Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Transverse momentum dependent parton distributions of pion in the light-front holographic model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The light-front holographic model, with a spin-improved wave function, predicts analytic pion TMDs and a measurable Sudakov broadening of $f_{1\pi}$ between $Q_0=0.316$ GeV and $Q=1$ GeV.

desk verdict The paper's model application is new and worth a look, but the central unpolarized TMD as printed does not follow from its own wave functions, so all numerical results inherit an unverified x-dependent prefactor. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08657 v1 pith:4AZA2WVO submitted 2019-08-23 hep-ph

Navdeep Kaur , Harleen Dahiya This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords piontransversemomentumdependentpartondistributionsTMDsBoer-Muldersfunctionlight-frontholographicmodelwavefunctionsSudakovevolutionleadingtwist
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

This paper claims that the light-front holographic model, upgraded with a spin-dependent wave function, gives analytic closed forms for the two leading-twist transverse-momentum-dependent parton distributions (TMDs) of the pion: the unpolarized distribution $f_{1\pi}(x,k_\perp^2)$ and the Boer-Mulders function $h_{1\pi}^\perp(x,k_\perp^2)$. These are the functions that map where quarks sit inside a pion in both longitudinal momentum fraction and transverse momentum. A sympathetic reader should care because pion TMDs are needed to interpret semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering and Drell-Yan data, and model predictions with a simple analytic form can be evolved to experimental scales and compared. The paper also performs a leading-order Sudakov evolution of $f_{1\pi}$ from model scale $Q_0=0.316$ GeV to $Q=1$ GeV and shows the distribution broadens in transverse momentum, with the peak shifting from $k_\perp\approx 0.2$ GeV to roughly $0.4$-$0.5$ GeV depending on the nonperturbative parameter $g_2$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin-improved light-front holographic wave function of the pion, built as the product of the holographic momentum-space wave function $\psi_\pi(x,k_\perp)=\frac{4\pi N_0}{\kappa}\sqrt{x(1-x)}\exp[-(k_\perp^2+m^2)/(2\kappa^2 x(1-x))]$ and a spin wave function $\varphi_\pi(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$ with parameters $A=B=1$. From this wave function the paper obtains two pion light-front wave-function amplitudes, $\Psi_\pi^{(0)}$ for $L_z=0$ and $\Psi_\pi^{(1)}$ for $|L_z|=1$, whose overlap yields the unpolarized TMD in Eq. (13); the Boer-Mulders function in Eq. (18) follows from expanding the Wilson line to one gluon exchange between the struck quark and spectator. The evolution machinery is the $b_\perp$-space TMD evolution formula with the Sudakov form factor, using $b_*(b_\perp)$ and a nonperturbative function $g_K(b_\perp)=-g_2 b_\perp^2/2$ with $g_2=0.09$ or $0.13$.

What would settle it

Measure the unpolarized pion TMD through pion-induced Drell-Yan or SIDIS at $Q\approx 1$ GeV and compare the evolved $f_{1\pi}(x=0.3,k_\perp)$ from Eq. (13): the model predicts the $k_\perp$ peak moves from $0.2$ GeV at $Q_0=0.316$ GeV to roughly $0.4$ GeV ($g_2=0.09$) or $0.5$ GeV ($g_2=0.13$) and the distribution broadens. If the observed peak location or the double-peak shape at small $k_\perp$ is absent, the spin-improved holographic input or the $g_2$ dependence of the evolution is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the spin-improved light-front holographic wave function, which includes the $L_z=0$ and $|L_z|=1$ orbital angular momentum components of the valence $|q\bar q\rangle$ Fock state, the paper derives the unpolarized pion TMD as $f_{1\pi}(x,k_\perp^2)$ in Eq. (13) and the Boer-Mulders function as $h_{1\pi}^\perp(x,k_\perp^2)$ in Eq. (18). The $f_{1\pi}$ expression is an overlap of the two light-front wave-function amplitudes and reduces to a Gaussian in $k_\perp$ modulated by $[k_\perp^2+(m+x(1-x)M_\pi)^2]$; the Boer-Mulders function comes from a one-gluon-exchange final-state interaction through the Wilson line and satisfies the model-independent positivity bound $f_{1\pi}\ge (k_\perp/M_\pi)|h_{1\pi}^\perp|$ at all $x$ and $k_\perp$. Both distributions are symmetric under $x\leftrightarrow 1-x$, yielding a double-peak structure at small $k_\perp$ that merges into a single Gaussian at larger $k_\perp$, and the evolution of $f_{1\pi}$ from $Q_0=0.316$ GeV to $Q=1$ GeV in $b_\perp$-space exhibits Sudakov broadening whose size depends on $g_2$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole prediction inherits its absolute size and shape from an earlier fit of the model parameters $\kappa=523$ MeV, $m=330$ MeV, $M_\pi=139$ MeV and $A=B=1$ to pion decay constant, charge radius, and form factor; no pion TMD data anchor these curves, so if that fit is not valid for TMDs at leading twist the predicted normalization and $x,k_\perp$ dependence shift accordingly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The analytic $f_{1\pi}$ and Boer-Mulders expressions can be used directly as model-scale inputs for phenomenological studies of pion SIDIS and Drell-Yan azimuthal asymmetries.
  • The model satisfies the positivity bound $h_{1\pi}^\perp$ at all $x$ and $k_\perp$, so it provides a controlled template where the unpolarized quark probability always dominates the transversely polarized one.
  • The leading-order Sudakov evolution predicts a measurable broadening: at $x=0.3$ the peak of $k_\perp f_{1\pi}$ moves from $0.2$ GeV to $0.4$-$0.5$ GeV when $Q$ rises from $0.316$ GeV to $1$ GeV.
  • Because $f_{1\pi}$ and $h_{1\pi}^\perp$ are symmetric under $x\leftrightarrow 1-x$, the model predicts a double peak in $x$ at small $k_\perp$ and a single Gaussian-shaped peak at larger $k_\perp$; future data at low transverse momentum can test this shape.
  • At large $k_\perp$ the model's $f_{1\pi}$ converges with light-front constituent and soft-wall AdS/QCD results, suggesting the high-transverse-momentum tail is insensitive to the detailed wave function.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same spin-improved holographic wave function could be applied to other pseudoscalars such as the kaon by changing quark masses; if the $A=B=1$ spin structure is universal, one would predict analogous double-peak TMDs at the kaon's lower model scale.
  • The double-peak signature at small $k_\perp$ is essentially a valence-structure effect inherited from the $x\leftrightarrow 1-x$ symmetry; one might test whether any observed pion TMD asymmetry in $z$ or $Q^2$ tracks this symmetry before invoking higher Fock states.
  • The evolution from such a low model scale ($0.316$ GeV) assumes the TMD is purely nonperturbative at that scale; a lattice QCD extraction of the pion TMD at moderate virtualities could settle whether the $g_2=0.09$-$0.13$ range is realistic or merely tuned.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the leading-twist unpolarized TMD f1π(x,k⊥²) and the Boer-Mulders function h1π⊥(x,k⊥²) for the pion using light-front holographic wave functions with a spin-improved spin wave function. The authors quote analytic expressions in Eqs. (13) and (18), compare their results with light-front constituent and soft-wall AdS/QCD models, check the positivity bound, and perform a leading-order TMD evolution of f1 from a model scale Q0=0.316 GeV to a higher scale. The parameters κ, m, and Mπ are taken from earlier fits to pion properties. The central new objects are the closed-form TMDs and the evolved f1.

Significance. If the formulas were correct, the paper would provide simple analytic pion TMDs with parameters fixed by the pion decay constant, charge radius, and form factor, extending the light-front holographic program to transverse-momentum-dependent structure. The positivity check and the comparison with existing model calculations are conceptually useful. However, the main unpolarized result does not follow from the stated wave functions as written, and the Boer-Mulders derivation omits essential specifications; the quantitative content of the paper is therefore not currently reliable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.A, Eqs. (4), (7), (12), (13)] The central formula Eq. (13) does not follow from the preceding equations. Direct substitution of Eq. (4) and Eq. (7) into Eq. (12) gives |Ψπ^(0)|² = (8π²N0²/κ²)(m - Mπ x(1-x))² exp[-(k⊥²+m²)/(κ²x(1-x))] and k⊥²|Ψπ^(1)|² = (8π²N0²/κ²) k⊥² exp[-(k⊥²+m²)/(κ²x(1-x))], so that f1π(x,k⊥²) = N0²/(πκ²)[k⊥² + (m - Mπ x(1-x))²] exp[-(k⊥²+m²)/(κ²x(1-x))]. The denominator 1/[x³(1-x)³] in Eq. (13) is not produced by this overlap; it appears to be inherited from the spin wave function in Eq. (6) rather than from the mapped LFWFs in Eq. (7). Since Eq. (13) underlies Figs. 1, 2, 5, and 6, the normalization condition Eq. (14), and the qualitative conclusions, all numerical results and model comparisons must be recomputed after correcting this prefactor.
  2. [Section III.B, Eqs. (17)-(18)] The derivation of the Boer-Mulders function is not reproducible as written. Equation (17) contains Ψ^(0)(x,k⊥) and Ψ^(1)(x',k'⊥) with k'⊥ = k⊥ - q⊥, but x' is never defined and no relation between x and x' is stated; the q⊥ integral is not evaluated in the text; and the step from Eq. (17) to Eq. (18) is not shown. In addition, the statement g² = 4πα_s(μ0) is not accompanied by any numerical value for α_s(μ0) or g², although this parameter controls the overall magnitude in Figs. 3-5 and in the positivity check in Fig. 5. Please specify x', carry out or reference the q⊥ integration, and quote the coupling value used.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (20) and Fig. 6] The evolution formula Eq. (20) is incomplete as stated. The TMD is written without a rapidity scale (ζ), the Sudakov exponent ~S([b*; μ_b, μ) is not defined explicitly, and the μ0 dependence appears only through the g_K ln(μ/μ0) term. Without specifying the rapidity evolution and the exact form of ~S, Eq. (20) cannot be evaluated and Fig. 6 is not reproducible. Please supply the missing definitions or cite the exact convention used in Refs. [71-74].
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A, Eq. (13)] The normalization constant N0 is never specified; it should be stated explicitly, or its determination from Eq. (14) should be shown, so that the plotted curves can be reproduced.
  2. [Section IV, Fig. 6] The caption of Fig. 6 states that the evolution is performed up to Q = 1 GeV, while the labels embedded in the figure show Q0 = 0.316 and Q = 5 GeV, with 'g1 = 0.13' instead of 'g2 = 0.13'; this inconsistency should be resolved.
  3. [Section IV, Fig. 6] The text says the unpolarized TMD is plotted as a function of k⊥², but the horizontal axis of Fig. 6 is labeled k⊥ [GeV]; the vertical axis is labeled k⊥ f(...) while Eq. (13) gives f(...). Please make the axes and the labels consistent with the quantity shown.
  4. [Section II, Eq. (6) and Eq. (7)] The spin wave function components in Eq. (6) contain explicit 1/[x(1-x)] factors, while the mapped LFWFs in Eq. (7) do not; this discrepancy is likely the source of the erroneous prefactor in Eq. (13) and should be clarified or removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pion TMDs are computed from externally fixed holographic model parameters and independent evolution inputs; the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing model comparison.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The unpolarized TMD f1π(x,k⊥²) is obtained by inserting the holographic LFWFs (Eqs. (4) and (7), with A=B=1 from Refs. [65,66]) into the overlap expression (Eq. (12)) and integrating the unpolarized correlator (Eq. (11)); the Boer-Mulders function is obtained independently from the gauge-link correlator (Eqs. (16)-(18)). The model parameters κ=523 MeV, m=330 MeV, Mπ=139 MeV are taken from external fits to the pion decay constant, charge radius, and form factor in Ref. [66]; they are not fitted to the TMDs themselves, and Eq. (14) is a normalization sum rule rather than a fit of the target distribution. The evolution in Sec. IV uses the Sudakov factor with g2 values (0.09, 0.13) taken from Ref. [54], again not tuned to the starting TMD. The only self-citation is Ref. [55] as a comparison curve in Figs. 2(a)-(b); that comparison is illustrative, not load-bearing, and no uniqueness claim is imported from it. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is claimed to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. A separate, non-circularity concern is whether the printed Eq. (13) algebraically follows from Eq. (7) inserted into Eq. (12); if it does not, that is a derivation error, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the spin-improved light-front holographic wave function and its externally fitted parameters, not on new physics. The main burden is numerical: N0, g^2 and bmax are never specified, so the plotted amplitudes cannot be reproduced from the text alone. The physical axioms are standard QCD-model assumptions, not new postulates.

free parameters (7)
  • kappa (scale parameter) = 523 MeV
    Model scale in the holographic wave function Eq. (4); taken from Ref. [66], not derived here. Controls the k_perp width of both TMDs.
  • m (constituent quark mass) = 330 MeV
    Quark mass in Eq. (4) and spin wave functions; from Ref. [66] fit to pion observables.
  • A and B (spin wave function constants) = A=1, B=1
    Chosen following Ref. [65] so decay constant and charge radius match experiment; not derived in this paper.
  • N0 (wave-function normalization) = not specified
    Appears in Eqs. (13) and (18); must be fixed by the sum rule integral f_pi(x) dx = 1, but no numerical value or closed form is given.
  • g^2 (strong coupling in Boer-Mulders) = not specified
    Defined as 4 pi alpha_s(mu0) after Eq. (18); no alpha_s(mu0) value is given, so the Boer-Mulders amplitude is not reproducible.
  • g2 (nonperturbative evolution parameter) = 0.09 and 0.13
    Taken from Ref. [54] for the Sudakov factor; directly controls the size of the broadening in Fig. 6.
  • bmax (b* prescription cutoff) = not specified
    Introduced in Eq. (21) but no numerical value is chosen; affects the nonperturbative part of the evolution.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Fock-space truncation to the valence |q qbar> state of the pion.
    Eq. (1) keeps only the lowest Fock component; all TMD results inherit this approximation.
  • domain assumption The holographic wave function Eq. (4) is the correct momentum-space wave function from AdS/QCD for this pion.
    Taken from prior light-front holographic literature [56-59]; not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The spin-improved wave function in Eqs. (5)-(7) with A=B=1 is the correct spin structure for the pion.
    From Refs. [65,66]; it is the paper's central model input but is not derived here.
  • domain assumption T-odd Boer-Mulders function is generated by expanding the Wilson line to one gluon exchange at order g^2, with no other spectator interactions.
    Eqs. (16)-(17); this is a model approximation for the gauge link, standard in spectator-model calculations but not derived.
  • domain assumption Standard TMD evolution in b_perp space (Eq. (20)) with NLL Sudakov and quadratic gK applies at leading order to the pion TMD at Q0=0.316 GeV.
    From Refs. [71-79]; the choice of initial scale and nonperturbative form are assumed.
  • standard math The positivity bound Eq. (19) is a model-independent QCD inequality.
    Used only as a check on the model results; not part of the derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transverse momentum dependent parton distributions of pion in the light-front holographic model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4AZA2WVO

@misc{pith2026190808657,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transverse momentum dependent parton distributions of pion in the light-front holographic model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4AZA2WVO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08657}
}
abstract

Using the light-front holographic model, we study the transverse momentum dependent parton distributions (TMDs) for the case of pion. At leading twist, the unpolarized parton distribution function $ f_{1\pi}(x,\bfk^{2}) $ and the Boer-Mulders function $ h_{1\pi}^{\bot}(x,\bfk^{2}) $ are obtained for pion. We calculate both the functions using the light-front holographic model with spin improved wave function and compare the predicted results with available results of other models. In order to provide inputs in predicting future experimental data, a LO evolution is performed from model scale to experimental scale for the case of unpolarized parton distribution function $ f_{1\pi}(x,\bfk^{2}) $.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08657 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: 3D plot of unpolarized TMD of pion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Plots of unpolarized TMD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: 3D plot of Boer-Mulders function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Plot of Boer-Mulders function of pion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The positivity relation for the quark in pion as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Unpolarized TMD as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. New insights from the flavor dependence of quark transverse momentum distributions in the pion

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    First flavor-dependent extraction of unpolarized quark TMDs in the pion, finding a wider transverse momentum tail for valence d quarks than for sea quarks, with large uncertainties.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Burkardt, Phys

    M. Burkardt, Phys. Rev. D 62, 071503 (2000); M. Burkardt, Phys. Rev. D 66, 119903 (2002)

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Ji, Phys

    X. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 55, 7114 (1997)

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    Ji, Phys

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

    1997

  4. [4]

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

    1997

  5. [5]

    Ji and J

    X. Ji and J. Osborne, Phys, Rev. D 58, 094018 (1998)

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    X. Ji, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part Phys. 24, 1181 (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    Blumlein, B

    J. Blumlein, B. Geyer and D. Robaschik, Nucl. Phys. B 560, 283 (1999)

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    Goeke, M

    K. Goeke, M. V. Polyakov, M. Vanderhaeghen, Progr. Part. Nucl. Phys. 47, 401 (2001)

    work page 2001

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    Diehl, Phys

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

    2003

  2. [10]

    R. D. Tangerman and P. J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. D 51, 3357 (1995)

    1995

  3. [11]

    Kotzinian, Nucl

    A. Kotzinian, Nucl. Phys. B 441, 234 (1995)

    1995

  4. [12]

    P. J. Mulders and R. D. Tangerman, Nucl. Phys. B 461, 197 (1996); P. J. Mulders and R. D. Tangerman, Nucl. Phys. B 484, 538 (1997)

    1996

  5. [13]

    Boer and P

    D. Boer and P. J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. D 57, 5780 (1998)

    1998

  6. [14]

    Bacchetta, M

    A. Bacchetta, M. Diehl, K. Goeke, A. Metz, P. J. Mulders an d M. Schlegel, JHEP 0702, 093 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    X. Ji, J. P. Ma and F. Yuan Phys. Rev. D 71, 034005 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    S. D. Drell and Tung-Mow Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 316 (1970); S. D. Drell and Tung-Mow Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25,902(1970)

    1970

  9. [17]

    J. H. Christenson et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 1523 (1970)

    1970

  10. [18]

    J. C. Collins, Phys. Lett. B 536, 43 (2002)

    2002

  11. [19]

    Quintans and the COMPASS Collaboration, J

    C. Quintans and the COMPASS Collaboration, J. of Phys. C onf. Ser. 295, 012163 (2011). 16

    2011

  12. [20]

    S. P. Baranov, A. V. Lipatov and N. P. Zotov, Phys. Rev. D 89, 094025 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Boer and P

    D. Boer and P. J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. D 57 , 5780 (1998)

    1998

  14. [22]

    S. J. Brodsky, D. S. Hwang and I. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B 530, 99 (2002)

    2002

  15. [23]

    X. D. Ji and F. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B 543, 66 (2002)

    2002

  16. [24]

    S. J. Brodsky, D. S. Hwang and I. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. B 642, 344 (2002)

    2002

  17. [25]

    D. Boer, S. J. Brodsky and D. S. Hwang, Phys. Rev. D 67, 054003 (2003)

    2003

  18. [26]

    D. Boer, P. J. Mulders and F. Pijlman, Nucl. Phys. B 667, 201 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    A. V. Belitsky, X. Ji and F. Yuan, Nucl. Phys. B 656, 165 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    P. L. McGaughey, J. M. Moss and J. C. Peng, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 49, 217 (1999)

    1999

  21. [29]

    P. E. Reimer, J. Phys. G 34, S107 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    W. C. Chang and D. Dutta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 22, 1330020 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    J. C. Peng and J.-W. Qiu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 76, 43 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Altarelli, S

    G. Altarelli, S. Petrarca and F. Rapuano, Phys. Lett. B 373, 200 (1996)

    1996

  25. [33]

    Chang, C

    L. Chang, C. Mezrag, H. Moutarde, C. D. Roberts, J. R.-Qu interod and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Lett. B 737, 23 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    C. Shi, C. Mezrag and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D 98, 054029 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Nguyen, A

    T. Nguyen, A. Bashir, C. D. Roberts and P. C. Tandy, Phys. R ev. C 83, 062201 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    Chang and A

    L. Chang and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B, 749, 547-550 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    M. V. Polyakov and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D 60, 114017 (1999)

    1999

  30. [38]

    Dalley, Phys

    S. Dalley, Phys. Rev. D 64, 036006 (2001)

    2001

  31. [39]

    R. M. Davidson and E. R. Arriola, Acta. Phys. Polon. B 33, 1791 (2002)

    2002

  32. [40]

    Dalley and B

    S. Dalley and B. V. Sande, Phys. Rev. D 67, 114507 (2003)

    2003

  33. [41]

    Broniowski and E

    W. Broniowski and E. R. Arriola, Phys. Lett. B 574, 57 (2003)

    2003

  34. [42]

    Bromel et al

    D. Bromel et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 122001 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Frederico, E

    T. Frederico, E. Pace, B. Pasquini and G. Salme, Phys. Rev D 80, 054021 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    A. E. Dorokhov, W. Broniowski and E. R. Arriola, Phys. Rev . D 84, 074015 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    Mezrag, L

    C. Mezrag, L. Chang, H. Moutarde, C. D. Roberts, J. R.-Qu intero , F. SabatiÃľ and S. M. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B 741, 190 (2015). 17

    2015

  38. [46]

    Gutsche, V

    T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, I. Schmidt and A. Vega, J . Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 42, 095005 (2015)

    2015

  39. [47]

    Pasquini and P

    B. Pasquini and P. Schweitzer, Phys. Rev. D 90, 014050 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    LorcÃľ, B

    C. LorcÃľ, B. Pasquini and P. Schweitzer, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 7, 415 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    Lu and B

    Z. Lu and B. Q. Ma, Nucl. Phys. A 741, 200 (2004)

    2004

  42. [50]

    Meissner, A

    S. Meissner, A. Metz, M. Schlegel and K. Goeke, J. High En ergy Phys. 08, 038 (2008)

    2008

  43. [51]

    Gamberg and M

    L. Gamberg and M. Schlegel, Phys. Lett. B 685, 95 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    Lua, B.-Q

    Z. Lua, B.-Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 70, 094044 (2004)

    2004

  45. [53]

    Noguera and S

    S. Noguera and S. Scopetta, J. High Energy Phys. , 102 (20 15)

  46. [54]

    Bacchetta, S

    A. Bacchetta, S. Cotogno and B. Pasquini, Phys. Lett. B 771, 546-552 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    N. Kaur, N. Kumar, C. Mondal and H. Dahiya, Nucl. Phys. B 934, 80-95 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    G. F. de Teramond and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 201601 (2005)

    2005

  49. [57]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 201601 (2006)

    2006

  50. [58]

    G. F. de Teramond and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 081601 (2009)

    2009

  51. [59]

    S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de Teramond and H. G. Dosch, Phys. Lett . B 729, 3(2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de Teramond, H. G. Dosch and J. Erlich, Phys. Rept 584, 1 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, Subnucl. Ser. 45, 139 (2009)

    2009

  54. [62]

    Vega and I

    A. Vega and I. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 79, 055003 (2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    A. Vega, I. Schmidt, T. Branz, T. Gutsche and V. E. Lyubovi tskij, Phys. Rev. D 80, 055014 (2009)

    2009

  56. [64]

    Swarnkar and D

    R. Swarnkar and D. Chakrabarti, Phys. Rev. D 92, 074023 (2015)

    2015

  57. [65]

    as the results of decay constant and radius of charged pi on obtained in this case are comparable with experimental results. The spin wave function with different helicities of quark and antiquark can be expressed as φ π (↑, ↑) = −k1 −ik2 x(1 −x), φ π (↑, ↓) = m x(1 −x) +Mπ, φ ...

  58. [66]

    Ahmady, C

    M. Ahmady, C. Mondal and R. Sandapen, Phys. Rev. D 98, 034010 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    Ahmady, F

    M. Ahmady, F. Chishtie and R. Sandapen, Phys. Rev. D 95, 074008, (2017)

    2017

  60. [68]

    Pasquini and P

    B. Pasquini and P. Schweitzer, Phys. Rev. D 78, 071502 (2008)

    2008

  61. [69]

    Pasquini and F

    B. Pasquini and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 81, 114013 (2010)

    2010

  62. [70]

    k⊥) ⟨π(P )| ¯ψ (0)γ+ψ (y)|π(P )⟩ ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ y+=0

    (without Wilson line) and we have f q 1π (x, k2 ⊥ ) = ∫ dy−d2y ⊥ 2π 3 ei(y−k+− y⊥. k⊥) ⟨π(P )| ¯ψ (0)γ+ψ (y)|π(P )⟩ ⏐ ⏐ ⏐ y+=0 . (11) 7 FIG. 1: 3D plot of unpolarized TMD of pion f q 1π (x, k2 ⊥ ) as a function of x and k2 ⊥ . Using the light-front state of pion given in Eq. (...

    2017

  63. [71]

    Meissner, A

    S. Meissner, A. Metz and K. Goeke, Phys. Rev. D 76 , 034002 (2007)

    2007

  64. [72]

    Lua and B.-Q

    Z. Lua and B.-Q. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 615, 200âĂŞ206 (2005)

    2005

  65. [73]

    S. M. Aybat and T. C. Rogers, Phys. Rev. D 83, 114042 (2011). 18

    2011

  66. [74]

    Collins, Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology, 32 Cambridge University Press (2011)

    J. Collins, Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology, 32 Cambridge University Press (2011)

    2011

  67. [75]

    T. C. Rogers, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (6), 153 (2016)

    2016

  68. [76]

    Collins and T

    J. Collins and T. Rogers, Phys. Rev. D 91, 074020, (2015)

    2015

  69. [77]

    Frixione, P

    S. Frixione, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi, Nucl. Phys. B 542, 311 (1999)

    1999

  70. [78]

    M. G. Echevarria, A. Idilbi, A. SchÃďfer and I. Scimemi, Eur. Phys. J. C 73(12), 2636 (2013)

    2013

  71. [79]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione and S. Melis, Phys. Rev. D 86, 014028 (2012)

    2012

  72. [80]

    S. M. Aybat, J. C. Collins, J. W. Qiu and T. C. Rogers, Phys . Rev. D 85, 034043 (2012)

    2012

  73. [81]

    Landry, R

    F. Landry, R. Brock, P. M. Nadolsky and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Re v. D 67, 073016 (2003)

    2003

  74. [82]

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 250, 199 (1985). 19

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.