Spin-orbit correlation and spatial distributions for spin-0 hadrons

C\'edric Lorc\'e; Qin-Tao Song

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Spin-orbit correlation and spatial distributions for spin-0 hadrons

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A spin-0 hadron's quark spin-orbit correlation is fixed by its electromagnetic form factor when quark masses are neglected.

desk verdict A clean spin-0 specialization of a known EMT relation, with a solid forward-limit sum rule and illustrative but under-caveated spatial plots. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05092 v2 pith:7GDMH6JA submitted 2025-01-09 hep-ph hep-latnucl-exnucl-th

Cédric Lorcé , Qin-Tao Song This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-latnucl-exnucl-th

keywords spin-orbitcorrelationspin-0hadronsenergy-momentumtensorformfactorsparity-oddEMTpionelectromagneticfactorchiralstressgeneralizedpartondistributionsimpact-parameter

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 shows that the quark spin-orbit correlation inside a spin-0 hadron — the difference between the orbital angular momentum carried by right-handed and left-handed quarks — is fixed by the hadron's electromagnetic form factor once quark masses are neglected. Specifically, the parity-odd energy-momentum form factor $\tilde F^q(t)$ is proportional to the vector form factor $F^q(t)$, giving $C^q_z = -\frac{1}{2}F^q(0)$, where $F^q(0)$ is the valence quark number of flavor $q$ (quarks minus antiquarks). Because electromagnetic form factors are already measured for pions, kaons, and $\alpha$ particles, the paper converts those measurements into predictions for quantities that are otherwise hard to access: the chiral stress and torque distributions inside the hadron. The authors illustrate the predictions for the pion using three parametrizations of its form factor, and find the kinetic spin-orbit correlation concentrated within about 1 fm.

What carries the argument

The central object is the parity-odd quark energy-momentum tensor form factor $\tilde F^q(t)$, defined through the hadron matrix element $\langle p'|\hat T^{\mu\nu}_{q5}(0)|p\rangle = i\epsilon^{\mu\nu\Delta P}\tilde F^q(t)$. It carries the whole argument: its forward value equals the kinetic quark spin-orbit correlation $C^q_z = L^q_{zR}-L^q_{zL}$, it can also be written as minus the first $x$-moment of the twist-3 axial-vector generalized parton distribution $G^q_2$ (a quark correlation function separating left- and right-handed quarks), and through the QCD equation of motion it decomposes as $\tilde F^q(t)=\frac{1}{2}[-F^q(t)+\frac{m_q}{M}H^q(t)]$. The massless-limit proportionality $\tilde F^q(t)=-\frac{1}{2}F^q(t)$ is what converts measured electromagnetic form factors into predictions for the spin-orbit correlation and the associated chiral-stress and torque distributions.

What would settle it

Compare a direct extraction of $\tilde F^q(t)$ — obtained through the twist-3 axial-vector GPD $G^q_2$ in meson-pair production or a future meson-target experiment — with $-\frac{1}{2}F^q(t)$ from measured electromagnetic form factors; a discrepancy that grows with $-t$ would show the mass-suppressed tensor term is not negligible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that for a spin-0 hadron the parity-odd energy-momentum tensor form factor $\tilde F^q(t)$ — the single form factor that encodes the kinetic quark spin-orbit correlation — is, up to corrections of order $m_q/M$, simply $-\frac{1}{2}F^q(t)$, where $F^q(t)$ is the flavor vector (electromagnetic) form factor. In the forward limit this gives $C^q_z = \tilde F^q(0) = -\frac{1}{2}F^q(0)$, so the quark spin-orbit correlation equals minus half the valence quark number of flavor $q$. The paper further shows that $\tilde F^q(t)$ generates a three-dimensional chiral-stress distribution $v_q(r)$, interpreted as a torque about the radial direction, and an impact-parameter-space distribution of the spin-orbit correlation. Using monopole, dipole, and Gaussian parametrizations of the pion electromagnetic form factor, the resulting torque and spin-orbit distributions all concentrate within roughly 1 fm, with the monopole form producing a singular $1/r$ torque at the center.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing simplification is that the mass-suppressed tensor term $(m_q/M)H^q(t)$ in Eq. (12) stays negligible compared with $F^q(t)$ at every momentum transfer contributing to the spatial Fourier transforms, so the measured electromagnetic form factor alone fixes $\tilde F^q(t)$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the pion, the massless-limit prediction gives $C^u_z=C^d_z=-1/2$ for both light flavors, while the sum over flavors vanishes for every scalar meson.
For the $\alpha$ particle the total spin-orbit correlation is predicted to be $C_z=-6$, and for anti-$\alpha$ it is $C_z=+6$.
Measured electromagnetic form factors can substitute for difficult higher-twist generalized parton distribution measurements, turning elastic-scattering data into maps of chiral stress and internal torque inside spin-0 hadrons.
In impact-parameter space, the kinetic spin-orbit correlation distribution has area equal to $C^q_z$; for the pion, all three parametrizations place that distribution within about 1 fm.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension the paper does not pursue is to apply the same QCD equation of motion to the unpolarized parity-odd form factor of a nucleon, where an analogous massless-limit proportionality might hold but would need a dedicated twist-3 GPD extraction to test.
Because the vector form factor at zero momentum transfer is a conserved charge, the predicted value $C^q_z=-\frac{1}{2}F^q(0)$ is likely renormalization-scale independent; a lattice calculation of $\tilde F^q$ at several scales could sharpen the paper's expectation of only mild scale dependence.
The three pion form-factor shapes give different short-distance behavior for the chiral-stress distributions, so future higher-momentum-transfer data on $F_\pi(t)$ will discriminate between a regular torque profile and the singular $1/r$ torque characteristic of the monopole falloff.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a clean, short paper that extends a known relation to spin-0 hadrons and draws a neat sum rule, but the position-space plots are shakier than the central claim.

What's actually new: the paper specializes the QCD equation-of-motion relation between the P-odd EMT form factor and the vector and tensor form factors to spin-0 targets, derives the forward-limit sum rule C_z^q = -F^q(0)/2, and gives it a physical reading as chiral stress and radial torque. The derivation in Eqs. (11)-(12) is explicit and internally consistent, and the forward limit is safe because m_q/M is tiny and H^q(0) is not parametrically large. The authors also correct a factor 1/2 in Ref. [78] in a footnote, which is honest and useful. The impact-parameter distribution of the spin-orbit correlation is a reasonable addition.

Soft spots: the stress-test note lands. Eq. (16) drops the tensor term uniformly in t, but the Fourier transforms in Sec. III require tilde F = -F/2 at all t, including large -t where the pion form factor is barely constrained. If H^q(t)/F^q(t) grows with -t, the plotted chiral stress and torque distributions would change, even though quark masses are small. The paper acknowledges the approximation but gives no bound or estimate. That makes those plots illustrative rather than predictive. The three ansaetze for the pion form factor are also hand-picked with no uncertainty bands; the monopole even gives a singular density at the origin. None of this breaks the sum rule, which is the main result, but it should be said clearly.

Novelty is limited: the formal relation essentially matches the spin-1/2 result of Ref. [53] and appears, up to the corrected factor, in Ref. [78]. The genuinely new content is the spin-0 specialization, the chiral-stress interpretation, and the illustrative distributions.

Who is this for: people working on EMT form factors, GPDs, or pion structure. It's a modest but useful contribution. I'd send it to a referee; a good referee will ask for the H/F bound and a more careful statement that the spatial distributions are model-dependent illustrations. The central derivation deserves publication.

Recommendation: yes, engage; accept with revision after the authors address the tensor-form-factor caveat and soften the spatial-distribution claims.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the parity-odd (chiral) energy-momentum tensor form factor \tilde F^q(t) for spin-0 hadrons. The authors use the QCD equation of motion to derive the exact relation \tilde F^q(t) = 1/2[-F^q(t)+(m_q/M)H^q(t)], where F^q is the quark vector form factor and H^q the tensor form factor. Neglecting the quark-mass term, they obtain \tilde F^q(t) \approx -F^q(t)/2 and hence a forward-limit relation C_z^q = -F^q(0)/2 between the kinetic quark spin-orbit correlation and the valence quark number. They define a 3D chiral-stress distribution v_q(r) and a radial torque \tau_{q,r}(r) as Fourier transforms of \tilde F^q, note that the P-odd EMT is conserved, and illustrate these distributions for the pion using monopole, dipole, and Gaussian parameterizations of the pion electromagnetic form factor. They also introduce an impact-parameter-space distribution of C_z^q and argue that gluonic contributions vanish for spin-0 hadrons.

Significance. The paper's central derivation is compact, explicit, and free of fitted parameters; Eqs. (11)-(12) provide a model-independent bridge between a higher-twist axial EMT form factor and ordinary vector/tensor form factors. If the mass-suppressed term is indeed negligible over the range of t that matters, the prediction C_z^q = -F^q(0)/2 and the associated chiral-stress distributions turn decades of precise electromagnetic-form-factor measurements into new information about quark spin-orbit structure. The paper is also useful in pointing out a factor-of-two correction to the parametrization of Ref. [78]. The main limitation is that the spatial distributions require the relation \tilde F^q = -F^q/2 at all t, whereas the paper only states the O(m_q/M) error without quantifying H^q(t)/F^q(t). This does not undermine the forward-limit sum rule but does make the plotted distributions conditional.

major comments (2)

[§II, Eq. (16); §III, Eqs. (25)–(36)] The replacement \tilde F^q(t) = -F^q(t)/2 + O(m_q/M) is used not only at t=0 but also in the full Fourier transforms that define the chiral stress v_q(r), the radial torque \tau_{q,r}(r), and the impact-parameter distribution \langle \hat C_z^q\rangle(b_\perp). The paper gives no bound or estimate for (m_q/M)|H^q(t)/F^q(t)| as a function of t. At t=0 the error is safely O(m_q/M) because H^q(0) is not parametrically enhanced, so Eq. (22) is robust. However, if H^q(t)/F^q(t) grows with -t, as a twist-2 tensor form factor might, the relation \tilde F = -F/2 would fail in the large-|t| region that controls small-r and small-b_\perp behavior, and the plotted distributions would be modified even though the quark masses are small. Please add a numerical estimate (e.g., from a model, lattice, or a conservative bound on H^q) or explicitly recast the spatial plots as illustrations under an unverified assumption.
[§III, Eq. (33) and Figs. 2–3] The illustrative pion form factors are constrained by data only up to Q^2 ≈ 6 GeV^2 and have different large-t power laws (monopole, dipole, Gaussian). The Fourier-transformed distributions differ visibly at small r and b_\perp, which is exactly the region controlled by the unmeasured high-|t| tail. The figures do not include an uncertainty band or a comparison of the three curves as a systematic estimate. Please add a sensitivity estimate or restrict the quantitative conclusions to the region where the parameterizations and the mass-suppression assumption are jointly reliable.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. 3] The horizontal axis is labeled "r (fm)" but the quantity plotted is b_\perp; rename it to "b_\perp (fm)" for consistency with Eq. (36).
[Below Eq. (33)] The sentence "the area enclosed by the each curve" contains a typo; it should read "the area enclosed by each curve."
[Eq. (28)] The derivation of the integral relation uses integration by parts; the phrase "provided that surface terms vanish" could be made more explicit by stating that the surface term at infinity is assumed to vanish for the adopted form-factor parameterizations.
[Footnote 1] The correction to Ref. [78] is stated tersely; a short derivation of \tilde C^q(t)=2\tilde F^q(t) would help readers verify the factor of two.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin-orbit relation is derived from the QCD equation of motion and Lorentz-covariant parametrizations, not fitted or defined by the result.

full rationale

The central chain is Eq. (6) (P-odd EMT parametrization with a single form factor), Eq. (7) (C^q_z = tilde F^q(0)), Eq. (11) (QCD equation of motion identity from Ref. [53]), Eq. (12) (tilde F^q = 1/2[-F^q + (m_q/M)H^q]), Eq. (16) (mass term neglected to obtain tilde F^q = -1/2 F^q), and Eq. (22) (C^q_z = -1/2 F^q(0)). No constant is fitted to the target quantity; the electromagnetic form factor enters only as external input for the illustrative plots, not to force the sum rule. The self-cited Ref. [53] supplies an operator identity, but the paper re-derives the spin-0 consequence and the identity is parameter-free, so it is real evidence rather than a circular premise. The skeptic's concern that (m_q/M)H^q(t) is dropped without bounding H^q/F^q at large -t is a correctness/robustness issue about the t-dependent spatial distributions, not a circular-reasoning defect: even if the approximation fails at large momentum transfer, the derivation is not assuming the conclusion. The plotted distributions and their t-tail sensitivity are conditional numerical illustrations, not predictions defined by their inputs. No self-definitional, fitted-input, uniqueness-imported, or ansatz-smuggling step is present.

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

The central claim rests on a Lorentz-covariant parametrization of the P-odd EMT, the QCD equation-of-motion identity, and the massless approximation. The only fitted input is the pion radius used in illustrative models. No unexplained new entities are needed; chiral stress is a derived interpretation, not an unexplained input.

free parameters (1)

r_pi (pion charge radius) = 0.659 +/- 0.004 fm (PDG input, not fitted here)
Used only in the three pion EM FF ansaetze in Eq. (33) to draw the illustrative spatial distributions; the central sum rule does not depend on it.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The matrix element of the P-odd EMT for a spin-0 hadron has the single Lorentz-covariant form i epsilon^{mu nu Delta P} tilde F^q(t) in Eq. (6).
Obtained by eliminating polarization-dependent terms from the spin-1/2 parametrization of Ref. [53]; the paper does not list alternative independent form factors for spin-0.
domain assumption Gluonic P-odd operators contribute nothing to the spin-orbit correlation of a spin-0 hadron.
The operators in Eq. (10) are symmetric in mu nu, while the spin-0 matrix element is antisymmetric, so no parametrization exists. This relies on the operator classification being complete.
standard math The QCD equation-of-motion identity in Eq. (11) is valid.
Taken from Ref. [53]; it is the bridge between the P-odd EMT form factor and the vector and tensor form factors.
domain assumption The quark mass term (m_q/M) H^q(t) is negligible at all t values used in the Fourier transforms.
Eqs. (12)-(16) and the distributions in Sec. III depend on dropping this term; no bound on H^q(t)/F^q(t) is provided.
domain assumption Breit-frame and Drell-Yan frame Fourier transforms can be interpreted as 3D and 2D spatial densities, with surface terms in Eq. (28) vanishing.
Standard in the hadron mechanical-properties literature, but a modeling choice rather than a derived fact.

invented entities (1)

Chiral stress distribution v_q(r) and radial torque tau_{q,r}(r)
purpose: To represent the torque about the radial direction generated by spin-orbit correlation inside a spin-0 hadron.
Defined from the Fourier transform of tilde F^q(t) in Eqs. (25)-(31). It is a legitimate derived observable, but no direct experimental handle is proposed; the only indirect handle is the massless-limit proportionality to the electromagnetic form factor.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin-orbit correlation and spatial distributions for spin-0 hadrons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7GDMH6JA

@misc{pith2026250105092,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin-orbit correlation and spatial distributions for spin-0 hadrons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7GDMH6JA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05092}
}

abstract

The spin-orbit correlation in spin-0 hadrons can be investigated through the kinetic energy-momentum tensor form factor $\tilde F^q(t)$. We observe that the latter is also related to a torque about the radial direction, which we interpret as a chiral stress. If we neglect the quark mass contribution, then $\tilde F^q(t)$ is simply proportional to the electromagnetic form factor for spin-0 hadrons, and the spin-orbit correlation is equal to minus half of the valence quark number. Given the extensive studies on the electromagnetic form factor for spin-0 hadrons such as pions, kaons, and the $\alpha$ particle, we present the spatial distributions of chiral stress and kinetic spin-orbit correlation based on current parametrizations of the pion electromagnetic form factor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05092 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Distributions of the kinetic spin-orbit correlatio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Quark spin-orbit correlations in spin-1 targets
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

First derivation of gauge-invariant sum rules for the unpolarized and tensor-polarized quark spin-orbit correlations in spin-1 hadrons, with numerical estimates for the rho meson and deuteron.
Transverse energy-momentum tensor distributions in polarized nucleons
hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Transverse EMT distributions in polarized nucleons are derived in the quantum phase-space formalism; they reduce to standard light-front densities (including bad components) in the infinite-momentum frame.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[78]

Tan and Z

C. Tan and Z. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.3, 034004

work page 2022
[53]

Lorc´ e, Phys

C. Lorc´ e, Phys. Lett. B 735 (2014), 344-348

work page 2014
[1]

Agakishiev et al

H. Agakishiev et al. [STAR], Nature 473 (2011), 353 [er- ratum: Nature 475 (2011), 412]

2011
[2]

G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Lett. B 87 (1979), 359-365

1979
[3]

Tadevosyan et al

V. Tadevosyan et al. [Jeﬀerson Lab F(pi)], Phys. Rev. C 75 (2007), 055205

2007
[4]

Horn et al

T. Horn et al. [Jeﬀerson Lab F(pi)-2], Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006), 192001

2006
[5]

H. P. Blok et al. [Jeﬀerson Lab], Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008), 045202

2008
[6]

G. M. Huber et al. [Jeﬀerson Lab], Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008), 045203

2008

Show all 94 references

[7]

B. B. Brandt, A. J¨ uttner and H. Wittig, JHEP 11 (2013), 034

2013
[8]

Alexandrou et al

C. Alexandrou et al. [ETM], Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018), 014508

2018
[9]

Fukaya, S

H. Fukaya, S. Aoki, S. Hashimoto, T. Kaneko, H. Matsu- furu and J. Noaki, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) no.3, 034506

2014
[10]

Aoki et al

S. Aoki et al. [JLQCD], Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.3, 034504

2016
[11]

Koponen, F

J. Koponen, F. Bursa, C. T. H. Davies, R. J. Dowdall and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.5, 054503

2016
[12]

X. Feng, Y. Fu and L. C. Jin, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.5, 051502

2020
[13]

Wang et al

G. Wang et al. [chiQCD], Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), 074502

2021
[14]

R. J. Perry, A. Kızılers¨ u and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C 100 (2019) no.2, 025206

2019
[15]

X. Gao, N. Karthik, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, S. Syrit - syn and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) no.11, 114515 6

2021
[16]

Z. F. Cui, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts and S. M. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B 822 (2021), 136631

2021
[17]

Chang, I

L. Chang, I. C. Clo¨ et, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) no.14, 141802

2013
[18]

G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C 79 (2009), 055204

2009
[19]

L. B. Chen, W. Chen, F. Feng and Y. Jia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) no.20, 201901

2024
[20]

Alberg and G

M. Alberg and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C 110 (2024) no.4, L042201

2024
[21]

Bruch, A

C. Bruch, A. Khodjamirian and J. H. Kuhn, Eur. Phys. J. C 39 (2005), 41-54

2005
[22]

T. K. Pedlar et al. [CLEO], Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005), 261803

2005
[23]

K. K. Seth, S. Dobbs, Z. Metreveli, A. Tomaradze, T. Xiao and G. Bonvicini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) no.2, 022002

2013
[24]

Y. Z. Xu, M. Ding, K. Raya, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr ´ ıguez- Quintero and S. M. Schmidt, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no.2, 191

2024
[25]

R. R. Akhmetshin et al. [CMD-2], Phys. Lett. B 669 (2008), 217-222

2008
[26]

J. P. Lees et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.7, 072008

2015
[27]

E. A. Kozyrev et al. [CMD-3], Phys. Lett. B 760 (2016), 314-319

2016
[28]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) no.13, 131901

2024
[29]

X. G. Wu and T. Huang, JHEP 04 (2008), 043

2008
[30]

F. Gao, L. Chang, Y. X. Liu, C. D. Roberts and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.3, 034024

2017
[31]

A. F. Krutov, S. V. Troitsky and V. E. Troitsky, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no.7, 464

2017
[32]

Stamen, D

D. Stamen, D. Hariharan, M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis and P. Stoﬀer, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) no.5, 432

2022
[33]

H. A. Ahmed, Y. Chen and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.8, 086034

2023
[34]

A. S. Miramontes and A. Bashir, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.1, 014016

2023
[35]

L. B. Chen, W. Chen, F. Feng and Y. Jia, [arXiv:2407.21120 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[36]

R. G. Arnold, B. T. Chertok, S. Rock, W. P. Schutz, Z. M. Szalata, D. Day, J. S. McCarthy, F. Martin, B. A. Mecking and I. Sick, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978), 1429

1978
[37]

Doyle, B

B. Doyle, B. Goulard and G. Cory, Phys. Rev. C 45 (1992), 1444-1449

1992
[38]

Carlson and R

J. Carlson and R. Schiavilla, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70 (1998), 743-842

1998
[39]

Bacca and S

S. Bacca and S. Pastore, J. Phys. G 41 (2014) no.12, 123002

2014
[40]

Schiavilla, V

R. Schiavilla, V. R. Pandharipande and D. O. Riska, Phys. Rev. C 41 (1990), 309-317

1990
[41]

Camsonne et al

A. Camsonne et al. [Jeﬀerson Lab Hall A], Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) no.13, 132503

2014
[42]

Pagels, Phys

H. Pagels, Phys. Rev. 144 (1966), 1250-1260

1966
[43]

I. Y. Kobzarev and L. B. Okun, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 43 (1962), 1904-1909

1962
[44]

X. D. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997), 610-613

1997
[45]

Leader and C

E. Leader and C. Lorc´ e, Phys. Rept. 541 (2014), no.3, 163-248

2014
[46]

X. Ji, F. Yuan and Y. Zhao, Nature Rev. Phys. 3 (2021) no.1, 27-38

2021
[47]

M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 555 (2003), 57-62

2003
[48]

M. V. Polyakov and P. Schweitzer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, no.26, 1830025 (2018)

2018
[49]

V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri, F. X. Girod, C. Lorc´ e, P. Schweitzer and P. E. Shanahan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95 (2023) no.4, 041002

2023
[50]

Lorc´ e, L

C. Lorc´ e, L. Mantovani and B. Pasquini, Phys. Lett. B 776 (2018), 38-47

2018
[51]

Lorc´ e, H

C. Lorc´ e, H. Moutarde and A. P. Trawi´ nski, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019), no.1, 89

2019
[52]

Bhoonah and C

A. Bhoonah and C. Lorc´ e, Phys. Lett. B 774 (2017), 435-440

2017
[54]

V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri and F. X. Girod, Nature 557 (2018), no.7705, 396-399

2018
[55]

Kumeriˇ cki, Nature 570 (2019) no.7759, E1-E2

K. Kumeriˇ cki, Nature 570 (2019) no.7759, E1-E2

2019
[56]

P. E. Shanahan and W. Detmold, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) no.7, 072003

2019
[57]

S. Owa, A. W. Thomas and X. G. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 829 (2022), 137136

2022
[58]

J. Y. Kim, B. D. Sun, D. Fu and H. C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.5, 054007

2023
[59]

Freese and G

A. Freese and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021), 094023

2021
[60]

X. Cao, Y. Li and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.5, 056026

2023
[61]

Chakrabarti, C

D. Chakrabarti, C. Mondal, A. Mukherjee, S. Nair and X. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020), 113011

2020
[62]

Hattawy et al

M. Hattawy et al. [CLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) no.20, 202004

2017
[63]

Dupr´ e et al

R. Dupr´ e et al. [CLAS], Phys. Rev. C 104 (2021) no.2, 025203

2021
[64]

M¨ uller, D

D. M¨ uller, D. Robaschik, B. Geyer, F. M. Dittes and J. Hoˇ rejˇ si, Fortsch. Phys.42 (1994), 101-141

1994
[65]

Diehl, T

M. Diehl, T. Gousset, B. Pire and O. Teryaev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998), 1782-1785

1998
[66]

M. V. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B 555 (1999), 231

1999
[67]

Diehl, Phys

M. Diehl, Phys. Rept. 388 (2003), 41-277

2003
[68]

Masuda et al

M. Masuda et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.3, 032003

2016
[69]

Masuda et al

M. Masuda et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.5, 052003

2018
[70]

Kumano, Q

S. Kumano, Q. T. Song and O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.1, 014020

2018
[71]

Amrath, M

D. Amrath, M. Diehl and J. P. Lansberg, Eur. Phys. J. C 58 (2008), 179-192

2008
[72]

J. M. M. Ch´ avez, V. Bertone, F. De Soto Borrero, M. Defurne, C. Mezrag, H. Moutarde, J. Rodr ´ ıguez- Quintero and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) no.20, 202501

2022
[73]

J. M. M. Chavez, V. Bertone, F. De Soto Borrero, M. De- furne, C. Mezrag, H. Moutarde, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.9, 094012

2022
[74]

Lorc´ e and B

C. Lorc´ e and B. Pasquini, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011), 014015

2011
[75]

J. Y. Kim, H. Y. Won, H. C. Kim and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.5, 054026

2024
[76]

Bhattacharya, R

S. Bhattacharya, R. Boussarie and Y. Hatta, Phys. Lett. B 859 (2024), 139134

2024
[77]

Hatta and J

Y. Hatta and J. Schoenleber, JHEP 09 (2024), 154

2024
[79]

Acharyya, S

R. Acharyya, S. Puhan and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.3, 034020

2024
[80]

Lorc´ e and B

C. Lorc´ e and B. Pasquini, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.3, 034040

2016
[81]

Tanaka, Phys

K. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.3, 034009. 7

2018
[82]

A. V. Belitsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rept. 418 (2005), 1-387

2005
[83]

Meissner, A

S. Meissner, A. Metz, M. Schlegel and K. Goeke, JHEP 08 (2008), 038

2008
[84]

I. V. Anikin, B. Pire and O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000), 071501

2000
[85]

S. D. Bass, Z. Phys. C 55(1992), 653-658

1992
[86]

Hagler, Phys

P. Hagler, Phys. Rept. 490 (2010), 49-175

2010
[87]

R. B. Wiringa, R. A. Smith and T. L. Ainsworth, Phys. Rev. C 29 (1984), 1207-1221

1984
[88]

Schiavilla, V

R. Schiavilla, V. R. Pandharipande and R. B. Wiringa, Nucl. Phys. A 449 (1986), 219-242

1986
[89]

P. A. Zyla et al. [Particle Data Group], PTEP 2020 (2020) no.8, 083C01

2020
[90]

Dudek, R

J. Dudek, R. Ent, R. Essig, K. S. Kumar, C. Meyer, R. D. McKeown, Z. E. Meziani, G. A. Miller, M. Penning- ton and D. Richards, et al. Eur. Phys. J. A 48 (2012), 187

2012
[91]

Arrington, M

J. Arrington, M. Battaglieri, A. Boehnlein, S. A. Bogac z, W. K. Brooks, E. Chudakov, I. Cloet, R. Ent, H. Gao and J. Grames, et al. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 127 (2022), 103985

2022
[92]

A. C. Aguilar, Z. Ahmed, C. Aidala, S. Ali, V. Andrieux, J. Arrington, A. Bashir, V. Berdnikov, D. Binosi and L. Chang, et al. Eur. Phys. J. A 55 (2019) no.10, 190

2019
[93]

Arrington, C

J. Arrington, C. A. Gayoso, P. C. Barry, V. Berdnikov, D. Binosi, L. Chang, M. Diefenthaler, M. Ding, R. Ent and T. Frederico, et al. J. Phys. G 48 (2021) no.7, 075106

2021
[94]

D. P. Anderle, V. Bertone, X. Cao, L. Chang, N. Chang, G. Chen, X. Chen, Z. Chen, Z. Cui and L. Dai, et al. Front. Phys. (Beijing) 16 (2021) no.6, 64701

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [78]

Tan and Z

C. Tan and Z. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.3, 034004

work page 2022

[2] [53]

Lorc´ e, Phys

C. Lorc´ e, Phys. Lett. B 735 (2014), 344-348

work page 2014

[3] [1]

Agakishiev et al

H. Agakishiev et al. [STAR], Nature 473 (2011), 353 [er- ratum: Nature 475 (2011), 412]

2011

[4] [2]

G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Lett. B 87 (1979), 359-365

1979

[5] [3]

Tadevosyan et al

V. Tadevosyan et al. [Jeﬀerson Lab F(pi)], Phys. Rev. C 75 (2007), 055205

2007

[6] [4]

Horn et al

T. Horn et al. [Jeﬀerson Lab F(pi)-2], Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006), 192001

2006

[7] [5]

H. P. Blok et al. [Jeﬀerson Lab], Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008), 045202

2008

[8] [6]

G. M. Huber et al. [Jeﬀerson Lab], Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008), 045203

2008