Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 43 references

Probing Scalar-Mediator Quark Couplings via CLFV Lepton-Nucleon Scattering

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A scattering-curve peak exposes a mediator's hidden quark couplings.

desk verdict A solid, focused CLFV phenomenology paper whose central Q-peak discriminant is plausible and new, but it needs a quantitative check of quark-initiated subprocesses and some uncertainty estimates before it is fully convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20846 v1 pith:4IRVZYPC submitted 2025-08-28 hep-ph hep-ex

Yuichiro Kiyo , Michihisa Takeuchi , Yuichi Uesaka , Masato Yamanaka This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords chargedleptonflavorviolationdeep-inelasticscatteringscalarmediatorgluoneffectiveoperatorheavy-quarkcouplingsmomentum-transferdependencelepton-nucleonpeak-positionobservable
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 argues that charged-lepton-flavor-violating (CLFV) deep-inelastic scattering off nucleons can reveal properties of a scalar mediator that low-energy flavor searches and hadron-collider searches cannot. The relevant partonic process is the exchange of the mediator between a lepton and a gluon, induced by a loop-generated effective φ G G coupling. The paper shows that the momentum-transfer dependence of the resulting differential cross section, and especially the position of its peak, carries a fingerprint of the mediator mass and of which heavy quarks (charm, bottom, top) generate the gluon coupling. If the claim holds, a single measured dσ/dQ curve from a future lepton-nucleon experiment could distinguish an h-like mediator from a bottom-only mediator and could pin down the mediator–top-quark coupling.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the effective operator φ G^a_{μν} G^{a μν} (for a pseudoscalar, φ G^a ilde G^a), generated by heavy-quark triangle loops. Its coupling gφgg(Q) is a sum over charm, bottom, and top of one-loop functions whose low-Q normalization is set by ρ_qq/m_q and whose high-Q behavior is set by (m_q²/Q²) ln²(Q²/m_q²). This Q-dependence, multiplied by the t-channel propagator and the gluon-pdf inverse moment M_g(Q²), controls the position and height of the peak in dσ/dQ. The distinguishing observable is the peak position Q*, which moves with mediator mass and with the mixture of heavy-quark couplings.

What would settle it

Measure dσ/dQ for e p → τ X at a 10 TeV electron beam with enough events and couplings normalized to Br(τ→eπ+π−) = 5×10^-10: the h-like scenario is predicted to peak at Q* ≈ 22 GeV for mφ = 100 GeV and ≈ 27 GeV for mφ = 1 TeV, while the b-only scenario peaks at ≈ 15 and ≈ 16 GeV. If the observed peak does not separate by about 7–10 GeV, the central claim is wrong. A cheaper test is to compute the omitted quark-initiated subprocesses and check whether their contribution shifts Q* by more than the predicted inter-scenario gap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the loop-induced effective coupling gφgg(Q) between the CLFV mediator and gluons has a Q-dependent shape that encodes which heavy quarks couple to the mediator, and that this shape survives into the observable differential cross section dσ/dQ for ℓ_i N → ℓ_j X. In the h-like scenario, where the mediator couples to charm, bottom, and top in proportion to their masses, the charm-quark contribution falls rapidly with Q while the top-quark contribution persists, producing a faster drop at low Q and a slower drop at high Q compared with the b-only scenario, where only the bottom quark couples. The t-channel propagator 1/(Q² + mφ²)² suppresses lighter mediators and shifts

Load-bearing premise

The calculation keeps only the gluon-initiated subprocess and assumes it dominates; if quark-initiated subprocesses from the mediator's couplings to charm, bottom, or top quarks inside the nucleon are not negligible, the predicted Q-dependence and peak positions would be altered.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A future lepton-nucleon experiment at 10 TeV beam energy could distinguish the h-like scenario from the b-only scenario by locating the peak of dσ/dQ: the two scenarios are predicted to peak about 7–10 GeV apart for mediator masses around 100 GeV to 1 TeV.
  • The same curve carries mediator-mass information: lighter mediators peak at lower Q values because the propagator suppression 1/(Q² + mφ²)² cuts off the high-Q tail.
  • Combining a low-energy branching-ratio measurement, which fixes the overall normalization, with the measured Q-dependence of the DIS cross section breaks the degeneracy between coupling strength and mediator mass that low-energy experiments leave unresolved.
  • The peak position also tracks the mediator–top-quark coupling: at 10 TeV, Q* spans roughly 14–34 GeV as the top-coupling parameter κt runs from 0 to 2 for mφ = 1 TeV.
  • The discriminating power grows with beam energy and mediator mass; for mediators below about 10 GeV, propagator suppression limits what the Q-dependence can reveal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same peak-position strategy should transfer to a pseudoscalar mediator; the loop-function prefactor differs, so the quantitative Q* values would shift, but the mechanism and the qualitative discrimination would remain.
  • Editorial extension: if quark-initiated subprocesses ℓ_i q → ℓ_j q are added to Eq. (12), they could shift the predicted Q* values, but a computation would also yield a second observable, the heavy-quark-initiated rate, that can cross-check the extracted quark couplings.
  • Editorial extension: applying the same Q-dependence analysis to e→μ and μ→τ transitions would test whether a single mediator flavor structure explains all CLFV channels, since the extracted mφ and quark-coupling pattern should be channel-independent if the model is right.
  • Editorial extension: because the cross section factorizes into a mediator–gluon coupling squared, a t-channel propagator, and a gluon-pdf moment, a combined fit of dσ/dQ at several beam energies could extract mφ and the quark-coupling ratios without committing to either benchmark scenario.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using charged-lepton-flavor-violating deep-inelastic scattering, specifically the gluon-initiated subprocess ℓ_i g → ℓ_j g generated by the effective operator φ G^a_{μν} G^{a μν}, to probe the mass and quark-coupling structure of a CLFV scalar/pseudoscalar mediator. Two benchmark coupling patterns are considered: an h-like scenario with ρ_qq ∝ m_q and a b-only scenario with ρ_bb ≠ 0. The authors compute the Q-dependence of the effective mediator-gluon coupling, derive a compact formula for dσ/dQ in terms of an inverse moment of the gluon PDF, and show that the peak position Q* is sensitive to the mediator mass and to the flavor pattern of the quark couplings. They normalize the CLFV couplings to a projected Br(τ→eπ^+π^-) sensitivity and present numerical cross sections for E_e = 100 GeV, 1 TeV, and 10 TeV, including a scan over the top-quark coupling enhancement factor κ_t. The central claim is that a single measured dσ/dQ curve can discriminate h-like from b-only couplings, information not accessible to low-energy flavor searches or the LHC.

Significance. If correct, the proposed Q-dependence and peak-position analysis would provide a genuinely new window into the flavor structure of CLFV mediators, complementary to low-energy τ decays and collider searches. The paper is transparent in its benchmarks, uses standard one-loop results for gφgg(Q), and gives an explicit analytic expression for the differential cross section, together with a table of peak positions that constitutes a falsifiable prediction. The main weaknesses are that the calculation omits tree-level quark-initiated subprocesses without quantifying them, and that the central formula (13) is quoted without derivation or uncertainty estimates. The conceptual mechanism — that the Q-dependent decoupling of c, b, and t loops leaves a flavor-dependent fingerprint — is physically well motivated and worth pursuing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (12)] The hadronic cross section (12) includes only the gluon PDF and the loop-induced subprocess ℓ_i g → ℓ_j g. However, the Lagrangian (1) also has the same flavor-diagonal quark couplings that generate the loop; these produce tree-level CLFV subprocesses ℓ_i q → ℓ_j q for q=c,b,t. For the b-only benchmark (ρ_bb=O(1)), the direct amplitude is not suppressed by the α_s/(8π) loop factor or by the m_q/Q^2 decoupling visible in Eqs. (9)–(10); it is suppressed only by the small b-quark PDF. The manuscript neither includes these contributions nor gives a numerical estimate of their size. This matters because the central claim is the predicted Q-shape and the peak differences in Table I (e.g., Q*=22.0 vs 15.4 GeV at E_e=10 TeV, m_S=100 GeV). Please add the quark-initiated subprocesses to Eq. (12) or demonstrate quantitatively that they are negligible over the Q range shown.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (13)] Eq. (13) is the basis for all numerical results but is quoted without derivation or reference. The Q^5 power, the x^{-2} inverse moment Mg(Q^2), the prefactor 1/(4π s^2), and the lower limit x_min=Q^2/s determine the peak position. Please provide a derivation in an appendix or cite a source, and state explicitly the spin/color averaging and the approximations used (massless final-state lepton, on-shell final-state gluon).
  3. [Sec. IV, Table I] The discrimination claim is stated without uncertainty estimates. The calculation uses CT14 LO PDFs, with no PDF error, no factorization/renormalization scale variation, and no comment on LO versus higher-order effects on Mg(Q^2). The resolved signals in Table I are Q* shifts of order 7–10 GeV at E_e=10 TeV. Please give at least a rough estimate of the PDF and scale uncertainties on Q* and on the h-like/b-only separation; if these uncertainties are comparable to the shifts, the conclusions should be correspondingly qualified.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption and Sec. IV text] The caption says panels are left/middle/right and colors are m_S=100 GeV (red), 1 TeV (black), 10 TeV (blue), while the text describes top/middle/bottom panels and uses m_S=10 GeV (red), 100 GeV (black), 1 TeV (blue). The figure labels themselves also show 10 GeV/100 GeV/1 TeV. Please reconcile these.
  2. [Throughout] Typos: 'appoach' in the Introduction; 'shiftig' in Sec. IV; ρ̄^ϕ_{eτ} in the Table I caption should be ρ̄^ϕ_{τ e}. In Eq. (17), give the value with proper rounding or an uncertainty estimate.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 3] The statement 'All the lines converge around Q∼1 GeV' is qualitative. Specify at which Q and to what accuracy the convergence holds, since it is used to justify the overall normalization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Q-dependence and peak-position discrimination are derived from standard loop functions and PDFs, not fitted to the target observable.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the Q-dependence of dσ/dQ and the peak position Q* in the gluon-initiated subprocess ℓ_i g → ℓ_j g can discriminate h-like from b-only mediator-quark couplings. This claim is not circular: the differential cross section in Eq. (13) is constructed from the one-loop effective coupling g_φgg(Q) of Eqs. (6)–(7), the mediator propagator, the leptonic tensor Eq. (15), and the gluon PDF inverse moment Eq. (14). The h-like vs b-only difference in Q-dependence follows from the explicit mass-dependent loop functions and the assumed quark-coupling patterns (Eqs. (2)–(3), (18)); it is not fitted to the predicted cross section. The normalization of the absolute rates is set by projecting the couplings to the external Belle-II sensitivity Br(τ→eπ+π−)=5×10−10 via Eqs. (16)–(17), which is an input, not a prediction, and it cancels in the shape and in Q* comparisons. The only potentially self-referential element is the statement that the gluon-initiated subprocess 'would be a leading contribution to the CLFV DIS [18, 39]', where [39] is prior work by three of the present authors. However, this citation is accompanied by the independent reference [18], and the claim is an approximation/scope choice, not a theorem on which the derivation depends; the paper explicitly acknowledges in Sec. V that other channels such as eg→b bbar τ are not included. The omission of quark-initiated subprocesses is a completeness/correctness concern, not circularity, since the calculation does not redefine the target observable in terms of its inputs. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against the stated model assumptions, and no step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The scalar mediator φ is an assumed BSM state from the cited model literature, not introduced here; the paper introduces no new particle, force, dimension, or conserved quantity. The free parameters listed are benchmark or scanned choices rather than fitted parameters. The main unstated burden is the gluon-initiated subprocess dominance and the external PDF and hadronic-matching inputs.

free parameters (5)
  • κφ (h-like normalization) = 1 (benchmark)
    Eq. (2) defines the h-like scenario by setting the mediator coupling to each heavy quark proportional to its mass; the benchmark value is chosen by hand, not fitted.
  • ρφ(b) (b-only coupling) = 1 (benchmark)
    Eq. (3) defines the b-only scenario with ρ_cc = ρ_tt = 0; the benchmark value is chosen by hand.
  • κφ_t (top-coupling enhancement) = scanned 0 to 2
    Eq. (18) introduces an enhancement factor for the top-quark coupling; it is scanned in Fig. 4, not fitted to data.
  • mφ (mediator mass) = 10, 100, 1000 GeV
    The mediator mass is scanned in Sec. IV to show its effect on the Q-dependence and peak position.
  • ρτe (CLFV lepton coupling) = set by Eqs. (16) and (17)
    The lepton-flavor-violating coupling is normalized to the projected Br(τ -> e π+ π-) = 5e-10 sensitivity; this is an external normalization choice, not a fit to measured data.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math DIS factorization into a parton-level cross section and a gluon PDF
    Eq. (12) convolves the partonic ℓ_i g -> ℓ_j g cross section with the gluon PDF, adopting the QCD factorization theorem without qualification.
  • domain assumption One-loop triangle-induced effective mediator-gluon operator
    Eqs. (4)-(8) use the standard heavy-quark triangle loop result from Refs. [40,41] for the scalar and pseudoscalar effective couplings.
  • ad hoc to paper Gluon-initiated subprocess dominates CLFV DIS
    Only the gluon PDF appears in Eq. (12); quark-initiated subprocesses through the direct ρ_qq couplings are omitted with no numerical estimate of their size.
  • domain assumption CT14 LO proton PDF describes the gluon density
    The numerical results in Sec. IV use the CT14 LO PDF set [45]; the conclusions inherit its content and uncertainties.
  • domain assumption τ -> e π+ π- branching ratio relation from Ref. [44]
    The coupling normalization in Eqs. (16) and (17) relies on the hadronic matching formula quoted from Ref. [44] in the footnote.
  • domain assumption Factorization scale μ_f set to Q
    Eq. (14) sets the factorization scale equal to Q; no scale-variation estimate is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Scalar-Mediator Quark Couplings via CLFV Lepton-Nucleon Scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4IRVZYPC

@misc{pith2026250820846,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Scalar-Mediator Quark Couplings via CLFV Lepton-Nucleon Scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4IRVZYPC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20846}
}
abstract

We investigate charged lepton flavor violating (CLFV) deep-inelastic scattering, focusing on the gluon-initiated subprocess $\ell_i g \to \ell_j g$ via the gluon effective operator $\phi\, G_{\mu \nu}^a G_a^{\mu \nu}$, and demonstrate how to probe the nature of the CLFV mediator $\phi$, specifically its mass and interaction with quarks. We consider two benchmark scenarios for the mediator-quark coupling: (i) $h$-like scenario, in which the mediator couples to heavy quarks in proportion to their masses, and (i\hspace{-1pt}i) $b$-only scenario, where the coupling is restricted to bottom quark only. We demonstrate that these scenarios can be discriminated by examining the dependence of the differential cross section on the momentum transfer. Furthermore, we show that the peak position of the differential cross section exhibits a pronounced sensitivity to both the mass of the mediator and the coupling strengths with quarks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20846 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: CLFV DIS which corresponds to a subprocess [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Differential cross sections for the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Differential cross section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [39]

    Takeuchi, Y

    M. Takeuchi, Y. Uesaka, and M. Yamanaka, Phys. Lett. B772, 279 (2017), 1705.01059

    arXiv 2017

  2. [1]

    Calibbi and G

    L. Calibbi and G. Signorelli, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 41, 71 (2018), 1709.00294

    arXiv 2018

  3. [2]

    R. H. Bernstein and P. S. Cooper, Phys. Rept. 532, 27 (2013), 1307.5787

    arXiv 2013

  4. [3]

    Kuno and Y

    Y. Kuno and Y. Okada, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 151 (2001), hep-ph/9909265

    arXiv 2001

  5. [4]

    Raidal et al., Eur

    M. Raidal et al., Eur. Phys. J. C57, 13 (2008), 0801.1826

    arXiv 2008

  6. [5]

    Abramishvili et al

    R. Abramishvili et al. (COMET) (2018), [PTEP2020,no.3,033C01(2020)], 1812.09018

    arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    Bartoszek et al

    L. Bartoszek et al. (Mu2e), arXiv (2014), 1501.05241

    arXiv 2014

  8. [7]

    Adachi et al

    I. Adachi et al. (Belle-II) (2024), 2405.07386

    arXiv 2024

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    Arndt et al

    K. Arndt et al. (Mu3e), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1014, 165679 (2021), 2009.11690

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    S. N. Gninenko, M. M. Kirsanov, N. V. Krasnikov, and V. A. Matveev, Mod. Phys. Lett. A17, 1407 (2002), hep-ph/0106302

    2002 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Sher and I

    M. Sher and I. Turan, Phys. Rev. D69, 017302 (2004), hep-ph/0309183

    2004 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Kanemura, Y

    S. Kanemura, Y. Kuno, M. Kuze, and T. Ota, Phys. Lett. B607, 165 (2005), hep-ph/0410044

    2005 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Gonderinger and M

    M. Gonderinger and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, JHEP 11, 045 (2010), [Erratum: JHEP 05, 047 (2012)], 1006.5063

    2010 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Bolanos, A

    A. Bolanos, A. Fernandez, A. Moyotl, and G. Tavares-Velasco, Phys. Rev. D 87, 016004 (2013), 1212.0904

    2013 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Liao and X.-H

    W. Liao and X.-H. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 93, 016011 (2016), 1512.01951

    2016 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Abada, V

    A. Abada, V. De Romeri, J. Orloff, and A. Teixeira, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 304 (2017), 1612.05548

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Gninenko, S

    S. Gninenko, S. Kovalenko, S. Kuleshov, V. E. Lyubovitskij, and A. S. Zhevlakov, Phys. Rev. D 98, 015007 (2018), 1804.05550

    2018 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Antusch, A

    S. Antusch, A. Hammad, and A. Rashed (2020), 2003.11091

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Husek, K

    T. Husek, K. Monsalvez-Pozo, and J. Portoles, JHEP 01, 059 (2021), 2009.10428

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Aktas et al

    A. Aktas et al. (H1), Eur. Phys. J. C 52, 833 (2007), hep-ex/0703004

    2007 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Aaron et al

    F. Aaron et al. (H1), Phys. Lett. B 701, 20 (2011), 1103.4938

    2011 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Accardi et al., Eur

    A. Accardi et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 268 (2016), 1212.1701

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Agostini et al

    P. Agostini et al. (LHeC, FCC-he Study Group), J. Phys. G 48, 110501 (2021), 2007.14491

    2021

  16. [25]

    Aryshev et al

    A. Aryshev et al. (ILC International Development Team) (2022), 2203.07622

    2022

  17. [26]

    Agashe, M

    K. Agashe, M. Papucci, G. Perez, and D. Pirjol (2005), hep-ph/0509117

    2005 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Crivellin, C

    A. Crivellin, C. Greub, D. M¨ uller, and F. Saturnino, JHEP 02, 182 (2021), 2010.06593

    2021 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Tsumura and L

    K. Tsumura and L. Velasco-Sevilla, Phys. Rev. D 81, 036012 (2010), 0911.2149

    2010 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Botella, G

    F. Botella, G. Branco, M. Nebot, and M. Rebelo, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 161 (2016), 1508.05101

    2016 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Crivellin, A

    A. Crivellin, A. Kokulu, and C. Greub, Phys. Rev. D 87, 094031 (2013), 1303.5877

    2013 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Davidson and G

    S. Davidson and G. J. Grenier, Phys. Rev. D 81, 095016 (2010), 1001.0434

    2010 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Kanemura, T

    S. Kanemura, T. Ota, and K. Tsumura, Phys. Rev. D 73, 016006 (2006), hep-ph/0505191

    2006 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Davidson, G

    S. Davidson, G. Isidori, and S. Uhlig, Phys. Lett. B663, 73 (2008), 0711.3376. 13

    2008 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Moreau and J

    G. Moreau and J. Silva-Marcos, JHEP 03, 090 (2006), hep-ph/0602155

    2006 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Agashe, A

    K. Agashe, A. E. Blechman, and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. D 74, 053011 (2006), hep- ph/0606021

    2006

  27. [36]

    S. J. Huber, Nucl. Phys. B666, 269 (2003), hep-ph/0303183

    2003 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Cirigliano, K

    V. Cirigliano, K. Fuyuto, C. Lee, E. Mereghetti, and B. Yan, JHEP03, 256 (2021), 2102.06176

    2021 arXiv

  29. [38]

    De, Phys

    B. De, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138784 (2024), 2405.06970

    2024 arXiv

  30. [40]

    H. M. Georgi, S. L. Glashow, M. E. Machacek, and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 692 (1978)

    1978

  31. [41]

    Spira, A

    M. Spira, A. Djouadi, D. Graudenz, and P. M. Zerwas, Nucl. Phys. B 453, 17 (1995), hep- ph/9504378

    1995

  32. [42]

    Zyla et al

    P. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2020, 083C01 (2020)

    2020

  33. [43]

    Altmannshofer et al

    W. Altmannshofer et al. (Belle-II), PTEP 2019, 123C01 (2019), [Erratum: PTEP 2020, 029201 (2020)], 1808.10567

    2019

  34. [44]

    Celis, V

    A. Celis, V. Cirigliano, and E. Passemar, Phys. Rev. D89, 095014 (2014), 1403.5781

    2014 arXiv

  35. [45]

    Dulat, T.-J

    S. Dulat, T.-J. Hou, J. Gao, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, C. Schmidt, D. Stump, and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 93, 033006 (2016), 1506.07443. 14

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.