Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Twist-3 cross-sections for fully inclusive jets carry the leading-twist fragmentation functions D1 and H1^perp, so two azimuthal asymmetries could expose them at future e+e- colliders.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 04:55 UTC pith:5BS7I7QB

load-bearing objection A useful jet-side twist-3 extension with weak-interaction asymmetries, but the advertised 'up to twist-3' cross-section omits fragmentation-side terms that can feed the same azimuthal moments. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13525 v1 pith:5BS7I7QB submitted 2026-07-15 hep-ph

Twist-3 effects in fully inclusive jet production from e^+e^- annihilation

W. Yang This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords twist-3fragmentation functionsfully inclusive jetse+e- annihilationCollins functionazimuthal asymmetriesweak interactionjet correlator
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Electron-positron annihilation into a hadron plus a fully inclusive jet is a clean laboratory for fragmentation functions—the non-perturbative functions describing how a quark turns into hadrons. This paper derives the differential cross-section for that process up to twist-3 (subleading power in 1/Q), including both electromagnetic and weak interactions, and finds that the ordinary leading-twist fragmentation functions—the unpolarized D1 and the Collins function H1^perp, a transverse-momentum-dependent spin function—appear inside the twist-3 pieces. That observation turns two twist-3 azimuthal asymmetries, and , into measurements of D1 and H1^perp. A sympathetic reader would care because the weak interaction's parity-violating contributions keep these asymmetries from collapsing at high collision energy, making them potentially visible at future high-energy e+e- colliders.

Core claim

The central claim is that the twist-3 differential cross-section for e+e- -> h + jet + X is not made of new non-perturbative functions only: its four azimuthal modulations carry the leading-twist fragmentation functions D1 and H1^perp convoluted with coefficient functions of the fully inclusive jet correlator. With the normalization alpha_perp = 1 and epsilon = 1 fixed by a spectral sum rule, <cos phi> becomes a direct measure of D1 (modulated by kinematic factors) and <sin phi> becomes a direct measure of H1^perp weighted by the ratio of the chiral-odd jet mass to the hadron mass. Because the T2(y) and t2(y) pieces are parity-violating, the weak interaction prevents these twist-3 terms from

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the fully inclusive jet correlator J(k_T) and its gauge-link-dressed, quark-gluon-quark companion J^alpha(k_T), decomposed into coefficient functions alpha, beta, epsilon, omega (and their alpha_perp, beta_perp partners). The hadronic tensor is built from handbag and one-gluon diagrams, with the identity alpha_perp^d - beta_perp^d = alpha_perp - i beta_perp (from the QCD equation of motion) combining them into a gauge-invariant result, Eq. (45). Contracting this tensor with the leptonic tensor leaves a compact cross-section, Eq. (62), in which four azimuthal modulations isolate the twist-3 terms; the spectral normalization of Appendix B sets alpha_perp = 1 and ep

Load-bearing premise

The calculation is a specific rather than complete twist-3 treatment: it includes twist-3 effects only from the jet correlator and neglects kinematic and dynamical higher-twist contributions from the fragmentation correlator, so the quoted cross-section is the full twist-3 answer only if those dropped terms are numerically negligible.

What would settle it

Measure <cos phi> in e+e- -> h + jet at a collider with Q around 90 GeV; the paper predicts a parity-violating, few-percent asymmetry that does not drop with energy, whereas a result consistent with zero would rule out the weak-interaction enhancement mechanism (and hence the central claim).

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, e+e- collisions into a fully inclusive jet can probe D1 and the Collins function H1^perp through twist-3 azimuthal asymmetries, without needing single-hadron transverse-momentum reconstruction.
  • The weak interaction keeps <cos phi> at the percent level even as Q grows well past the Z mass, making future high-energy e+e- colliders a viable place to measure twist-3 effects.
  • <sin phi> is proportional to the jet mass M_J, so its measurement offers an empirical handle on the chiral-odd jet mass and, through the M_J/M ratio, on hadron species.
  • The framework extends naturally to include jet-mass dependence without assuming the jet is massless, which earlier fully-inclusive-jet treatments neglected.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same machinery should apply to polarized e+e- or to ep collisions with jets, where the parity-violating enhancement could isolate twist-3 quark-gluon correlations; that is an extension the paper does not make.
  • A measurement of <sin phi> for multiple hadron species would test the flavor dependence of the Collins function more cleanly than current semi-inclusive analyses, since the asymmetry's hadron dependence enters through M_J/M and the fragmentation ratio H1^perp/D1.
  • The approximation alpha_perp = 1, epsilon = 1 rests on a free-field spectral argument imported from an earlier work; a direct non-perturbative check of the gauge-link-dressed jet correlator's normalization (e.g., by lattice QCD) would either confirm the numerical predictions or rescale them.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a framework for twist-3 contributions to fully inclusive jet production in e+e- annihilation, for unpolarized e+e- beams and unpolarized final-state hadron+jet, including both electromagnetic and weak (Z-boson) exchange. The hadronic tensor is built from jet and fragmentation correlators; quark-gluon-quark jet correlators are included to enforce current conservation. The resulting differential cross-section, Eq. (62), contains leading-twist fragmentation functions D1 and H1^perp convoluted with twist-3 jet coefficient functions. The author then defines two azimuthal asymmetries <cos phi> and <sin phi>, uses a Gaussian TMD ansatz and NPC23 collinear FFs to give numerical predictions, and argues that weak-interaction terms keep these twist-3 effects from being strongly suppressed at future high-energy e+e- colliders. The central advertised result is that leading-twist FFs can be accessed through these twist-3 asymmetries.

Significance. Positive: the calculation is explicit, with trace computations shown and current-conservation checks stated after Eqs. (36) and (44); the inclusion of parity-violating weak-interaction structures in the jet correlator (Eq. (24)) extends the existing Accardi-Signori / Accardi-Bacchetta formalism; the numerical work uses public parametrizations (NPC23) and a standard Gaussian width; and the author is honest enough to flag the incompleteness of the twist-3 calculation in Sec. III. Negative: the central interpretational claim is not yet supported. The cross-section of Eq. (62) omits fragmentation-side twist-3 contributions of the same power in 1/Q that can feed the same azimuthal moments; the normalizations alpha_perp = 1 and epsilon = 1 are imported from a free-field spectral argument (Appendix B) rather than proved for the dressed correlator; and the two asymmetries are ratio observables in which D1 either cancels exactly (Eq. (66)) or enters only as a ratio with H1^perp (Eq. (68)). The paper thus demonstrates a calculable jet-correlator twist-3 contribution, but not yet a controlled new handle on D1 or H1^perp.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III (before Eq. (19)); Eq. (62); abstract] The text explicitly limits the treatment: 'the kinematic and dynamical higher-twist contributions from the fragmentation correlator are neglected' and calls the result 'a specific, rather than a fully comprehensive, twist-3 calculation.' The omitted fragmentation-side twist-3 terms are of the same order in 1/Q as the kept jet-side terms (leading-twist jet correlator times twist-3 fragmentation correlator) and, through the vector/axial/tensor Dirac structures of the twist-3 fragmentation correlator, they will generically contract with the same leptonic/hadronic tensor structures and produce cos phi and sin phi modulations. Therefore Eq. (62) is not the complete twist-3 cross-section, and the azimuthal moments (63), (64), (67) are not shown to isolate the contributions computed here. This is a structural issue, not a numerical one; without a suppression argument, the predicted magnitude of
  2. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B15)-(B20)] The normalizations alpha_perp = 1 and epsilon = 1 are obtained from a spectral (Kallen-Lehmann) representation of a simple Wightman function with only rho1 /p + rho2 structures and from the equal-time anticommutation relation, and then applied to the interacting, gauge-link-dressed jet correlator of Eq. (20). The decomposition (24) contains several independent scalar coefficient functions; the spectral sum rule fixes the coefficient of /p (alpha_1), not the coefficients of the k_T-dependent and mass structures. Setting alpha_perp = 1 and epsilon = 1 therefore goes beyond what is derived here and is taken from Ref. [48]. Since these constants enter linearly in the asymmetries of Eqs. (66) and (68), the numerical sizes in Figs. 3-8 depend on this assumption. Please either prove the relations for the dressed correlator or present them as model assumptions with a sensitivity study.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (64)-(66), Fig. 5] Under the Gaussian TMD ansatz (65), the function D1 cancels analytically in Eq. (66). The z-independence of <cos phi> in Fig. 5 is therefore to a large extent built into the parametrization rather than a new physical result, and <cos phi> does not give access to D1. The statement that the asymmetry 'does not depend on the types of hadrons' is not robust: with flavor-dependent electroweak couplings and flavor-dependent NPC23 FFs, the flavor sums in numerator and denominator do not cancel exactly except in the simplified single-flavor formula; the paper itself concedes this in the following paragraph. The abstract's claim that leading-twist FFs are probed through the asymmetries should be corrected: <cos phi> tests alpha_perp and the transverse-width parameter Delta^2, not D1.
  4. [Sec. IV, Eq. (68), Figs. 7-8] The quantity plotted is not <sin phi> itself but <sin phi> * D1/H1^perp (per quark flavor), in which the Collins function cancels. The physical asymmetry is proportional to the ratio H1^perp/D1 and to M_J/M, with M_J a model parameter set to 0.3 or 0.5 GeV without running. Given the acknowledged large uncertainties in H1^perp, the figures show a scaled, model-dependent quantity rather than a directly measurable asymmetry, and they do not demonstrate that H1^perp can be extracted. The conclusion that <sin phi> 'might serve as a helpful probe' is appropriately hedged, but the abstract's appeal to accessing the Collins function is stronger than the numerical analysis supports. Please show the observable as a function of assumed H1^perp/D1 and M_J.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (34)] The first term of the second bracket appears to contract nu twice (epsilon k^nu_T n^nu); presumably n^mu is intended. Please recheck all index placements in Eqs. (34)-(44).
  2. [Sec. II and Fig. 1] The symbols phi and varphi are used interchangeably. Since the paper studies <cos phi> and <sin phi>, a single convention with explicit definitions of both angles would prevent confusion.
  3. [Fig. 6] The band description says 'parameters are varied by +/-10% uncertainties' but does not specify which parameters; presumably Delta^2 and M_J. Please state this explicitly.
  4. [Sec. IV, near Figs. 7-8] There is a typo, 'indicates indicates', in the sentence preceding the numerical estimates.
  5. [Eqs. (52)-(61)] The sign conventions behind the parity-violating combinations B(y), C(y), D(y) are not documented. A sentence connecting them to the orientation of epsilon^{mu nu}_{l1 l2} in Eqs. (14)-(15) would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the twist-3 cross-section is derived from explicit correlator decompositions and trace algebra, and the numerical inputs are external parametrizations rather than fitted outputs.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. Equation (62) follows from the hadronic tensor in Eq. (19) by explicit Dirac traces and contractions (Eqs. (26)-(51)); D1 and H1^perp appear as external nonperturbative functions, not as parameters adjusted to reproduce the proposed asymmetries. The simplification α⊥=1, ϵ=1 is obtained in Appendix B from a Kallen-Lehmann/spectral sum rule, with Ref. [48] cited only as corroboration, not as the sole load-bearing input; whether that derivation is fully justified is a correctness question, not a circularity one. The numerical estimates use NPC23 fragmentation functions and an external Gaussian width Δ²=0.17 GeV², so there is no fit-then-predict loop: the paper does not extract D1 or H1^perp from the same asymmetries it computes. The paper's own caveat that fragmentation-side twist-3 terms are neglected (Sec. III, before Eq. (19)) is a completeness limitation, not a circular step, because omitting additional contributions cannot make the retained terms equal to the inputs by construction. The observed z-insensitivity of <cosφ> follows from cancellation in Eq. (66), and the paper itself flags this possibility ("the FF contributions in the numerator and denominator in Eq. (66) may cancel out"), so it is not presented as a decisive independent prediction. Self-citations in Refs. [18-25] are contextual literature references and are not used to justify any uniqueness theorem or to import the main result. No claim in the paper reduces, by definition or by fitted parameter, to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on the standard fully inclusive jet correlator framework plus an explicit truncation of twist-3 terms. The main free inputs are the Gaussian TMD width and the chiral-odd jet mass. No new physical entities are introduced; M_J is imported from prior work on jet mass.

free parameters (2)
  • Gaussian TMD width Delta^2 = 0.17 GeV^2
    Used in Eq. (65) for D1(z,pT) in all numerical estimates; taken from global fits in Refs. [58-63], not derived here.
  • Chiral-odd jet mass M_J = 0.3 and 0.5 GeV
    Chosen by hand for the <sin phi> numerical estimates; the paper notes M_J running is not considered.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Factorization of e+e- -> h + jet + X into a fully inclusive jet correlator and a fragmentation correlator
    Eq. (19) assumes the cross-section can be written as a convolution of these correlators at twist-3 accuracy; this is the core parton-model/factorization premise.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of fragmentation-side twist-3 contributions
    Explicitly stated before Eq. (19): only jet-correlator twist-3 pieces are kept while kinematic and dynamical higher-twist contributions from the fragmentation correlator are dropped; no numerical estimate of their size is given.
  • domain assumption Spectral normalization alpha_perp = 1 and epsilon = 1
    Appendix B derives these from a free-field Kallen-Lehmann sum rule; the interacting, gauge-link-dressed jet correlator is assumed to satisfy the same normalization, citing Ref. [48].
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian ansatz for transverse momentum dependence
    Eq. (65) assumes D1(z,pT) = (1/pi Delta^2) exp(-pT^2/Delta^2) with Delta^2 = 0.17 GeV^2 for all flavors; this is used for every numerical estimate.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17527 in / 14342 out tokens · 153191 ms · 2026-08-02T04:55:21.897448+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Electron-positron annihilation is an ideal place to study the hadronization process which is described by fragmentation functions. In contrast to conventional approaches based on single-inclusive or semi-inclusive annihilation, the use of fully inclusive jets to study fragmentation functions is more advantageous. This approach provides novel insight into the underlying hadronization mechanisms. For example, the mass of the jet, which breaks chiral symmetry, can be effectively used to probe twist-3 chiral-odd effects. In this paper, we present a systematic theoretical framework for calculating the differential cross-section up to twist-3 for the unpolarized annihilation process. Calculations take into account both the electromagnetic interaction and weak interaction. We find that leading-twist fragmentation functions are convoluted into the twist-3 effects. This probably provides a new perspective for studying fragmentation functions. To this end, we introduce two twist-3 azimuthal asymmetries and give the corresponding numerical estimates. We notice that the twist-3 effects are not significantly suppressed in high-energy regions due to the presence of the weak interaction. In other words, it is feasible to measure twist-3 effects at future high-energy electron-positron colliders to study hadronization mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13525 by W. Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Illustration of the center-of-mass system for the fully inclu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Feynman diagrams for the hadronic tensor. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Numerical estimates of the azimuthal asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Numerical estimates of the azimuthal asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Numerical estimates of the azimuthal asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Numerical estimates of the chiral-odd azimuthal asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Numerical estimates of the chiral-odd azimuthal asymme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. D. Field and R. P. Feynman, Nucl. Phys. B136, 1 (1978). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(78)90015-9

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(78)90015-9 1978

  2. [2]

    Momenta can also be parametrized in terms of the time-like vectortµ and the space- like vectorvµ

    The trans- verse momentuml µ T =Q p y(1−y)x µ. Momenta can also be parametrized in terms of the time-like vectortµ and the space- like vectorvµ. Relations between (¯n,n) and (t,v) are presented in Appendix A. We write down the differential cross section as dσ dzdydη Jd2⃗kT = α2Ncz 16π2sQ4 ArLr µν(l1,l 2)Wµν r (q,p h),(9) whereη J is the rapidity of the me...

  3. [4]

    Marchesini and B

    G. Marchesini and B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B238, 1-29 (1984) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90463-2

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90463-2 1984

  4. [5]

    B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B238, 492-528 (1984) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90333-X

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90333-x 1984

  5. [6]

    V . V . Anisovich and V . M. Shekhter, Nucl. Phys. B55, 455- 473 (1973) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B63, 542-542 (1973)] doi:10.1016/0550-3213(73)90391-X

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(73)90391-x 1973

  6. [7]

    J. D. Bjorken and G. R. Farrar, Phys. Rev. D9, 1449 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.1449

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.9.1449 1974

  7. [8]

    K. P. Das and R. C. Hwa, Phys. Lett. B68, 459 (1977) [erratum: Phys. Lett. B73, 504 (1978)] doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(77)90469-5

    doi:10.1016/0370- 1977

  8. [9]

    Q. B. Xie and X. M. Liu, Phys. Rev. D38, 2169-2177 (1988) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.38.2169

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.38.2169 1988

  9. [10]

    S. M. Berman, J. D. Bjorken and J. B. Kogut, Phys. Rev. D4, 3388 (1971) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.4.3388

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.4.3388 1971

  10. [11]

    J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B194, 445 (1982). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90021-9

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90021-9 1982

  11. [12]

    Bianconi, S

    A. Bianconi, S. Boffi, R. Jakob and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D62, 034008 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.034008 [arXiv:hep- ph/9907475 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2000

  12. [13]

    Bianconi, S

    A. Bianconi, S. Boffi, R. Jakob and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D62, 034009 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.034009 [arXiv:hep- ph/9907488 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2000

  13. [14]

    Bacchetta and M

    A. Bacchetta and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D69, 074026 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.074026 [arXiv:hep-ph/0311173 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  14. [15]

    Metz and A

    A. Metz and A. V ossen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.91, 136- 202 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.08.003 [arXiv:1607.02521 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  15. [16]

    Y . k. Song, J. h. Gao, Z. t. Liang and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D83, 054010 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.054010 [arXiv:1012.4179 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  16. [17]

    Y . k. Song, J. h. Gao, Z. t. Liang and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D89, no. 1, 014005 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.014005 [arXiv:1308.1159 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [18]

    S. y. Wei, Y . k. Song, K. b. Chen and Z. t. Liang, Phys. Rev. D95, no. 7, 074017 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.074017 [arXiv:1611.08688 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [19]

    W. h. Yang, K. b. Chen and Z. t. Liang, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.5, 054016 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.054016 [arXiv:1707.00402 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [20]

    K. B. Chen and W. H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D101, no.9, 096017 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.096017 [arXiv:2004.01359 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [21]

    Yang, Phys

    W. Yang, Phys. Rev. D103, no.1, 016011 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.016011 [arXiv:2011.10212 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [22]

    Yang, Eur

    W. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.8, 741 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10698-y

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10698-y 2022

  22. [23]

    Yang and X

    W. Yang and X. Yang, Phys. Rev. D106, no.9, 093003 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.093003 [arXiv:2209.01629 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [24]

    Yang and X

    W. Yang and X. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B990, 116181 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2023.116181

    arXiv 2023

  24. [25]

    Yang, Phys

    W. Yang, Phys. Rev. D108, no.5, 056022 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.056022 [arXiv:2306.12632 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [26]

    W. Yang, J. Zhao and Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D112, no.3, 033007 (2025) doi:10.1103/z8tf-mzrw [arXiv:2505.04093 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [27]

    Gutierrez-Reyes, I

    D. Gutierrez-Reyes, I. Scimemi, W. J. Waalewijn and L. Zoppi, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, no.16, 162001 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.162001 [arXiv:1807.07573 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  27. [28]

    Gutierrez-Reyes, I

    D. Gutierrez-Reyes, I. Scimemi, W. J. Waalewijn and L. Zoppi, JHEP10, 031 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2019)031 [arXiv:1904.04259 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [29]

    Z. B. Kang, X. Liu, S. Mantry and D. Y . Shao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 242003 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.242003 [arXiv:2008.00655 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [30]

    Arratia, Y

    M. Arratia, Y . Makris, D. Neill, F. Ringer and N. Sato, Phys. Rev. D104, no.3, 034005 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.034005 [arXiv:2006.10751 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [31]

    X. Liu, F. Ringer, W. V ogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.9, 094022 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.094022 [arXiv:2007.12866 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [32]

    X. Liu, F. Ringer, W. V ogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, no.19, 192003 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.192003 [arXiv:1812.08077 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [33]

    Arratia, Z

    M. Arratia, Z. B. Kang, S. J. Paul, A. Prokudin, F. Ringer and F. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D107, no.9, 094036 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.094036 [arXiv:2212.02432 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [34]

    Arratia, Y

    M. Arratia, Y . Song, F. Ringer and B. V . Jacak, Phys. Rev. C 101, no.6, 065204 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.101.065204 [arXiv:1912.05931 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [35]

    Procura and I

    M. Procura and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D81, 074009 (2010) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D83, 039902 (2011)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.074009 [arXiv:0911.4980 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  35. [36]

    A. Jain, M. Procura and W. J. Waalewijn, JHEP05, 035 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2011)035 [arXiv:1101.4953 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  36. [37]

    A. Jain, M. Procura and W. J. Waalewijn, JHEP04, 132 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2012)132 [arXiv:1110.0839 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  37. [38]

    Y . T. Chien, Z. B. Kang, F. Ringer, I. Vitev and H. Xing, JHEP05, 125 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2016)125 [arXiv:1512.06851 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [39]

    Arleo, M

    F. Arleo, M. Fontannaz, J. P. Guillet and C. L. Nguyen, JHEP04, 147 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)147 [arXiv:1311.7356 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  39. [40]

    Kaufmann, A

    T. Kaufmann, A. Mukherjee and W. V ogelsang, Phys. Rev. D92, no.5, 054015 (2015) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 101, no.7, 079901 (2020)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.054015 [arXiv:1506.01415 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  40. [41]

    Z. B. Kang, F. Ringer and I. Vitev, JHEP11, 155 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2016)155 [arXiv:1606.07063 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [42]

    L. Dai, C. Kim and A. K. Leibovich, Phys. Rev. D 94, no.11, 114023 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.114023 [arXiv:1606.07411 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [43]

    Z. B. Kang, K. Lee, J. Terry and H. Xing, Phys. Lett. B798, 134978 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134978 [arXiv:1906.07187 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2019

  43. [44]

    Z. B. Kang, X. Liu, F. Ringer and H. Xing, JHEP11, 068 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2017)068 [arXiv:1705.08443 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  44. [45]

    Z. B. Kang, K. Lee and F. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B809, 135756 11 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135756 [arXiv:2005.02398 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2020

  45. [46]

    J. C. Collins, T. C. Rogers and A. M. Stasto, Phys. Rev. D77, 085009 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.085009 [arXiv:0708.2833 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  46. [47]

    Accardi and J

    A. Accardi and J. W. Qiu, JHEP07, 090 (2008) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/07/090 [arXiv:0805.1496 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  47. [48]

    Accardi and A

    A. Accardi and A. Bacchetta, Phys. Lett. B773, 632-638 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.08.074 [arXiv:1706.02000 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [49]

    Accardi and A

    A. Accardi and A. Signori, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.9, 825 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8380-1 [arXiv:2005.11310 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [50]

    Accardi, C

    A. Accardi, C. S. R. Costa and A. Signori, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.11, 114011 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.114011 [arXiv:2307.10152 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [51]

    J. B. Guimar ˜aes da Costaet al.[CEPC Study Group], [arXiv:1811.10545 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [52]

    Abadaet al.[FCC], Eur

    A. Abadaet al.[FCC], Eur. Phys. J. C79, no.6, 474 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6904-3

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6904-3 2019

  52. [53]

    Abadaet al.[FCC], Eur

    A. Abadaet al.[FCC], Eur. Phys. J. ST228, no.2, 261-623 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjst/e2019-900045-4

    doi:10.1140/epjst/e2019-900045-4 2019

  53. [54]

    D. Boer, R. Jakob and P. J. Mulders, Nucl. Phys. B504, 345- 380 (1997) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00456-2 [arXiv:hep- ph/9702281 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1997

  54. [55]

    Bacchetta, M

    A. Bacchetta, M. Diehl, K. Goeke, A. Metz, P. J. Mulders and M. Schlegel, JHEP02, 093 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126- 6708/2007/02/093 [arXiv:hep-ph/0611265 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  55. [56]

    K. b. Chen, W. h. Yang, S. y. Wei and Z. t. Liang, Phys. Rev. D94, no. 3, 034003 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.034003 [arXiv:1605.07790 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  56. [57]

    J. Gao, C. Liu, X. Shen, H. Xing and Y . Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, no.26, 26 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.261903 [arXiv:2401.02781 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [58]

    J. Gao, C. Liu, X. Shen, H. Xing and Y . Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.11, 114019 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.114019 [arXiv:2407.04422 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [59]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, A. Kotzinian, F. Murgia and A. Prokudin, Phys. Rev. D71, 074006 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.074006 [arXiv:hep-ph/0501196 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  59. [60]

    Signori, A

    A. Signori, A. Bacchetta, M. Radici and G. Schnell, JHEP11, 194 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2013)194 [arXiv:1309.3507 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  60. [61]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, J. O. Gonzalez Hernan- dez, S. Melis and A. Prokudin, JHEP04, 005 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)005 [arXiv:1312.6261 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  61. [62]

    Cammarotaet al.[Jefferson Lab Angular Mo- mentum], Phys

    J. Cammarotaet al.[Jefferson Lab Angular Mo- mentum], Phys. Rev. D102, no.5, 054002 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.054002 [arXiv:2002.08384 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  62. [63]

    Bacchettaet al.[MAP (Multi-dimensional Anal- yses of Partonic distributions)], JHEP10, 127 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2022)127 [arXiv:2206.07598 [hep-ph]]

    A. Bacchettaet al.[MAP (Multi-dimensional Anal- yses of Partonic distributions)], JHEP10, 127 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2022)127 [arXiv:2206.07598 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  63. [64]

    Bacchettaet al.[MAP], JHEP08, 232 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)232 [arXiv:2405.13833 [hep-ph]]

    A. Bacchettaet al.[MAP], JHEP08, 232 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)232 [arXiv:2405.13833 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [65]

    Bertoneet al.[NNPDF], Eur

    V . Bertoneet al.[NNPDF], Eur. Phys. J. C77, no.8, 516 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5088-y [arXiv:1706.07049 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  65. [66]

    H. H. Matevosyan, A. W. Thomas and W. Bentz, Phys. Rev. D86, 034025 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.034025 [arXiv:1205.5813 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  66. [67]

    Bacchetta, L

    A. Bacchetta, L. P. Gamberg, G. R. Goldstein and A. Mukherjee, Phys. Lett. B659, 234-243 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.076 [arXiv:0707.3372 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  67. [68]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, A. Kotzinian, F. Murgia, A. Prokudin and C. Turk, Phys. Rev. D75, 054032 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.054032 [arXiv:hep- ph/0701006 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2007

  68. [69]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, A. Kotzinian, F. Murgia, A. Prokudin and S. Melis, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 191, 98-107 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2009.03.117 [arXiv:0812.4366 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  69. [70]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, S. Melis, F. Murgia and A. Prokudin, Phys. Rev. D87, 094019 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.094019 [arXiv:1303.3822 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  70. [71]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, J. O. Gonzalez Her- nandez, S. Melis, F. Murgia and A. Prokudin, Phys. Rev. D 92, no.11, 114023 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.114023 [arXiv:1510.05389 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  71. [72]

    Z. B. Kang, A. Prokudin, P. Sun and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D93, no.1, 014009 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.014009 [arXiv:1505.05589 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  72. [73]

    Accardi, Y

    A. Accardi, Y . T. Chien, D. d’Enterria, A. Deshpande, C. Dilks, P. A. Gutierrez Garcia, W. W. Jacobs, F. Krauss, S. L. Gomez and M. M. Mondal,et al.[arXiv:2204.02280 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [74]

    D. M. Asneret al.[US Belle II Group and Belle II/SuperKEKB e- Polarization Upgrade Working Group], [arXiv:2205.12847 [physics.acc-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv