O(a_g^2) calculation is shown in the text, the caption should say 'Graphs relevant to the O(a_g^2) momentum-sum-rule check'.
  4. [§V.B, Eq. (39)] In Eq. (39), the notation Z_pdf,B,(1)(ϵ; mu; mu_F; ...) is used, but it is not stated whether the coefficient contains positive powers of epsilon. The surrounding text says it may, but the notation would benefit from an explicit statement that this is a generalized expansion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central scale-equality result is derived from explicit sum-rule calculations, not assumed. The main caveat is an uncomputed O(a_g^2) step, which is a correctness gap rather than a circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The paper defines the bare PDF from the operator matrix element (Eq. 12) and the generalized-MS counterterms (Eqs. 9, 17, 25-27, 44-47), then computes the renormalized PDFs through O(a_g) (Eqs. 48-50). The sum rules are not imposed as inputs; Eqs. (51)-(52) are explicit results showing the violations 1 + (a_g/2) ln(mu_pdf,qq^2/mu_q^2) and 1 + (a_g/6) ln(mu_pdf,qq^2/mu_pdf,sq^2) + (a_g/2) ln(mu_pdf,sq^2/mu_q^2). Requiring these to equal 1 is a derived condition, giving Eq. (53), not an input. The paper explicitly contrasts 'derived' versus 'defined' properties in the track-B discussion (Sec. V B, Eq. 40 and text: 'properties like the sum rules are essentially defined rather than derived'), which is a check against circularity rather than an instance of it. Self-citations (Ref. [23] by Rogers, Ref. [11] by Whitehill) are not load-bearing: the Sec. VI calculation does not invoke them, and dropping them would not change Eqs. (51)-(54). Two caveats should be flagged, but neither is circularity: (1) the O(a_g^2) step that completes Eq. (54) is asserted, not demonstrated -- 'Considering the next order in a_g, it becomes clear that the preservation of the sum rules also requires mu_s = mu_q' with only a reference to Fig. 3 and no calculation; this is an omitted calculation / completeness risk. (2) The transfer from Yukawa theory to QCD is justified by assertion -- 'the relevant derivations are general consequences of UV renormalization in any finite-distance renormalizable theory' -- and the Ward-identity check is only at O(a_g) (Eq. 60). These are assumptions or gaps, not reductions of the conclusion to its own inputs. Hence the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis is self-contained at leading order in the Yukawa theory and transparent about the scheme parameters; the transfer to QCD and the O(a_g²) step are the least-supported links. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • µ_q (quark wavefunction renormalization scale)
    Scheme parameter introduced in Eq. (44) via A_q = (µ²/µ_q²)A in the generalized MS scheme; must equal µ to preserve sum rules.
  • µ_s (scalar wavefunction renormalization scale)
    Scheme parameter introduced in Eq. (44); the paper argues O(a_g²) sum rules force µ_s = µ_q.
  • µ_pdf,qq (quark-in-quark PDF counterterm scale)
    Scheme parameter introduced in Eq. (47); number sum rule (Eq. 51) forces it to equal µ_q.
  • µ_pdf,sq (scalar-in-quark PDF counterterm scale)
    Scheme parameter introduced in Eq. (47); momentum sum rule (Eq. 52) forces it to equal µ_q and µ_pdf,qq.
  • µ_e (gauge coupling renormalization scale)
    Scheme parameter introduced in Eq. (57) in the gauge extension; Ward identity forces A_q = A_e, hence µ_q = µ_e.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Bare theory RG invariance and counterterm structure in dimensional regularization (Eqs. (9)-(10))
    Used in Sec. II to establish that bare quantities are RG invariant and that renormalized quantities inherit symmetries only when subtraction constants share a single scale.
  • domain assumption The factorization scale µ_F used in collinear calculations is equivalent to a generalized-MS rescaling of the PDF counterterm A constant (Eqs. (25)-(26))
    This identification in Sec. IV is the bridge between the standard phenomenological notion of factorization scale and the operator-level renormalization scheme analyzed in the paper.
  • domain assumption Results from the Yukawa theory transfer to QCD because they follow from UV renormalization alone, independent of confinement (Sec. VI opening)
    This is load-bearing for the abstract's claim that the conclusion applies to DIS and collinear factorization in QCD; it is argued, not proven.
  • standard math Ward identity Z_1 = Z_q must hold order by order (Sec. VI B, referencing Ref. [18])
    Used to force A_q = A_e and hence µ_q = µ_e in the gauge extension.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What are the consequences of independent factorization and renormalization scales?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2MHXQDMN

@misc{pith2026260801489,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What are the consequences of independent factorization and renormalization scales?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2MHXQDMN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01489}
}
read the original abstract

It is common for separate factorization and renormalization scales to be discussed in connection with phenomenological applications of QCD factorization theorems. We observe that simultaneously preserving renormalization group invariance, Ward identities, and the basic sum rules in the definitions of parton densities forces these scales to be equal. The statement applies to generalized pole subtraction schemes that use dimensional regularization and to collinear factorization theorems for basic processes like deep inelastic scattering. We discuss implications for estimating the effects of scale sensitivity in phenomenological calculations, consistent extractions of Standard Model parameters alongside parton densities in global QCD analyses, and generally connecting phenomenologically extracted parton densities to first principles non-perturbative techniques like lattice QCD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01489 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Generic Feynman diagrams corresponding to (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a–c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Example graphs that require [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In general, for quantum field theories that require renormalization, the renormalization scale for the PDFs must (at least) equal the scales of the regular wavefunction renormalization to preserve the sum rules, including the number and momentum sum rules

    work page

  2. [2]

    In theories with a gauge symmetry, preserving the Ward identities implies that the scale of the wavefunction renormalization must also equal the scale used to renormalize the gauge coupling

    work page

  3. [3]

    In multi-scale renormalization schemes, RG invariance imposes a non-trivial wavefunction renormalization scale dependence on the coupling since the wavefunction and coupling renormalization scales cannot be adjusted independently

    work page

  4. [4]

    Altogether, therefore, the advantages of keeping constraints from RG invariance, PDF sum rules, Ward identities, and a single-scale evolution for the coupling suggest that it is preferable to keep all auxiliary scales equal. 17 It is always possible to introduce any number of arbitrarily many factorization scalesµ F into the phenomenological analyses of P...

    work page

  5. [5]

    J. C. Collins,Foundations of Perturbative QCD(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011). 1, 4, 7

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Brock et al

    R. Brock et al. (CTEQ), Rev. Mod. Phys.67, 157 (1995). 2, 7, 15

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    A. D. Martin and M. G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 218 (2017), 1702.01663. 2 19

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    yadism Documentation,Scale variations(2026), accessed: 2026-02-09, URLhttps://yadism.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ implementation/scale-variations.html. 2

    work page 2026

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Lin et al., Prog

    H.-W. Lin et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.100, 107 (2018), 1711.07916. 2

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cichy and M

    K. Cichy and M. Constantinou, Adv. High Energy Phys.2019, 3036904 (2019), 1811.07248

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Constantinou et al., Prog

    M. Constantinou et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.121, 103908 (2021), 2006.08636. 2, 17

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Delorme, A

    S. Delorme, A. Kusina, A. Si´ odmok, and J. Whitehead, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 505 (2025), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 85, 1151 (2025)], 2501.18289. 2, 17

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Delorme, A

    S. Delorme, A. Kusina, A. Si´ odmok, and J. Whitehead (2026), 2606.23813. 2

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Courtoy and P

    A. Courtoy and P. M. Nadolsky, Phys. Rev. D103, 054029 (2021), 2011.10078. 2

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Whitehill (2026), 2604.28154

    R. Whitehill (2026), 2604.28154. 2

    2026 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Meng, The Annals of Applied Statistics12(2018)

    X.-L. Meng, The Annals of Applied Statistics12(2018). 2

    2018

  9. [17]

    Courtoy, J

    A. Courtoy, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, K. Xie, M. Yan, and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D107, 034008 (2023), 2205.10444. 2

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. C. Collins,Renormalization : An Introduction to Renormalization, the Renormalization Group and the Operator-Product Expansion, vol. 26 ofCambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984), ISBN 978-0-521-31177-9, 978-0-511-86739-2, 978...

    1984

  11. [19]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys.B126, 298 (1977). 4

    1977

  12. [20]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP46, 641 (1977)

    1977

  13. [21]

    V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.15, 438 (1972). 4

    1972

  14. [22]

    G. F. Sterman,An Introduction to quantum field theory(Cambridge University Press, 1993), ISBN 978-0-521-31132-8. 5, 13

    1993

  15. [23]

    R. K. Ellis, W. J. Stirling, and B. R. Webber,QCD and collider physics, vol. 8 (Cambridge University Press, 2011), ISBN 978-0-511-82328-2, 978-0-521-54589-1. 6, 7

    2011

  16. [24]

    Dissertori, I

    G. Dissertori, I. G. Knowles, and M. Schmelling,Quantum Chromodynamics: High energy experiments and theory(Oxford University Press, 2003), ISBN 978-0191004605

    2003

  17. [25]

    Devenish and A

    R. Devenish and A. Cooper-Sarkar,Deep inelastic scattering(OUP Oxford, 2004)

    2004

  18. [26]

    Campbell, J

    J. Campbell, J. Huston, and F. Krauss,The Black Book of Quantum Chromodynamics : a Primer for the LHC Era(Oxford University Press, 2018), ISBN 978-0-19-965274-7. 6

    2018

  19. [27]

    Collins, T

    J. Collins, T. C. Rogers, and N. Sato, Phys. Rev. D105, 076010 (2022), 2111.01170. 6, 8, 9

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J. C. Collins, Acta Phys. Polon. B34, 3103 (2003), hep-ph/0304122. 7

    2003 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Candido, S

    A. Candido, S. Forte, T. Giani, and F. Hekhorn, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 335 (2024), 2308.00025. 7

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B194, 445 (1982). 7, 8

    1982

  23. [31]

    Beenakker, C

    W. Beenakker, C. Borschensky, M. Kr¨ amer, A. Kulesza, E. Laenen, S. Marzani, and J. Rojo, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 53 (2016), 1510.00375. 8

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Curci, W

    G. Curci, W. Furmanski, and R. Petronzio, Nucl. Phys. B175, 27 (1980). 9

    1980

  25. [33]

    L. A. Harland-Lang and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 225 (2019), 1811.08434. 15

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    X. Chen, J. Cruz-Martinez, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and M. Jaquier, JHEP10, 066 (2016), 1607.08817. 15

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    d’Enterria et al., J

    D. d’Enterria et al., J. Phys. G51, 090501 (2024), 2203.08271. 15

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Cerci, Z

    S. Cerci, Z. S. Demiroglu, A. Deshpande, P. R. Newman, B. Schmookler, D. Sunar Cerci, and K. Wichmann, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1011 (2023), 2307.01183

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    J. Gao, L. Harland-Lang, and J. Rojo, Phys. Rept.742, 1 (2018), 1709.04922. 15

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Ablat, S

    A. Ablat, S. Dulat, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, K. Mohan, P. Nadolsky, D. Stump, and C. P. Yuan (2025), 2512.23792. 15

    2025

  31. [39]

    R. D. Ball, S. Carrazza, L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, Z. Kassabov, J. Rojo, E. Slade, and M. Ubiali (NNPDF), Eur. Phys. J. C78, 408 (2018), 1802.03398

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    R. D. Ball, A. Barontini, J. Cruz-Martinez, S. Forte, F. Hekhorn, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, and R. Stegeman (NNPDF), Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1001 (2025), 2506.13871

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Cridge, L

    T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 744 (2021), 2106.10289

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Alekhin, J

    S. Alekhin, J. Bl¨ umlein, S. Moch, and R. Placakyte, Phys. Rev. D96, 014011 (2017), 1701.05838. 15

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Amsler et al

    C. Amsler et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B667, 1 (2008). 15

    2008

  36. [44]

    de Florian et al

    D. de Florian et al. (LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group), CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr.2, 1 (2017), 1610.07922. 15

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Abdul Khalek et al

    R. Abdul Khalek et al. (NNPDF), Eur. Phys. J. C79, 931 (2019), 1906.10698. 15

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    R. D. Ball et al. (NNPDF), Eur. Phys. J. C84, 517 (2024), 2401.10319

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Bagnaschi, M

    E. Bagnaschi, M. Cacciari, A. Guffanti, and L. Jenniches, JHEP02, 133 (2015), 1409.5036

    2015 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Cacciari and N

    M. Cacciari and N. Houdeau, JHEP09, 039 (2011), 1105.5152

    2011 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Bonvini, Eur

    M. Bonvini, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 989 (2020), 2006.16293

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    F. J. Tackmann, JHEP08, 098 (2025), 2411.18606. 15

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Hampson and M

    C. Hampson and M. Guzzi, Phys. Rev. D113, 074008 (2026), 2512.22667. 16

    2026

  44. [52]

    P. M. Stevenson, Phys. Rev. D23, 2916 (1981). 16

    1981

  45. [53]

    P. M. Stevenson, Nucl. Phys. B944, 114635 (2019), 1904.07159

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    H. D. Politzer, Nucl. Phys. B194, 493 (1982)

    1982

  47. [55]

    P. M. Stevenson and H. D. Politzer, Nucl. Phys. B277, 758 (1986)

    1986

  48. [56]

    C. J. Maxwell and A. Mirjalili, Nucl. Phys. B577, 209 (2000), hep-ph/0002204

    2000 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Wu, J.-M

    X.-G. Wu, J.-M. Shen, B.-L. Du, X.-D. Huang, S.-Q. Wang, and S. J. Brodsky, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.108, 103706 (2019), 1903.12177

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Wu, J.-M

    X.-G. Wu, J.-M. Shen, B.-L. Du, and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D97, 094030 (2018), 1802.09154. 20

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Ma, X.-G

    H.-H. Ma, X.-G. Wu, Y. Ma, S. J. Brodsky, and M. Mojaza, Phys. Rev. D91, 094028 (2015), 1504.01260

    2015 arXiv

  52. [60]

    S. J. Brodsky, G. P. Lepage, and P. B. Mackenzie, Phys. Rev. D28, 228 (1983)

    1983

  53. [61]

    Deur, J.-M

    A. Deur, J.-M. Shen, X.-G. Wu, S. J. Brodsky, and G. F. de Teramond, Phys. Lett. B773, 98 (2017), 1705.02384. 16

    2017 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Graudenz, Nucl

    D. Graudenz, Nucl. Phys. B432, 351 (1994), hep-ph/9406274. 17

    1994 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Goyal, S.-O

    S. Goyal, S.-O. Moch, V. Pathak, N. Rana, and V. Ravindran, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 251902 (2024), 2312.17711. 17

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Bonino, T

    L. Bonino, T. Gehrmann, and G. Stagnitto, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 251901 (2024), 2401.16281. 17

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35, 2030002 (2020), 1912.04244. 17

    2020 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Ji, Phys

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

    2013 arXiv

  59. [67]

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

    2014 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Ma and J.-W

    Y.-Q. Ma and J.-W. Qiu, Phys. Rev. D98, 074021 (2018), 1404.6860. 17

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.