Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 97 references

Quest for an Understanding of Pion and Kaon Structure

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A nonperturbative QCD framework now predicts pion and kaon internal structure with no free parameters.

desk verdict A useful critical synthesis, but the central benchmark is the authors' own CSM+AO package, so the headline claims are programmatic rather than established. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07670 v1 pith:IOXZJU3P submitted 2026-08-07 hep-ph hep-exhep-latnucl-exnucl-th

Zhen-Ni Xu , Daniele Binosi , Craig D. Roberts , José Rodr\'{i}guez-Quintero This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-latnucl-exnucl-th
keywords pionkaonpartondistributionfunctionsemergenthadronmasscontinuumSchwingerfunctionmethodsquantumchromodynamicsDrell-YanprocesslatticeQCD
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

Pions and kaons are the lightest strongly interacting particles, and as near-Nambu-Goldstone bosons they are the cleanest windows onto the origin of hadron mass, yet their internal quark-and-gluon structure is still largely unmapped. This review argues that continuum Schwinger function methods, a nonperturbative approach to quantum chromodynamics, now predict all pion and kaon parton distribution functions — the probability densities for quarks and gluons to carry a given fraction of the hadron's momentum — with no free parameters. The central predictions are that the same dynamics that give hadrons their mass also shape these distributions, that Higgs-induced differences between pions and kaons are modest, and that the strange quark's valence support is shifted toward large momentum fraction relative to the up quark. The paper compares these predictions with empirical extractions, a recent global fit, and lattice QCD results, and concludes that only better data and better reaction models can settle the disagreements.

What carries the argument

The engine is the continuum Schwinger function framework: a truncated, symmetry-preserving system of integral equations for dressed quark and gluon propagators and bound-state amplitudes, which generates the hadron-scale valence distributions. An all-orders evolution scheme, built on a process-independent QCD effective charge, then carries those distributions to any larger scale, starting from a hadron scale at which valence partons carry all of the hadron's momentum. The large-$x$ endpoint identity, valence $(1-x)^2$ at the hadron scale, is the constraint that connects the predictions to QCD's vector-boson-exchange structure and is used to judge all other results. The comparison apparatus is the set of Mellin moments $\langle x^n\rangle$, the weighted integrals that give the $n$-th power of light-front momentum fraction; their ratios to the no-emergent-mass benchmark display the dilation signal.

What would settle it

Measure the kaon-to-pion Drell-Yan ratio $\bar{u}_K^V(x)/\bar{u}_\pi^V(x)$ at a resolving scale near 5 GeV out to $x\approx 0.8$. The continuum prediction is that this ratio flattens to a nonzero constant as $x\to 1$; the competing global fit falls to zero there. Data in that kinematic corner would discriminate the two.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the pointwise behavior of every pion and kaon parton distribution function can be predicted from quantum chromodynamics without fitted parameters, using continuum Schwinger function methods with a symmetry-preserving, nonperturbatively-improved truncation. From this framework the authors obtain the valence quark distributions at a hadron scale and evolve them with an all-orders effective-charge scheme to comparison scales. They find that pion and kaon structure is dominated by emergent hadron mass, the dynamical generation of mass that makes light quarks heavy inside hadrons: the no-emergent-mass benchmark curve is clearly dilated, the kaon's strange valence quark is modestly shifted toward $x=1$ relative to the up quark, the glue momentum fractions in pion and kaon are equal, and all valence distributions follow the large-$x$ power $(1-x)^2$ at the hadron scale. The paper then reads the current empirical, lattice, and fit results against these predictions, arguing that the available lattice moments contain internal inconsistencies, such as negative sea momentum, and that phenomenological fits that violate the large-$x$ power constraint disagree with QCD's vector-boson-exchange basis.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison rests on the assumption that the approximation used to solve the theory's equations, already tested on masses and other integrated properties of pions and kaons, remains reliable for the detailed momentum-sharing curves called parton distribution functions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Upcoming high-luminosity pion and kaon measurements should see the kaon-to-pion valence ratio approach a nonzero constant as $x\to 1$, not fall to zero.
  • The strange valence quark in the kaon should carry roughly 20 percent more valence support than the up quark, expressed as a shift toward $x=1$; this is the predicted Higgs modulation of emergent mass.
  • Glue momentum fractions in the pion and kaon should be equal to within small corrections, each near 0.41 at the 2 GeV scale.
  • Any global fit that violates the large-$x$ $(1-x)^2$ valence constraint is inconsistent with QCD's vector-boson-exchange dynamics and should be revised.
  • Current lattice moment results do not yet provide a reliable pointwise test; resolving disconnected contributions and physical-mass ensembles is a prerequisite for such a test.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension of the paper's comparison is to impose the large-$x$ power constraint in future global fits and compare the resulting fit quality with unconstrained fits; this would quantify how much of the disagreement is reaction-model dependence.
  • If the equal-glue-fraction prediction holds, the older picture of a pion with far more glue than the kaon would be ruled out; this can be tested with pion- and kaon-induced quarkonium production data at matched kinematics.
  • The paper's moment critique points to a concrete lattice target: report connected and disconnected contributions separately for each moment, since the apparent negative sea momentum in one calculation is an internal-consistency check.
  • The constant large-$x$ ratio prediction could be sharpened by estimating the power corrections that set the value of $x$ at which the plateau begins; the paper does not make that estimate.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is a status report on pion and kaon parton distribution functions (PDFs), comparing continuum Schwinger function method (CSM) predictions (the CoSMAO22 set), an 'empirical' extraction based on all-orders (AO) evolution, a simultaneous phenomenological fit (lJAM25), and recent lattice QCD determinations of Mellin moments. The paper argues that CSMs provide parameter-free predictions for all pion and kaon PDFs, that these predictions are corroborated by existing empirical information and by some lattice results, and that the main tensions are due to deficiencies in phenomenological fits (large-x behavior) and in current lattice extractions (e.g., positivity violation and uncontrolled systematics). The headline predictions are modest Higgs-induced differences between pion and kaon valence distributions, a roughly 20% shift of light-quark valence support toward small x in the kaon relative to the pion, and equal glue momentum fractions in pion and kaon. The paper concludes that current data are insufficient to test these predictions and that better QCD-connected reaction models are needed.

Significance. If the central claim is upheld, the paper provides the most complete current description of pion and kaon PDFs and identifies concrete, falsifiable benchmarks for upcoming experiments at EIC, AMBER, and EicC. The critical comparisons are a useful service to the community: the discussion of the lQCDB positivity problem from the n=1/n=2 moment pair, the large-x violation in the lJAM25 kaon-to-pion ratio, and the subjectivity of the lQCDA pointwise reconstructions are specific and largely well argued. The paper also makes explicit predictions, such as the equal pion/kaon glue momentum fraction and the constant large-x kaon/pion valence ratio, which can be tested. However, the strength of the headline claim exceeds what the manuscript demonstrates: the pointwise accuracy of the CSM truncation is asserted rather than quantified, and the 'empirical' benchmark shares both authors and the AO evolution scheme with the CSM predictions, so the agreement between them is not fully independent confirmation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Continuum DF Predictions] The central claim in the Summary that 'CSMs deliver parameter-free predictions for all pion and kaon parton distribution functions' rests on the assertion, in the paragraph following Eq. (7), that the predictions of Ref. [51] are 'based upon a nonperturbatively-improved truncation that has been validated in this way for pi,K observables.' As written, this validation concerns bulk observables such as masses and form factors, not the pointwise PDFs whose endpoint and low-x behavior are the subject of Figs. 2-7. PDFs are especially sensitive to the long-range and endpoint components of the wave function, which bulk observables constrain only weakly, and no truncation-order or independent-method check of the PDFs themselves is presented. The manuscript should either provide a quantitative estimate of the truncation sensitivity of the pointwise DFs, or explicitly soften the Summary claim to 'predictions of a specific truncation' with an associated systematic uncertainty. Without this, the 'parameter-free' label is misleading and the comparison curves in Figs. 3-7 are not error-controlled in the way the text implies.
  2. [Effective Charge, All-Orders Evolution, and Empirical DFs] The 'Empirical' benchmark (Ref. [50]) is not an independent confirmation of the CSM predictions. Ref. [50] shares authors with the CSM papers and, more importantly, uses the same AO evolution scheme developed by the same group, so the agreement between 'Empirical' and 'CoSMAO22' in Figs. 3-4 and Table I partly reflects a shared evolution prescription rather than independent evidence from data. The manuscript should either present an empirical extraction using an independent evolution scheme or clearly label the agreement as a cross-check within a common framework. This does not invalidate the predictions, but it weakens the narrative in the Summary that the CSM results are confirmed by empirical information.
  3. [Ratios Involving Kaon Valence Quark DFs] The comparison with lJAM25 in Fig. 5 is framed as evidence for the CSM predictions, but Eq. (6) is a large-x QCD constraint that the CSM construction satisfies by construction. The disagreement shown in Fig. 5 mainly demonstrates that the lJAM25 fit violates that QCD constraint, not that the CSM pointwise DFs are quantitatively accurate. The text should distinguish between 'the CSM framework is consistent with a QCD constraint' and 'the CSM pointwise predictions are verified by the available data,' since the second is not established by this comparison.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Predicted DF Mellin Moments for Pions and Kaons] Equation (10) is presented with a header row 'n 0 1 2 3 4 5 6' but the two subsequent rows contain only four and three entries, respectively; the alignment of columns is ambiguous. Please reformat the table so that each n-value has a clear entry or an explicit dash.
  2. [Figures 3 and 4] The legend label 'CosMA022' is inconsistent with the text and Ref. [51], which use 'CoSMAO22'; please correct the spelling for consistency.
  3. [DF Moments from Lattice-regularised QCD] The phrase 'objective extraction of m∈Ovalence-quark moments is problematic' appears to contain a typographical error; it should likely read 'm∈odd valence-quark moments' or similar.
  4. [DF Moments from Lattice-regularised QCD] The sentence discussing Ref. [86] states that 'only connected contributions to operator matrix elements were considered'; this is important, but the following sentence beginning 'The omission of disconnected diagrams means that objective extraction...' is placed on the same line as the preceding text in the manuscript and may be missed. Please separate it for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No equation-level circularity; shared in-group AO evolution is a benchmark caveat, not a forced reduction.

full rationale

I found no step in which a prediction is equivalent by construction to an input, nor any fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The CSM valence DFs cited from Ref. [51] are computed from Dyson-Schwinger/Bethe-Salpeter kernels, not fitted to pion or kaon PDF data, and the paper does not derive its pointwise predictions from the empirical curves. The 'empirical' analysis of Ref. [50] is data-constrained, and the lJAM25 and lQCD comparisons provide external benchmarks that are not generated by the same CSM package. Equation (6), the large-x power beta=2, is imported from QCD large-x analyses cited as Refs. [67,28], not defined by the CSM result, so the disagreement between CSM and lJAM25 at x near 1 is a constraint test rather than a circularity. The main caveat is that the AO evolution scheme used for both the CSM predictions and the 'empirical' curves originates in the same group's earlier work, Refs. [43,44]; their mutual agreement is therefore less independent than it might appear. However, sharing an evolution scheme is not an equation-level reduction of the predictions to the inputs: the central numerical content, including the 20% valence shift and the comparison with the no-ESIP curve, comes from the hadron-scale DFs of Ref. [51], not from the comparison procedure. The paper itself concedes the key limitation in the Summary: 'this uncertainty means that CSM predictions remain untested by data.' I therefore score the paper low: the self-citation load is a caveat about independent confirmation, not evidence that the derivation is circular.

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

The paper itself introduces no new free parameters or entities. Its conclusions depend on framework assumptions from prior work, chiefly the AO evolution scheme, G-parity symmetry, and the validity of the CSM truncation. These are stated or implicit in the text and are the main things a reader would need to scrutinize before accepting the review's evaluative claims.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Validity of all-orders (AO) evolution and existence of a universal hadron scale at which glue and sea DFs vanish.
    Introduced in the Effective Charge, All-Orders Evolution section; underpins the empirical benchmark and the large-x evolution constraints used against lJAM25.
  • domain assumption G-parity symmetry is a good approximation for pion and kaon valence DFs.
    Used in Eq. (4) to relate u and dbar in the pion and u and sbar in the kaon, and feeds the momentum fraction identities in Eq. (5).
  • domain assumption The nonperturbatively-improved CSM truncation is a validated approximation for pi,K observables, including PDFs.
    Invoked in the Continuum DF Predictions section; the treatment of CSM results as trustworthy predictions depends on this assumption.
  • standard math Parton distribution functions are non-negative number densities.
    Used to reject lQCDB moment combinations that imply negative sea quark momentum fractions; this is a standard field-theoretic property.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quest for an Understanding of Pion and Kaon Structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IOXZJU3P

@misc{pith2026260807670,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quest for an Understanding of Pion and Kaon Structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IOXZJU3P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07670}
}
read the original abstract

The emergence of massless (Nambu-Goldstone) bosons in association with a dynamically global broken symmetry is a long known and widespread phenomenon in physics. However, practically nothing is known about the expressions of Nambu--Goldstone boson character on the internal structure of these bound states. Indeed, their structure is often ignored. In strong interactions, pions and kaons are the (would-be) Nambu-Goldstone bosons and experiments underway or planned at existing or anticipated high-energy, high-luminosity facilities will gather data that it is hoped will enable maps to be drawn of their internal structure. Meanwhile, theory and phenomenology find themselves in something of a quagmire. Herein, we provide a snapshot of the current status, highlighting issues under debate and identifying areas that deserve greater attention so that best use can be made of what is likely to be a huge volume of data delivered in the next decade or so.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07670 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The kaon, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. CSM (CoSMAO) predictions [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. In-pion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. In-kaon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Species-separated light-front momentum fractions for the pion (upper) and kaon (lower). Legend: [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [50]

    Xu Z N, Binosi D, Chen C, Raya K, Roberts C D and Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero J 2025 Kaon distribution functions from empirical informationPhys. Lett. B865139451

    work page 2025

  2. [51]

    Cui Z F, Ding M, Gao F, Raya K, Binosi D, Chang L, Roberts C D, Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero J and Schmidt S M 2020 Kaon and pion parton distributionsEur. Phys. J. C801064

    work page 2020

  3. [1]

    Fritzsch H, Gell-Mann M and Leutwyler H 1973 Advan- tages of the Color Octet Gluon PicturePhys. Lett. B47 365–368

    1973

  4. [2]

    A Sociological History of Particle Physics(University of Chicago Press) ISBN 978-0-85224-458-6

    Pickering A 1984Constructing Quarks. A Sociological History of Particle Physics(University of Chicago Press) ISBN 978-0-85224-458-6

  5. [3]

    Politzer H D 2005 The dilemma of attributionProc. Nat. Acad. Sci.1027789–7793

    2005

  6. [4]

    Wilczek F 2005 Asymptotic freedom: From paradox to paradigmProc. Nat. Acad. Sci.1028403–8413

    2005

  7. [5]

    Gross D J 2005 The discovery of asymptotic freedom and the emergence of QCDProc. Nat. Acad. Sci.1029099– 9108

    2005

  8. [6]

    Roberts R G 1994The Structure of the proton: Deep in- elastic scatteringCambridge Monographs on Mathemat- ical Physics (Cambridge University Press) ISBN 978-0- 521-44944-1, 978-1-139-24244-8

Show all 97 references
  1. [7]

    Ellis R K, Stirling W J and Webber B R 1991QCD and collider physics(Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, UK)

  2. [8]

    Roberts C D, Richards D G, Horn T and Chang L 2021 Insights into the emergence of mass from studies of pion and kaon structureProg. Part. Nucl. Phys.120103883

    2021

  3. [9]

    Arrington Jet al2021 Revealing the structure of light pseudoscalar mesons at the electron–ion colliderJ. Phys. G48075106

  4. [10]

    Ch´ avez J M M, Bertone V, De Soto Borrero F, Defurne M, Mezrag C, Moutarde H, Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero J and Segovia J 2022 Accessing the Pion 3D Structure at US and China Electron-Ion CollidersPhys. Rev. Lett.128 202501

    2022

  5. [11]

    Quintans C 2022 The New AMBER Experiment at the CERN SPSFew Body Syst.6372

    2022

  6. [12]

    Lu Z, Yu Z, Lin T, Liang Y T, Wang R, Chang W and Xiong W 2026 Feasibility study of pion and kaon struc- ture via the Sullivan process at the EicCPhys. Rev. D 113114002

    2026

  7. [13]

    Chang W C, Peng J C, Platchkov S and Sawada T 2024 Constraining kaon PDFs from Drell-Yan and J/ψpro- ductionPhys. Lett. B855138820

    2024

  8. [14]

    Chang W C, Meyer-Conde M, Peng J C, Platchkov S and Sawada T 2025 Probing pion valence quark distribu- tion with beam-charge asymmetry of pion-induced J/ψ productionPhys. Lett. B866139582

    2025

  9. [15]

    Englert F 2014 Nobel Lecture: The BEH mechanism and its scalar bosonRev. Mod. Phys.86843

    2014

  10. [16]

    Higgs P W 2014 Nobel Lecture: Evading the Goldstone theoremRev. Mod. Phys.86851

    2014

  11. [17]

    Roberts C D 2017 Perspective on the origin of hadron massesFew Body Syst.585

    2017

  12. [18]

    Navas Set al2024 Review of particle physicsPhys. Rev. D110030001

  13. [19]

    Yukawa H 1935 On the interaction of elementary particles Proc. Phys. Math. Soc. Jap.1748–57

    1935

  14. [20]

    Ding M, Roberts C D and Schmidt S M 2023 Emergence of Hadron Mass and StructureParticles657–120

    2023

  15. [21]

    Achenbach P, Carman D S, Gothe R W, Joo K, Mokeev V I and Roberts C D 2025 Electroexcitation of Nucleon Resonances and the Emergence of Hadron MassSymme- try171106

    2025

  16. [22]

    Binosi D 2026 Gauge Symmetry Beyond Perturbation Theory: BRST and anti-BRST Structure, Background Fields, and Infrared Dynamics of Yang–Mills Theory Particles959

    2026

  17. [23]

    Roberts C D and Schmidt S M 2020 Reflections upon the Emergence of Hadronic MassEur. Phys. J. ST229 12 3319–3340

    2020

  18. [24]

    Diehl M, Feldmann T, Jakob R and Kroll P 2001 The overlap representation of skewed quark and gluon distri- butionsNucl. Phys. B59633–65

    2001

  19. [25]

    Rept.301299–486

    Brodsky S J, Pauli H C and Pinsky S S 1998 Quantum chromodynamics and other field theories on the light cone Phys. Rept.301299–486

    1998

  20. [26]

    Phys.4489–495

    Brodsky S J, Deur A and Roberts C D 2022 Artificial dynamical effects in quantum field theoryNature Rev. Phys.4489–495

    2022

  21. [27]

    Candido A, Forte S, Giani T and Hekhorn F 2024 On the positivity of MS parton distributionsEur. Phys. J. C84 335

    2024

  22. [28]

    Cui Z F, Ding M, Morgado J M, Raya K, Binosi D, Chang L, Papavassiliou J, Roberts C D, Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero J and Schmidt S M 2022 Concerning pion parton distribu- tionsEur. Phys. J. A5810

    2022

  23. [29]

    Novikov Iet al2020 Parton Distribution Functions of the Charged Pion Within The xFitter FrameworkPhys. Rev. D102014040

  24. [30]

    Pasquini B, Rodini S and Venturini S 2023 Valence quark, sea, and gluon content of the pion from the parton dis- tribution functions and the electromagnetic form factor Phys. Rev. D107114023

    2023

  25. [31]

    Kotz L, Courtoy A, Nadolsky P and Ponce-Chavez M 2025 Epistemic and nuclear uncertainties for the parton distributions of the pionPhys. Rev. D112L071502

    2025

  26. [32]

    Barry P C, Ji C R, Melnitchouk W, Sato N and Steffens F (JAM) 2025 First simultaneous global QCD analysis of kaon and pion parton distributions with lattice QCD constraints (Preprint2510.11979)

    2025 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Whalley M R, Bourilkov D and Group R C 2005 The Les Houches accord PDFs (LHAPDF) and LHAGLUE HERA and the LHC: A Workshop on the Implications of HERA and LHC Physics (Startup Meeting, CERN, 26- 27 March 2004; Midterm Meeting, CERN, 11-13 October

    2005

  28. [34]

    Badier Jet al1980 Measurement of theK −/π− structure function ratio using the Drell-Yan processPhys. Lett. B 93354

  29. [35]

    Alexandrou C, Bacchio S, Cloet I, Constantinou M, Had- jiyiannakou K, Koutsou G and Lauer C 2021 Pion and kaon⟨x 3⟩from lattice QCD and PDF reconstruction from Mellin momentsPhys. Rev. D104054504

    2021

  30. [36]

    (in russian)Sov

    Dokshitzer Y L 1977 Calculation of the structure func- tions for deep inelastic scattering ande + e− annihilation by perturbation theory in quantum chromodynamics. (in russian)Sov. Phys. JETP46641–653

    1977

  31. [37]

    Gribov V N and Lipatov L N 1971 Deep inelastic electron scattering in perturbation theoryPhys. Lett. B3778–80

    1971

  32. [38]

    Lipatov L N 1975 The parton model and perturbation theorySov. J. Nucl. Phys.2094–102

    1975

  33. [39]

    Altarelli G and Parisi G 1977 Asymptotic Freedom in Parton LanguageNucl. Phys. B126298–318

    1977

  34. [40]

    Grunberg G 1980 Renormalization Group Improved Per- turbative QCDPhys. Lett. B9570 [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B 110, 501 (1982)]

    1982

  35. [41]

    Grunberg G 1984 Renormalization Scheme Independent QCD and QED: The Method of Effective ChargesPhys. Rev. D292315

    1984

  36. [42]

    Deur A, Brodsky S J and Roberts C D 2024 QCD Run- ning Couplings and Effective ChargesProg. Part. Nucl. Phys.134104081

    2024

  37. [43]

    Yin P L, Xu Y Z, Cui Z F, Roberts C D and Rodr ´ ıguez- Quintero J 2023 All-Orders Evolution of Parton Distri- butions: Principle, Practice, and PredictionsChin. Phys. Lett.Express40091201

    2023

  38. [44]

    Cui Z F, Zhang J L, Binosi D, de Soto F, Mezrag C, Papavassiliou J, Roberts C D, Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero J, Segovia J and Zafeiropoulos S 2020 Effective charge from lattice QCDChin. Phys. C44083102

    2020

  39. [45]

    Lu Y, Xu Y Z, Raya K, Roberts C D and Rodr ´ ıguez- Quintero J 2024 Pion distribution functions from low- order Mellin momentsPhys. Lett. B850138534

    2024

  40. [46]

    Lee T D and Yang C N 1956 Charge Conjugation, a New Quantum NumberG, and Selection Rules Concerning a Nucleon Anti-nucleon SystemNuovo Cim.3749–753

    1956

  41. [47]

    Conway J Set al1989 Experimental study of muon pairs produced by 252-GeV pions on tungstenPhys. Rev. D39 92–122

  42. [48]

    Aicher M, Sch¨ afer A and Vogelsang W 2010 Soft-Gluon Resummation and the Valence Parton Distribution Func- tion of the PionPhys. Rev. Lett.105252003

    2010

  43. [49]

    Chang L, Mezrag C, Moutarde H, Roberts C D, Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero J and Tandy P C 2014 Basic features of the pion valence-quark distribution functionPhys. Lett. B73723–29

    2014

  44. [52]

    Wang X, Chang L, Ding M, Raya K and Roberts C D 2026 Symmetry Constraints on Pion Valence Structure Chin. Phys. Lett.43070203

    2026

  45. [53]

    Rept.9101–114

    Dupuis N, Canet L, Eichhorn A, Metzner W, Pawlowski J M, Tissier M and Wschebor N 2021 The nonperturba- tive functional renormalization group and its applications Phys. Rept.9101–114

    2021

  46. [54]

    Raya K, Bashir A, Binosi D, Roberts C D and Rodr ´ ıguez- Quintero J 2024 Pseudoscalar Mesons and Emergent MassFew Body Syst.6560

    2024

  47. [55]

    Yao Z Q, Binosi D and Roberts C D 2024 Onset of scaling violation in pion and kaon elastic electromagnetic form factorsPhys. Lett. B855138823

    2024

  48. [56]

    Xing H Y, Bian W H, Cui Z F and Roberts C D 2025 Kaon and pion fragmentation functionsEur. Phys. J. C 851305

    2025

  49. [57]

    Xiao Y Y, Xu Z N, Yao Z Q, Roberts C D and Rodr ´ ıguez- Quintero J 2026 Orbital angular momentum in the pion and kaon: Rest-frame and light-frontPhys. Lett. B876 140361

    2026

  50. [58]

    Maris P and Roberts C D 1997πandKmeson Bethe- Salpeter amplitudesPhys. Rev. C563369–3383

  51. [59]

    Politzer H D 1976 Effective Quark Masses in the Chiral LimitNucl. Phys. B117397

    1976

  52. [60]

    de Paula W, Ydrefors E, Nogueira Alvarenga J H, Fred- erico T and Salm` e G 2022 Parton distribution function in a pion with Minkowskian dynamicsPhys. Rev. D105 L071505

    2022

  53. [61]

    Liu W Y, Shuryak E and Zahed I 2023 Hadronic struc- ture on the light-front. VII. Pions and kaons and their partonic distributionsPhys. Rev. D107094024

    2023

  54. [62]

    Forshaw J and Sandapen R 2025 Holographic analysis of the pionPhys. Rev. D111034024 (Preprint2501.00526)

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Lan J, Chen J, Zhu Z, Mondal C, Zhao X and Vary J P 13 (BLFQ) 2025 Strange mesons with one dynamical gluon: A light-front approachPhys. Lett. B868139654

    2025

  56. [64]

    Puhan S 2026 An Analysis on the Parton Distribution Functions of Heavy Mesons – arXiv:2605.17389 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Binosi D, Chang L, Papavassiliou J and Roberts C D 2015 Bridging a gap between continuum-QCD andab initio predictions of hadron observablesPhys. Lett. B742183– 188

    2015

  58. [66]

    Ferreira M N and Papavassiliou J 2023 Gauge Sector Dy- namics in QCDParticles6312–363

    2023

  59. [67]

    Brodsky S J, Burkardt M and Schmidt I 1995 Pertur- bative QCD constraints on the shape of polarized quark and gluon distributionsNucl. Phys. B441197–214

    1995

  60. [68]

    Roberts C D and Williams A G 1994 Dyson-Schwinger equations and their application to hadronic physicsProg. Part. Nucl. Phys.33477–575

    1994

  61. [69]

    Munczek H J 1995 Dynamical chiral symmetry break- ing, Goldstone’s theorem and the consistency of the Schwinger-Dyson and Bethe-Salpeter EquationsPhys. Rev. D524736–4740

    1995

  62. [70]

    Bender A, Roberts C D and von Smekal L 1996 Goldstone Theorem and Diquark Confinement Beyond Rainbow- Ladder ApproximationPhys. Lett. B3807–12

    1996

  63. [71]

    Bicudo P, Cotanch S, Llanes-Estrada F J, Maris P, Ribeiro E and Szczepaniak A 2002 Chirally symmetric quark description of low energyππscatteringPhys. Rev. D65076008

    2002

  64. [72]

    Ding M, Raya K, Binosi D, Chang L, Roberts C D and Schmidt S M 2020 Symmetry, symmetry breaking, and pion parton distributionsPhys. Rev. D101054014

    2020

  65. [73]

    Lepage G P and Brodsky S J 1980 Exclusive Processes in Perturbative Quantum ChromodynamicsPhys. Rev. D222157–2198

    1980

  66. [74]

    Yao Z Q, Xu Z N, Xiao Y Y, Roberts C D and Rodr ´ ıguez- Quintero J 2026 Symmetry-preserving calculation of pion light-front wave functions – arXiv:2512.13938 [hep-ph]

    2026

  67. [75]

    Wilson K G 1974 Confinement of quarksPhys. Rev. D 102445–2459

    1974

  68. [76]

    China Phys

    Ji X 2014 Parton Physics from Large-Momentum Effec- tive Field TheorySci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.57 1407–1412

    2014

  69. [77]

    Radyushkin A V 2017 Quasi-parton distribution func- tions, momentum distributions, and pseudo-parton dis- tribution functionsPhys. Rev. D96034025

    2017

  70. [78]

    Ma Y Q and Qiu J W 2018 Exploring Partonic Struc- ture of Hadrons Using ab initio Lattice QCD Calculations Phys. Rev. Lett.120022003

    2018

  71. [79]

    Sufian R S, Egerer C, Karpie J, Edwards R G, Jo´ o B, Ma Y Q, Orginos K, Qiu J W and Richards D G 2020 Pion Valence Quark Distribution from Current-Current Correlation in Lattice QCDPhys. Rev. D102054508

    2020

  72. [80]

    Lin H W 2025 Mapping parton distributions of hadrons with lattice QCDProg. Part. Nucl. Phys.144104177

    2025

  73. [81]

    Martinelli G and Sachrajda C T 1987 A Lattice Calcu- lation of the Second Moment of the Pion’s Distribution AmplitudePhys. Lett. B190151–156

    1987

  74. [82]

    Rev.1791499–1512

    Wilson K G 1969 Nonlagrangian models of current alge- braPhys. Rev.1791499–1512

    1969

  75. [83]

    Francis A, Fritzsch P, Karur R, Kim J, Pederiva G, Pefkou D A, Rago A, Shindler A, Walker-Loud A and Zafeiropoulos S 2026 Moments of parton distribution functions of the pion from lattice QCD using gradient flowPhys. Rev. D113074520 (Preprint2510.26738)

    2026

  76. [84]

    Alexandrou Cet al(Extended Twisted Mass) 2025 Quark and Gluon Momentum Fractions in the Pion and in the KaonPhys. Rev. Lett.134131902

    2025

  77. [85]

    Alexandrou C, Bacchio S, Jana P, Petschlies M, Cha- con L A R, Spanoudes G, Steffens F, Urbach C and Wenger U 2026 Higher Mellin Moments of the Unpolar- ized PDF of the Pion and the Kaon from Lattice QCD – arXiv:2605.29998 [hep-lat]

    2026

  78. [86]

    Miller J, Torsiello J, Cichy K, Constantinou M and Del- mar J 2026 Mellin Moments of Pion and Kaon Unpolar- ized PDFs from Nonlocal Operators in Lattice QCD – arXiv:2606.28102 [hep-lat]

    2026 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Pascual P and Tarrach R 1984QCD: Renormalization for the Practitioner, Lecture Notes in Physicsvol 194 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin)

  80. [88]

    Lu Y, Chang L, Raya K, Roberts C D and Rodr ´ ıguez- Quintero J 2022 Proton and pion distribution functions in counterpointPhys. Lett. B830137130

    2022

  81. [89]

    Chang W C, Peng J C, Platchkov S and Sawada T 2020 Constraining gluon density of pions at largexby pion- inducedJ/ψproductionPhys. Rev. D102054024

    2020

  82. [90]

    Sutton P J, Martin A D, Roberts R G and Stirling W J 1992 Parton distributions for the pion extracted from Drell-Yan and prompt photon experimentsPhys. Rev. D452349–2359

    1992

  83. [91]

    Gl¨ uck M, Reya E and Schienbein I 1999 Pionic parton distributions revisitedEur. Phys. J. C10313–317

    1999

  84. [92]

    Chen C, Chang L, Roberts C D, Wan S and Zong H S 2016 Valence-quark distribution functions in the kaon and pionPhys. Rev. D93074021

    2016

  85. [93]

    Chang L and Roberts C D 2021 Regarding the distribu- tion of glue in the pionChin. Phys. Lett.38081101

    2021

  86. [94]

    Han C, Kou W, Wang R and Chen X 2024 Gluon dis- tribution and mass decomposition of the pion and kaon Eur. Phys. J. C84389

    2024

  87. [95]

    NieMiera A, Good W and Lin H W 2025 Kaon gluon parton distribution and momentum fraction from 2+1+1 lattice QCD with high statisticsPhys. Rev. D112074504

    2025

  88. [96]

    Kaur S and Mondal C 2025 Gluon distributions in the pionPhys. Rev. D112114015

    2025

  89. [2004]

    – hep-ph/0508110pp 575–581

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.