Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 70 references

Sensitivity of Double Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering observables to Generalized Parton Distributions

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read DDVCS observables can read the singlet GPD combination directly at any x=ξ′, freeing GPD extraction from the on-shell diagonal of DVCS/TCS, and the projected measurements at fixed-target and collider luminosities could make that access…

desk verdict A solid, honest DDVCS feasibility study whose formal core holds, but whose quantitative model-sensitivity claims rest on an explicit toy-model extension that the paper itself flags as unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02346 v1 pith:45YMX3JI submitted 2025-02-04 hep-ph nucl-ex

J. S. Alvarado , M. Hoballah , E. Voutier This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-ex
keywords doubledeeplyvirtualComptonscatteringgeneralizedpartondistributionsformfactorsbeamspinasymmetrytargetchargeelectron-ioncollider
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

Double Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering (DDVCS) removes the on-shell constraint that pins GPD experiments to the diagonal line x=±ξ, so the same process can probe a generalized parton distribution at two independent values, ξ′ and ξ. The paper argues that, at leading order and twist 2, the imaginary part of the DDVCS Compton form factor directly measures the singlet combination F+ at x=ξ′, making the off-diagonal GPD region experimentally accessible. Using polarized electron/positron beams and a polarized proton target, the authors construct four asymmetry observables that weight different GPD combinations and show that several current GPD models predict large, sometimes sign-changing, amplitudes in the (ξ′, ξ) plane. They then present realistic statistical projections for 11 and 22 GeV fixed-target runs and for a future electron-ion collider, concluding that the spin-dependent DDVCS observables are measurable and that the data would discriminate among the models, with H dominating most amplitudes and H̃ contributing in target-polarized cases.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the leading-order, twist-2 Compton form factor F(ξ′, ξ, t) and its dispersion relation, Eq. (1), whose imaginary part selects the singlet GPD combination F+ at x=ξ′; the four asymmetry observables (BSA, TSA, DSA, BCA) with the projection identities of Eqs. (11)–(14) that map each asymmetry moment onto a specific combination of CFFs; and the t-dependent double-distribution ansatz of Appendix A that extends the KM/EKM model into the ξ≠ξ′ region by keeping only linear terms in the profile variable, rendering the integrals analytic in terms of Appell hypergeometric functions.

What would settle it

A single fixed-target run that measures the beam-spin asymmetry as a function of ξ′ at fixed ξ (e.g., one bin of Fig. 11a) would test the ansatz: if the measured amplitude is consistent with zero where the models predict a few percent, or shows the opposite sign of the expected ξ′ → 0 crossing, the extended double-distribution ansatz for the off-diagonal region is ruled out. The same measurement, interpreted through Eq. (1), would also directly verify whether Im F equals the model's F+(ξ′, ξ, t).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the leading-order imaginary part of the DDVCS Compton form factor, Im F(ξ′, ξ, t) = −π F+(ξ′, ξ, t), gives a direct, model-independent reading of the singlet GPD combination at x=ξ′, while the two skewness parameters ξ′ and ξ remain independent. This lifts the DVCS/TCS limitation, where the on-shell conditions force x=±ξ and only the diagonal GPD can be reached. Building on this identity, the paper shows that the beam-spin, target-spin, double-spin, and beam-charge asymmetries of ep→epℓ+ℓ− select different chiral-even GPD combinations—typically dominated by H, with H̃ entering through target polarization—and that the amplitudes differ appreciably among established GPD models in the ξ≠±ξ′ region. Feasibility projections for high-luminosity fixed-target experiments and a future electron-ion collider indicate that the asymmetries could be measured with sufficient precision to see the predicted sign changes around ξ′=0 and to distinguish among the models.

Load-bearing premise

The model-sensitivity and feasibility conclusions depend on an unvalidated ansatz for GPDs when ξ≠ξ′: the paper extends the KM/EKM model with a t-dependent double distribution (Appendix A) whose analytic integrability is bought by keeping only linear terms in the profile variable, and it concedes that 'the behavior of GPDs in the ξ ≠ ξ′ region is unknown in the absence of DDVCS experimental data'.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DDVCS asymmetries can map quark GPDs off the diagonal x=±ξ, enabling a genuinely two-dimensional scan of the (ξ′, ξ) GPD plane.
  • The beam-spin and double-spin asymmetries are dominated by the unpolarized GPD H over most of the phase space, while the target-spin asymmetry gives access to the polarized GPD H̃, making the target-polarized observables the clean probe of H̃.
  • At 11 GeV, the fixed-target acceptance populates mainly the timelike (TCS-like) region; at 22 GeV the experiment reaches both timelike and spacelike regions, so the two energies together should reveal the predicted sign change of the asymmetries across ξ′=0.
  • With the assumed luminosities, BSA and DSA are measurable accurately, while TSA and BCA become feasible when their amplitudes exceed about 5%, which is enough to distinguish the tested GPD models in the cells with the largest model spread.
  • At a future electron-ion collider, the small-ξ, small-ξ′ kinematics simplify the CFF combinations, and the beam-spin asymmetry can still access H at xB down to ~10^-4, although target-polarized and beam-charge asymmetries are expected to be too small to measure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the imaginary-part identity is exact at leading twist, one could invert the BSA measurement directly to obtain Im[H] + ... at each (ξ′, ξ) point, turning DDVCS into a point-by-point GPD measurement rather than a fit of CFF convolutions; the paper demonstrates sensitivity but does not develop this direct-extraction algorithm.
  • The analytic extension of the KM/EKM model keeps only linear terms in the double-distribution profile; comparing the resulting GPDs with a nonlinear extension or with lattice QCD evaluations in the ξ≠ξ′ region would quantify the systematic bias in the claimed model-discrimination power.
  • The predicted TSA sign change between VGG-type and KM-like models appears where the H and H̃ contributions balance; a dedicated low-ξ′ TSA measurement would therefore be a direct discriminator between competing axial-vector GPD parametrizations, which is a sharper test than the H-dominated BSA.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies Double Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering (DDVCS) as a channel for accessing Generalized Parton Distributions (GPDs) at independent values of the two skewness parameters ξ and ξ′, going beyond the DVCS (ξ=ξ′) and TCS (ξ=−ξ′) lines. Using the standard LO twist-2 Compton form factor (CFF) formalism, the authors construct beam spin, target spin, double spin, and beam charge asymmetries for polarized electron/positron beams on a polarized proton target. They implement several GPD models (VGG, GK, and a new extension of the KM/EKM model to ξ≠ξ′) and compute DDVCS cross-sections with the EpIC generator, including detector acceptance and efficiency effects for the JLab CLAS12/µCLAS and SoLIDµ setups and for the EIC. The main quantitative results are model predictions for the asymmetry amplitudes in (ξ′,ξ) bins and statistical-error projections for the proposed measurements, with emphasis on sign changes of Im[H] around ξ′=0 and on the dominance of H and H̃ in different observables.

Significance. If the main claims hold, the paper provides a useful step toward establishing DDVCS as a complementary probe of GPDs in the ξ≠ξ′ region, which is currently poorly constrained. The use of well-established public tools (PARTONS, Gepard, EpIC, GEMC, acceptance maps) and the detailed detector studies are genuine strengths, as is the identification of specific asymmetries that isolate H and H̃. However, the quantitative sensitivity conclusions rest in part on an unvalidated toy-model extension of the EKM GPDs, and the feasibility projections are statistical-only. The central formal statement that the imaginary part of the CFF accesses F+(ξ′,ξ,t) is standard and would survive, but the claimed model-discrimination power is not yet robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.C and Appendix A, Eqs. (A2)-(A10)] The EKM extension to ξ≠ξ′ is an ad hoc ansatz: the double distribution is truncated to linear terms in y to make the integral analytic, and the only external benchmark is the DVCS limit ϑ=1. The paper itself concedes in Section V that the behavior of GPDs in the ξ≠ξ′ region is unknown and that no generalization of the D-term is established. Since the sign changes in Im[H] (Fig. 6), the TSA sign change, the BSA sign-change predictions of Figs. 11-14, and the EIC BSA amplitudes of Fig. 18 are driven by this ansatz, the claimed model-discrimination power is not robust. The authors should either restrict the model-comparison claims to the constrained GK and VGG models or add a robustness study (e.g., varying the profile parameter b, retaining quadratic terms, or testing alternative DDs) and clearly mark the EKM extension as illustrative.
  2. [Section IV.A, binning paragraph and Figs. 10-14] The statement that "the number of bins was chosen so that the error bars of the asymmetry projections show feasible measurements" introduces a selection bias: the reported statistical errors are computed on bins that were selected after inspecting the model predictions. In addition, the projections include only statistical errors and a few polarization/efficiency rescaling factors; they do not include systematic uncertainties from the detector calibration, background subtraction, radiative corrections, or the model dependence of the acceptance. The word "feasible" is therefore too strong. The paper should present the binning strategy independently of the projections and also give a systematic-error envelope, or at least state clearly that the projections are idealized statistical-error-only estimates.
  3. [Section IV.B, EIC configuration and Table I] The conclusion that target-polarized and beam-charge asymmetries are not accessible at the EIC relies heavily on model support limitations. Table I shows that the EKM models have no Mellin-Barnes support for H̃ and Ẽ, and the text states that the null target-polarized EKM predictions come from the absence of the sea contribution to those GPDs. This is a property of the model implementation, not a physics statement. The statement that "H̃ extraction is not foreseen unless the target-polarized asymmetries are at least in the 5-10% range" should be accompanied by a calculation using a model with a nonzero sea contribution to H̃, or it should be explicitly labeled as a model-dependent bound.
  4. [Section II, Eqs. (2)-(3) and the claim of 'unrestricted GPD extraction'] The abstract and end of Section II state that DDVCS allows "unrestricted GPD extraction" because the imaginary part of the CFF isolates F+(ξ′,ξ,t). This is too strong: even at LO twist-2, the imaginary part gives the GPD only at the specific point x=ξ′, while the real part is a convolution over x. The paper should temper the wording to "access to independent values of ξ′ and ξ" rather than "unrestricted extraction," and should note explicitly that the full x-dependence still requires a deconvolution or model input.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III.C, Eqs. (28) and (32)] The symbol ϑ is used with two different meanings: ϑ=ξ′/ξ in Eq. (28) and ϑ=x/ξ in Eqs. (32)-(33). This notation conflict makes the derivation confusing; a different symbol should be used for the GPD variable in the ξ≠ξ′ formulas.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (1)] The notation F+ is used both for the GPD combination F+(x,ξ,t) and for the CFF F(ξ′,ξ,t), with the sign convention stated only in the text. Introducing a separate symbol for the CFF (e.g., F(ξ′,ξ)) would improve readability.
  3. [Section IV.A, after Fig. 10] There is a typographical duplication: "the error bars of the asymmetry projections show feasible measurements. ." has an extra period and the sentence is incomplete in style; it should be rewritten as a complete sentence.
  4. [Figs. 11 and 13 captions] The legend entry "MRST02 NNLO@CTEQ18" is confusing because it suggests a single PDF set; the text explains that two PDF choices are used for the VGG model, so the caption should explicitly say "VGG with MRST02 and with CTEQ18."
  5. [Section III.C, Fig. 6 discussion] The sentence that the MB representation "diverges as ξ′→0" should be clarified: it is a growth of the model prediction in the Mellin-Barnes evaluation, not a physical divergence of the CFF, and the location of the maximum depends on evolution inputs.
  6. [Section V, first paragraph] The conclusion states that the 11 and 22 GeV configurations "would allow the observation of the asymmetries sign-change," but the sign change is shown mainly for the EKM-based predictions; the GK and VGG models do not all exhibit the same sign-change pattern in the displayed bins. The sentence should be phrased as model-dependent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GPD-to-observable chain is self-contained, and the model inputs are externally fitted or explicitly labeled toy ansätze.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: the DDVCS CFF formula (Eq. 1) defines the imaginary part as −πF⁺(ξ′,ξ,t), the asymmetry definitions (Eqs. 7–10) and the dominant-moment expressions (Eqs. 11–14) connect measured asymmetries to CFF combinations, and then model-dependent CFFs are inserted to produce projections. No step fits the target DDVCS observables to data and then re-predicts them: the CFFs are computed from published GPD models (VGG, GK19, EKM variants) whose parameters come from external PDF fits, DVMP/DVCS data, form factors, and polynomiality constraints. The ξ≠ξ′ extension in Appendix A is explicitly presented as a toy-model generalization ('To make the DD analytically integrable, we limit ourselves to the small y case'), it is benchmarked to the DVCS limit (ϑ=1), and the authors state in Section V that 'the behavior of GPDs in the ξ ≠ ξ′ region is unknown in the absence of DDVCS experimental data' and that the Mellin-Barnes/D-term generalization is not established. That is an honest model-uncertainty caveat, not a hidden circular reduction. Self-citations (detector LOIs [22–24], thesis [31], and positron-beam discussions) support experimental configurations rather than the GPD sensitivity argument. The binning choice 'so that the error bars of the asymmetry projections show feasible measurements' is a transparent planning choice, not an independent prediction. Therefore no load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on published GPD model parameters (free parameters), on the standard LO twist-2 factorization and BH-suppression assumptions, and on the paper's own unvalidated EKM extension. The latter is the most fragile input, explicitly flagged by the authors as unknown in the ξ≠ξ' region.

free parameters (5)
  • VGG profile parameter b = b_val=1, b_sea=5
    Chosen in VGG model to drive ξ-dependence; not fitted in this paper but affects all VGG asymmetry curves.
  • VGG t-slope alpha' = 1.098 GeV^-2
    Chosen so GPD H reproduces form factors in the forward limit; affects VGG t-dependence.
  • GK E valence parameters beta_val = 4 (u), 5.6 (d)
    From GK model fits to DVMP data; controls the E GPD shape used in DVCS/DDVCS.
  • Renormalization scale mu = Q^2 + Q'^2
    Choice of scale for CFF evolution; affects magnitudes of model predictions.
  • Experimental polarization and efficiency inputs = Pb=0.86, Pt=0.80, eff=0.7, D=3/17
    Used for statistical error projections; typical values assumed for µCLAS/SoLID and NH3 target.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Handbag factorization of the DDVCS amplitude at leading twist and LO
    Eq. 1 treats CFFs as convolutions of GPDs at LO twist-2; standard framework inherited from ref. [12].
  • standard math Cauchy principal value and pole prescription in Eq. 1 yield Im CFF proportional to F+(ξ',ξ,t)
    Mathematical identity used to claim direct GPD access at x=ξ'.
  • domain assumption Integration over muon-pair polar angle suppresses the Bethe-Heitler squared amplitude
    Used in Eqs. 5-6 to define DVCS-like and TCS-like observables; asserted as noted in ref. [12].
  • domain assumption Kinematic cuts W>2 GeV, Q'^2>2 GeV^2, Q^2+Q'^2>1 GeV^2 exclude resonance and vector meson regions
    Event selection in EpIC generation; shapes the accessible phase space and projections.
  • ad hoc to paper EKM extension ansatz (Eqs. A2-A10) is a valid model of GPDs for ξ≠ξ'
    Invented in this paper; authors call it a 'toy-model generalization' and note the ξ≠ξ' behavior is unknown.
  • ad hoc to paper Dispersion relation trajectory at constant ϑ=ξ'/ξ with no D-term generalization
    Eqs. 28-29 assume a specific extension; the paper states 'there is no generalization of the D-term'.
invented entities (1)
  • EKM ξ≠ξ' GPD extension H+(x,ξ,t)
    purpose: To compute DDVCS CFFs for EKM models outside the DVCS limit
    A 'toy-model generalization' introduced in Appendix A, constrained only to reproduce the ϑ=1 DVCS limit; no external data validate it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensitivity of Double Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering observables to Generalized Parton Distributions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/45YMX3JI

@misc{pith2026250202346,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensitivity of Double Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering observables to Generalized Parton Distributions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/45YMX3JI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02346}
}
read the original abstract

Double Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering (DDVCS) is a promising channel for Generalized Parton Distribution (GPD) studies as it is a generalization of the Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering (DVCS) and Timelike Compton Scattering (TCS) processes. Contrary to DVCS and TCS, the GPD phase space accessed through DDVCS is not constrained by on-shell conditions on the incoming and outgoing photons thus allowing unrestricted GPD extraction from experimental observables. Considering polarized electron and positron beams directed to a polarized proton target, we study the sensitivity of the DDVCS cross-section asymmetries to the chiral-even proton GPDs from different model predictions. The feasibility of such measurements is further investigated in the context of the CLAS and SoLID spectrometers at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and the future Electron-Ion Collider at the Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02346 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Parameterization of GPDs in terms of momen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: DDVCS handbag diagram (direct term). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Bethe-Heitler contributions to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Top: DDVCS in the target rest frame (laboratory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Phase space coverage at JLab with an 11 GeV beam. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Phase space coverage at JLab with a 22 GeV beam. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Binning scheme for the JLab configurations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Asymmetry projections for DDVCS measure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Asymmetry projections for DDVCS measure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: GPD contribution to the DDVCS asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Binning scheme of the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: BSA experimental projections for DDVCS mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_18.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_20.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19: GPD contribution to the DDVCS asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_19.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21: 3D contour of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22: GPD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_22.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ji, Phys

    X. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 062001 (2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    A. V. Belitsky et al ., Phys. Rev. D 69, 074014 (2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    M¨ ulleret al , Fortschr

    D. M¨ ulleret al , Fortschr. Phys. 42, 101 (1994)

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    Diehl, Phys

    M. Diehl, Phys. Rep. 388, 41 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    A. V. Belitsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rep. 418, 1 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Burkardt, Phys

    M. Burkardt, Phys. Rev. D 62, 071503 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    M. V. Polyakov, Physics Lett. B 555, 57 (2003)

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Ji, Phys

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

    work page 1997

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 555, 57 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    Kumeriˇ cki and D

    K. Kumeriˇ cki and D. Mueller, Nuc. Phys. B 841, 1 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    V. D. Burkert et al . , Nature 557, 396 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    A. V. Belitsky et al ., Phys. Rev. D 68, 116005 (2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

    Guidal and M

    M. Guidal and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 012001 (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    Deja et al , Phys

    K. Deja et al , Phys. Rev. D 107, 094035 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Murray and Hermes Collaboration, in AIP Conf

    M. Murray and Hermes Collaboration, in AIP Conf. Proc., Vol. 1350 (American Institute of Physics, 2011) pp. 64–68

    2011

  8. [16]

    Ferrero et al ., in J

    A. Ferrero et al ., in J. Phys. Conf. Ser. , Vol. 295 (IOP Publishing, 2011) p. 012039

    2011

  9. [17]

    Arrington et al , Prog

    J. Arrington et al , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 127, 103985 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    B. A. Mecking et al , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 503, 513 (2003)

    2003

  11. [19]

    Abdul Khalek et al ., Nucl

    R. Abdul Khalek et al ., Nucl. Phys. A 1026, 122447 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Anikin et al , Acta Phys

    I.V. Anikin et al , Acta Phys. Polon. B 49 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    with a foreseen luminosity upgrade to 1037cm−2 · s−1

  14. [22]

    On the other hand, DDVCS mea- surements at EIC will access the sea-quark contribution to GPDs at values as low as xB ∼ 10−4 thanks to the large center-of-mass energy [14]

    and the SoLID spectrometer [23, 24], complemented with a muon detector (SoLID µ), will access GPDs in the valence region. On the other hand, DDVCS mea- surements at EIC will access the sea-quark contribution to GPDs at values as low as xB ∼ 10−4 thanks to the large center-of-m...

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Voutier et al., Jefferson Lab Experiment LOI12-15-005 (2015)

    E. Voutier et al., Jefferson Lab Experiment LOI12-15-005 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Camsonne et al., Jefferson Lab Experiment LOI12-23- 17 012 (2015)

    A. Camsonne et al., Jefferson Lab Experiment LOI12-23- 17 012 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    V. D. Burkert et al, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 959, 163419 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Stepanyan et al., Jefferson Lab Experiment LOI12-16- 004 (2016)

    S. Stepanyan et al., Jefferson Lab Experiment LOI12-16- 004 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    V. B. et al ., Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 186 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Accardi et al ., Eur

    A. Accardi et al ., Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 261 (2021)

    2021

  21. [30]

    Deja et al , arXiv:2401.13064 (2023)

    K. Deja et al , arXiv:2401.13064 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Zhao, Studying the nucleon structure via Double Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering at the Jefferson Labora- tory., Ph.D

    S. Zhao, Studying the nucleon structure via Double Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering at the Jefferson Labora- tory., Ph.D. thesis, universit´ e Paris-Saclay, IJCLab, Or- say (2020), NNT:2020UPASS147

    2020

  23. [32]

    Boffi and B

    S. Boffi and B. Pasquini, Riv. Nuovo Cimento. 30, 387 (2007)

    2007

  24. [33]

    Bacchetta et al ., Phys

    A. Bacchetta et al ., Phys. Rev. D 70, 117504 (2004)

    2004

  25. [34]

    Berger, M

    E. Berger, M. Diehl and B. Pire, Eur. Phys. J. C 23, 675 (2002)

    2002

  26. [35]

    L. L. Frankfurt et al ., Phys. Rev. D 60, 014010 (1999)

    1999

  27. [36]

    Penttinen et al ., Phys

    M. Penttinen et al ., Phys. Rev. D 62, 014024 (2000)

    2000

  28. [37]

    M¨ uller et al ., Fortschritte der Physik/Progress of Physics 42, 101 (1994)

    D. M¨ uller et al ., Fortschritte der Physik/Progress of Physics 42, 101 (1994)

    1994

  29. [38]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D 56, 5524 (1997)

    1997

  30. [39]

    Vanderhaeghen et al ., Phys

    M. Vanderhaeghen et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5064 (1998)

    1998

  31. [40]

    Vanderhaeghen et al ., Phys

    M. Vanderhaeghen et al ., Phys. Rev. D 60, 094017 (1999)

    1999

  32. [41]

    Berthou et al ., Eur

    B. Berthou et al ., Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 478 (2018), arXiv:1512.06174 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Kumeriˇ cki, Gepard: Tool for studying the 3d quark and gluon distributions in the nucleon, https://gepard

    K. Kumeriˇ cki, Gepard: Tool for studying the 3d quark and gluon distributions in the nucleon, https://gepard. phy.hr/credits.html (2006)

    2006

  34. [43]

    R. S. Thorne et al ., arXiv:0907.2387 (2009)

    2009 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Hou et al ., Phys

    T. Hou et al ., Phys. Rev. D 103, 014013 (2021)

    2021

  36. [45]

    Goeke et al ., Prog

    K. Goeke et al ., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 47, 401 (2001)

    2001

  37. [46]

    Guidal et al ., Phys

    M. Guidal et al ., Phys. Rev. D 72, 054013 (2005)

    2005

  38. [47]

    Goloskokov and P

    S. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C 53, 367 (2008)

    2008

  39. [48]

    Bl¨ umlein and H

    J. Bl¨ umlein and H. B¨ ottcher, Nucl. Phys. B 636, 225 (2002)

    2002

  40. [49]

    Guidal et al ., Rep

    M. Guidal et al ., Rep. Prog. Phys. 76, 066202 (2013)

    2013

  41. [50]

    Goloskokov et al ., Eur

    S. Goloskokov et al ., Eur. Phys. J. C 50, 829 (2007)

    2007

  42. [51]

    for each quark. For the GPD E, a DD ansatz is also used and E(x, 0, 0) is parameterized with a classical PDF functional form Eval(x, 0, 0) = Γ(2 − αval + βval) Γ(1 − αval)Γ(1 + βval) κx−αval (1 − x)βval , (25) where the b parameters in the DD are assumed to be equal to those i...

  43. [52]

    Kumeriˇ cki and D

    K. Kumeriˇ cki and D. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B 841, 1 (2010)

    2010

  44. [53]

    Investissements d’avenir

    at a fixed renormalization scale µ = Q2 +Q′2. The ξ′ dependence is thus introduced by restoring the formula for the Wilson coefficient in the CFF Taylor expansion (see Eqs. (29), (34) and (35) of [53], ϑ=1 corresponds to the DVCS case implemented in Gepard). Furthermore, a sim...

  45. [54]

    Airapetian et al ., Physics Lett

    A. Airapetian et al ., Physics Lett. B 659, 486 (2008)

    2008

  46. [55]

    Airapetian et al ., Physics Lett

    A. Airapetian et al ., Physics Lett. B 682, 345 (2010)

    2010

  47. [56]

    Kroll et al ., Eur

    P. Kroll et al ., Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 1 (2013)

    2013

  48. [57]

    Kumeriˇ ckiet al ., Nucl

    K. Kumeriˇ ckiet al ., Nucl. Phys. B 794, 244 (2008)

    2008

  49. [58]

    Kumeriˇ ckiet al ., Eur

    K. Kumeriˇ ckiet al ., Eur. Phys. J. C 58, 193 (2008)

    2008

  50. [59]

    D. S. Hwang and D. Mueller, Physics Lett. B 660, 350 (2008)

    2008

  51. [60]

    Aschenauer et al ., JHEP 2013 (9), 1

    E. Aschenauer et al ., JHEP 2013 (9), 1

    2013

  52. [61]

    Aschenauer et al ., Eur

    E. Aschenauer et al ., Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1 (2022)

    2022

  53. [62]

    Ungaro, Clas12 geant4 simulation package gemc, http://gemc.jlab.org (2016)

    M. Ungaro, Clas12 geant4 simulation package gemc, http://gemc.jlab.org (2016)

    2016

  54. [63]

    HERMES Collaboration, in J. Phys. Conf. Ser. , Vol. 295 (IOP Publishing, 2011) p. 012024

    2011

  55. [64]

    Furletova and S

    Y. Furletova and S. Mantry, in AIP Conf. Proc. , Vol. 1970 (AIP Publishing, 2018)

    1970

  56. [65]

    Accardi et al ., Eur

    A. Accardi et al ., Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 1 (2016)

    2016

  57. [66]

    Melnitchouk, EW physics with positrons at the EIC (2020), talk, presented at the Electroweak & BSM Physics at the EIC (CFNS) workshop

    W. Melnitchouk, EW physics with positrons at the EIC (2020), talk, presented at the Electroweak & BSM Physics at the EIC (CFNS) workshop

    2020

  58. [67]

    Hobart et al ., Phys

    A. Hobart et al ., Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 211903 (2024)

    2024

  59. [68]

    R. A. Khalek et al , Nuc. Phys. A 1026, 122447 (2022)

    2022

  60. [69]

    Mu˜ noz, ECCE (2022), talk, presented at the ’Muon detection and quarkonium reconstruction at the EIC’ meeting

    C. Mu˜ noz, ECCE (2022), talk, presented at the ’Muon detection and quarkonium reconstruction at the EIC’ meeting

    2022

  61. [70]

    Boussarie and Y

    R. Boussarie and Y. Mehtar-Tani, JHEP 2024 (10), 1

    2024

  62. [71]

    M. J. Schlosser, Computer algebra in quantum field the- ory: integration, summation and special functions , 305 (2013). Appendix A: Extension of the EKM model in the ξ ̸= ξ′ region. Following the results on [52], GPD H and eH are com- puted using the DD representation of Eq. (...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.