Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Probing nonperturbative transverse momentum dependent PDFs with chiral perturbation theory: the $\bar{d}-\bar{u}$ asymmetry

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Chiral perturbation theory predicts that the proton's $\bar{d}-\bar{u}$ TMD asymmetry falls off exponentially at large transverse separation, with the pion mass setting the decay scale, and does so without fitted shape parameters.

desk verdict A worthwhile exploratory paper: the K0 suppression at large bT is a real and interesting chiral effect, but the quantitative TMD claim rests on a power-counting step that is uncontrolled at the advertised bT values, so treat the central prediction as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07717 v2 pith:7RA6YDBB submitted 2024-12-10 hep-ph nucl-th

Marston Copeland , Thomas Mehen This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords transversemomentumdependentPDFschiralperturbationtheorydbar-ubarasymmetryhadronicdistributionfunctionsTMDfactorizationpioncloudexponentialsuppressionpowercounting
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

The paper establishes that the long-distance behavior of the proton's transverse momentum dependent parton distributions—specifically the $\bar{d}-\bar{u}$ asymmetry—can be computed from chiral perturbation theory without ad hoc model input. The key move is to power-count the pion's longitudinal momentum fraction as small, of order $m_\pi/M$, so that pions carrying a large fraction of the proton's momentum are excluded from the convolution. With that restriction, the collinear $\bar{d}-\bar{u}$ asymmetry agrees with the E866 and E906 data, and the chiral TMD hadronic distribution functions produce a natural exponential suppression at large $b_T$, asymptotically $\sim K_0(b_T m_\pi)$. Because the result is regulator-independent, the long-distance tail of the TMD asymmetry is a parameter-free prediction of chiral symmetry, which distinguishes it from the unsuppressed pQCD-only matching.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the hadronic distribution functions (HDFs) $f_{Hp}(y)$ and their transverse-momentum dependent counterparts $f_{Hp}(y,k_T)$, which encode the proton's fluctuations into pion–baryon states. In position space the TMD HDF for the pion satisfies $\tilde{f}_{\pi p}(y,b_T)\sim K_0(b_T m_\pi)$ at large $b_T$, and this modified Bessel function carries the exponential suppression of the TMD asymmetry. The companion machinery is the $y_\text{max}$ prescription: the lightcone delta function $\delta(k^+-yP^+)$ is expanded as $\delta(yP^+)=0$ for $y>y_\text{max}\sim m_\pi/M$, which restricts the convolution to the region where chiral power counting holds.

What would settle it

A measurement of the proton's $\bar{d}-\bar{u}$ TMD asymmetry at $x\approx 0.1$–$0.15$ and $b_T$ from 2 to 10 GeV$^{-1}$ that does not follow the exponentially suppressed $\chi$PT curve of Fig. 3 would falsify the claim that chiral dynamics fixes the long-distance tail. In particular, a falloff that matches the unsuppressed pQCD-only curve, or a Gaussian falloff with width 200–400 MeV (as in the paper's $\kappa$ model), would indicate that confinement-scale effects beyond $\chi$PT dominate. Alternatively, a lattice QCD computation of the TMD HDF $\tilde{f}_{\pi p}(y,b_T)$ at $b_T\approx 1/m_\pi$ that deviates from $K_0(b_T m_\pi)$ scaling would directly contradict the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that matching TMD PDFs onto chiral perturbation theory yields a cutoff-independent prediction for the $\bar{d}-\bar{u}$ asymmetry at large $b_T$, where the chiral hadronic distribution functions fall off as $\sim K_0(b_T m_\pi)$. This exponential suppression is generated by the pion-cloud dynamics themselves and is absent in the pQCD-only matching, which shows no large-$b_T$ suppression. In the collinear sector, the paper shows that previously noted disagreements with data in dimensionally regularized $\chi$PT were due to allowing pions to carry momentum fractions $y \gg m_\pi/M$; imposing the $y_\text{max}$ prescription restores agreement with both E866 and E906 data. The paper further compares three matching schemes and shows that the chiral and pQCD options are distinguishable in the large-$b_T$ region, and that additional confinement-scale physics, modeled as a Gaussian in the pion TMD, would produce a visibly different falloff.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on treating the pion's longitudinal momentum fraction $y$ as a small quantity of order $m_\pi/M$, so that pions with $y$ above about 0.3 are assumed to contribute nothing because the lightcone delta function can be expanded to zero; if real pions with larger momentum fractions contribute measurably, the collinear and TMD predictions lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $\bar{d}-\bar{u}$ TMD asymmetry is predicted to fall exponentially at $b_T\gtrsim 2$ GeV$^{-1}$, with the pion mass setting the decay scale; this is a concrete, testable signal for semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering or Drell-Yan measurements.
  • Because the $\chi$PT result has no cutoff or regulator parameter, the same $y_\text{max}$ prescription that fits the collinear data fixes the TMD prediction, leaving no free shape parameters.
  • The three matching prescriptions ('$\chi$PT only', '$\chi$PT$\times$pQCD', and 'pQCD only') produce distinct $b_T$ curves, so future data can determine which description is realized.
  • If Eq. (13) describes the data, the framework extends to other sea-quark TMD asymmetries, such as $s-\bar{s}$, and to valence TMDs, giving a systematic chiral treatment of TMDs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the measured tail falls faster than $K_0(b_T m_\pi)$—e.g., like a Gaussian with a 200–400 MeV scale—the clean separation between chiral long-distance physics and confinement effects would break down, and the full convolution with pion TMDs (Eq. (9)) would be needed to interpret the data.
  • The $y_\text{max}$ prescription is a matching condition rather than a fitted cutoff; a first-principles derivation of its value (for instance from heavy-baryon $\chi$PT power counting) would shrink the uncertainty band and make the approach fully ab initio.
  • The same Bessel-function suppression mechanism should appear in other pion-cloud-sensitive observables, such as the $d/u$ ratio at large $x$ or generalized parton distributions at small skewness, offering cross-checks of the chiral TMD framework.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses SU(2) chiral perturbation theory to compute the pion/baryon hadronic distribution functions (HDFs) of the proton, first for collinear PDFs and then for TMD PDFs. It introduces a momentum-fraction cutoff ymax above which the pion HDF is asserted to vanish, fits ymax to the E866/E906 dbar-ubar data, and uses the same prescription to predict the bT-space dbar-ubar asymmetry. The paper finds that the TMD HDF falls off like K0(bT m_pi) at large bT, which produces exponential suppression relative to a fixed-order pQCD matching computation, and it closes by showing that a Gaussian model for the pion valence TMD changes this prediction substantially.

Significance. If the central chain of reasoning were established, the paper would offer a QCD-based, regulator-independent computation of the long-distance TMD shape and a concrete experimental target for separating chiral and confinement effects. The analytic results in Appendix A are explicit, the K0(bT m_pi) asymptotics of the TMD HDF is a genuine mathematical feature of the calculation, and the use of dimensional regularization with MS for the collinear HDFs is a cleaner framework than the cutoffs used in earlier chiral studies. These are real strengths. However, as detailed below, the advertised prediction is built on an uncontrolled replacement of the pion TMD PDF by its collinear limit and on a ymax prescription that is tuned to the data it validates, so the significance of the result is currently more exploratory than definitive.

major comments (3)
  1. [TMD matching, Eqs. (12)-(13) and Fig. 4] The replacement of the pion valence TMD PDF q_v,H^(0)(alpha,pT) by its collinear limit is not controlled in the bT region that carries the paper's central claim. The argument that pT ~ Lambda_chi is an assumption; the intrinsic transverse-momentum scale of a confined pion is of order Lambda_QCD. At bT ~ 1/m_pi ~ 5 GeV^{-1}, where the advertised K0 suppression sets in, Lambda_QCD bT is of order one, so the O(Lambda_QCD/Lambda_chi) truncation in Eq. (13) is not justified. The paper's own Fig. 4 makes the impact concrete: a Gaussian in Eq. (17) with kappa = 200-400 MeV changes the asymmetry at large bT by roughly an order of magnitude. The 'chiPT only' and 'chiPT x pQCD' curves in Fig. 3 therefore include unknown intrinsic bT dependence of the pion TMD, and the abstract's claim that the effective theory gives a natural exponential suppression of the TMD PDF is not established.
  2. [Collinear HDFs, Eqs. (5)-(8)] The assertion f_pi p(y)=0 for y>ymax rests on the replacement delta(k+ - yP+) -> delta(yP+), but this is not a valid distribution identity; for a soft test function f(k+) the exact expression gives f(yP+), not zero. The vanishing is an operator-level assumption about the support of the EFT matrix elements, and it is load-bearing for both Eq. (8) and the TMD formulas (13)-(15). In addition, ymax is a free parameter chosen so the collinear calculation reproduces E866/E906, and the same tuned interval (0.3-0.35 in Fig. 3) is then used for the TMD predictions. The calculation is regulator-independent in the loop sense, but it is not parameter-free; the uncertainty bands in Fig. 3 underestimate the model uncertainty because they only vary ymax over a narrow range.
  3. [Numerical results, Eq. (15) and Fig. 3] The conclusion that chiPT produces a suppression at large bT that pQCD cannot replicate is stronger than what is computed. The green curve is built from fixed-order matching coefficients at mu^2 = zeta^2 = 54 GeV^2; it is not a complete pQCD TMD prediction, which would include resummed Sudakov evolution and would itself suppress the distribution at large bT. The comparison should either include the full perturbative TMD prediction at the same accuracy or be worded as a comparison with fixed-order matching only.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Page 3, near Fig. 2] The notation '0.25 ~ 2m_pi/M and 0.4 ~ 3m_pi/M' is awkward; it should read ymax in [0.25, 0.4], corresponding to roughly 2-3 m_pi/M.
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A3) and (A6)] The coupling gNDelta = 3 sqrt(2) gA/5 and the sign of f_pi- Delta++ relative to f_pi+ Delta0 should be stated more explicitly, since the cancellation in Eq. (A1) is important for the final asymmetry.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption and text] The uncertainty 'from varying the result by O(m_pi/Lambda_chi)' is not defined; please specify how that variation is implemented.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typos and notation issues, e.g., 'caluclations' in the paragraph containing Eq. (4), 'Fig. (4)' for Fig. 4, and 'bT -> 1/Lambda_QCD ~ 5 GeV [-1]' should be '5 GeV^{-1}'.
  5. [Eq. (7)] The lower limit of the first integral is x, but for x > ymax this integral is empty; a brief comment clarifying the intended domain would help the reader.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The chiral large-bT suppression is a genuine one-loop result, but the TMD matching that produces it is imported from the authors' own prior preprint, and the ymax window is tuned to the same collinear data used to validate the framework; the long-distance 'prediction' is conditional rather than fully independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Eq. (8), Fig. 2 discussion, and the parameter choice before Fig. 3]
    "In practice, the exact value of ymax is somewhat unclear. As a conservative estimate, we vary ymax between 0.25 ∼ 2mπ/M and 0.4 ∼ 3mπ/M which yields the relatively large uncertainty on our result. ... we use the ymax prescription but now we vary ymax between 0.3 and 0.35 because this range of ymax describes the collinear data in Fig. 2 fairly well."

    The naive dimensional-regularization collinear result is 10–15 times too large, and the ymax prescription is what removes that failure. The range 0.25–0.4, and later 0.3–0.35, is chosen to reproduce the E866/E906 dbar−ubar data. The same ymax and the same pion PDFs are then used in the TMD convolution Eq. (16), so the TMD curves inherit their normalization from a parameter tuned to the very data used to validate the framework. The bT shape from fπp(y,bT) is not fitted, so this is a partial rather than definitional circularity.

  2. self citation load bearing [TMD section: Eqs. (9), (13), (A5), and the paragraph after Eq. (13)]
    "In this paper, it was proposed that the most general matching one can write down is given by [Eq. (9)] ... The dominant contribution comes from fπ+np(y, kT ), which was calculated in Ref. [14]. Here we simply list the result."

    Ref. [14] is the authors' own 2024 preprint (arXiv:2405.14965). It supplies the TMD convolution Eq. (9), the identification of the high-energy coefficients with pion TMD PDFs, and the dominant TMD HDF fπ+np(y,kT), whose K0(bT mπ) tail is the advertised exponential suppression. The present paper re-derives only the collinear HDF and the Δ contributions; the load-bearing TMD operator matching and the dominant chiral TMD HDF are imported from the same authors' prior work without independent verification. The central long-distance prediction therefore rests on a self-citation chain, although the K0 form itself is a computed one-loop result rather than a fitted ansatz.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not self-definitional: the collinear convolution Eq. (1), the one-loop HDFs in Appendix A, and the K0(bT mπ) tail in Eqs. (A7)–(A9) are genuine calculations, not parameter fits, and the paper does not rename a known empirical pattern. The ymax prescription is power-counting motivated in Appendix B, and the paper transparently varies ymax as an uncertainty rather than presenting a single best-fit value. However, two load-bearing steps keep this from being a clean 0–2. First, ymax is numerically pinned to the E866/E906 collinear data ("because this range ... describes the collinear data"), and the same ymax plus the same pion PDFs then feed the TMD curves; the TMD normalization is inherited from a tuned input even though the bT shape is new. Second, the TMD convolution Eq. (9), the identification of the high-energy coefficients with pion TMD PDFs, and the dominant TMD HDF fπ+np(y,kT) come from the authors' own prior preprint Ref. [14]; the advertised exponential suppression therefore depends on a self-citation chain for the TMD operator matching. The paper itself states that Eq. (13) "relies heavily on the assumption that no additional nonperturbative behavior lies in the valence TMD PDFs of the intermediate hadron," and Fig. 4 shows that relaxing this delta-function ansatz to a Gaussian with κ = 200–400 MeV changes the large-bT asymmetry by roughly an order of magnitude. These are moderate, explicitly acknowledged circularities rather than equivalence-by-construction, so the appropriate score is 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on a substantial tower of prior EFT machinery (convolution formalism, chiral Lagrangians, external pion PDFs) and introduces one data-tuned scale ymax plus a model parameter kappa. It also assumes, without independent verification, the TMD matching of the authors' own Ref. [14] and the new delta-function expansion for large y.

free parameters (3)
  • ymax = 0.25-0.4 (collinear); 0.3-0.35 (TMD)
    Momentum-fraction cutoff separating small-y and large-y operator regions. Not derived from first principles; chosen to match E866/E906 data (Fig. 2) and then carried into TMD predictions.
  • mu_chi = ~1.2 GeV (= 4*pi*f_pi)
    Renormalization scale in the MS collinear HDFs; set to the natural chiral scale rather than fitted, and affects the collinear comparison.
  • kappa = 200-400 MeV
    Width of the Gaussian model for the pion valence TMD PDF, Eq. (17); varied by hand over the Lambda_QCD range to illustrate sensitivity to additional nonperturbative effects.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Convolution formula Eq. (1) for collinear PDFs in terms of chiral HDFs (Chen-Ji, Ref. [15]) is valid at leading power.
    All collinear and TMD predictions start from this matching; it is assumed without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption TMD convolution Eq. (9) from the authors' previous preprint (Ref. [14]) correctly matches TMD PDFs onto TMD HDFs.
    This is the foundation of the TMD predictions and is taken from the same authors' earlier work; not independently verified here.
  • ad hoc to paper For y > ymax, the operator with b = 0 has zero matrix element because delta(yP+) has support only at y = 0, which is outside the integration range.
    Introduced in this paper to enforce power counting; the delta-function expansion in Eq. (5) is not a rigorous derivation.
  • domain assumption The intermediate-hadron valence TMD can be replaced by its collinear PDF at leading order in Lambda_QCD/Lambda_chi (Eq. (13)).
    Needed to make the TMD predictions without pion TMD data; the paper later tests a Gaussian correction to this assumption.
  • domain assumption Delta resonance enters at leading order with coupling gN Delta = 3 sqrt(2) gA / 5.
    Standard leading-order pi N Delta chiral interaction; the Delta contributions are important for the small-x collinear agreement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing nonperturbative transverse momentum dependent PDFs with chiral perturbation theory: the $\bar{d}-\bar{u}$ asymmetry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7RA6YDBB

@misc{pith2026241207717,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing nonperturbative transverse momentum dependent PDFs with chiral perturbation theory: the $\bard-\baru$ asymmetry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7RA6YDBB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07717}
}
abstract

We use chiral perturbation theory to study the long distance regime of transverse momentum dependent parton distribution functions (TMD PDFs). Chiral corrections to the TMD PDFs are computed from proton to pion/baryon splittings. For consistent power counting, we find that the fraction of the proton's momentum that a pion may carry must be kept small. We make predictions for a $\bar{d}-\bar{u}$ asymmetry in the proton's TMD PDFs and find that the effective theory gives a natural exponential suppression of the TMD PDF at long distances. We then explore the effects that additional nonperturbative physics may have on the TMD $\bar{d}-\bar{u}$ asymmetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07717 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Feynman diagrams for the one loop contributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Different matching prescriptions proposed for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.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. The role of the soft scale for $J/\psi$ production in the transverse momentum dependent framework

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper derives new TMD soft transition functions and shows they dominate J/psi production at small transverse momentum by a factor of 1/v over previously used shape functions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B 126, 97 (1983)

    work page 1983

  2. [2]

    The Flavor Asymmetry of the Light Quark Sea from Semi-inclusive Deep-inelastic Scattering

    K. Ackerstaff et al. (HERMES), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5519 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9807013

    work page Pith review arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    R. S. Towell et al. (NuSea), Phys. Rev. D 64, 052002 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0103030

    arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    A. W. Schreiber, A. I. Signal, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 44, 2653 (1991)

    work page 1991

  5. [5]

    Kumano, Phys

    S. Kumano, Phys. Rept. 303, 183 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9702367

    work page arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    Flavor Asymmetry of the Nucleon Sea and the Five-Quark Components of the Nucleons

    W.-C. Chang and J.-C. Peng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 252002 (2011), arXiv:1102.5631 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  7. [7]

    Alberg and G

    M. Alberg and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 172001 (2012), arXiv:1201.4184 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Scherer, Adv

    S. Scherer, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 27, 277 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0210398

    arXiv 2003

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Scherer, Prog

    S. Scherer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 64, 1 (2010), arXiv:0908.3425 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Burkardt, K

    M. Burkardt, K. S. Hendricks, C.-R. Ji, W. Melnitchouk, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 87, 056009 (2013), arXiv:1211.5853 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Salamu, C.-R

    Y. Salamu, C.-R. Ji, W. Melnitchouk, and P. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 122001 (2015), arXiv:1409.5885 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Salamu, C.-R

    Y. Salamu, C.-R. Ji, W. Melnitchouk, A. W. Thomas, and P. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 99, 014041 (2019), arXiv:1806.07551 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Salamu, C.-R

    Y. Salamu, C.-R. Ji, W. Melnitchouk, A. W. Thomas, P. Wang, and X. G. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 100, 094026 (2019), arXiv:1907.08551 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Copeland and T

    M. Copeland and T. Mehen, (2024), arXiv:2405.14965 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Chen and X.-d

    J.-W. Chen and X.-d. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 152002 (2001), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 88, 249901 (2002)], arXiv:hep-ph/0107158

    2001 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Arndt and M

    D. Arndt and M. J. Savage, Nucl. Phys. A 697, 429 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0105045

    2002 arXiv

  9. [17]

    P. E. Shanahan, A. W. Thomas, and R. D. Young, Phys. Rev. D 87, 114515 (2013), arXiv:1301.6861 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    C.-R. Ji, W. Melnitchouk, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 88, 076005 (2013), arXiv:1306.6073 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P. Wang, F. He, C.-R. Ji, and W. Melnitchouk, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 129, 104017 (2023), arXiv:2206.09361 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ando, J.-W

    S.-i. Ando, J.-W. Chen, and C.-W. Kao, Phys. Rev. D 74, 094013 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602200

    2006 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A. M. Moiseeva and A. A. Vladimirov, Eur. Phys. J. A 49, 23 (2013), arXiv:1208.1714 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    He, C.-R

    F. He, C.-R. Ji, W. Melnitchouk, A. W. Thomas, and P. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 054006 (2022), arXiv:2202.00266 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Strikman and C

    M. Strikman and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D 80, 114029 (2009), arXiv:0906.3267 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Z. Gao, F. He, C.-R. Ji, W. Melnitchouk, Y. Salamu, and P. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054049 (2024), arXiv:2406.03412 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Chen and I

    J.-W. Chen and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 202001 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311285

    2004 arXiv

  18. [26]

    P. C. Barry, N. Sato, W. Melnitchouk, and C.-R. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 152001 (2018), arXiv:1804.01965 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Alberg, L

    M. Alberg, L. Ehinger, and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 105, 114054 (2022), arXiv:2108.12439 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    He and P

    F. He and P. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 100, 074032 (2019), arXiv:1904.06815 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Boussarie et al., (2023), arXiv:2304.03302 [hep-ph]

    R. Boussarie et al., (2023), arXiv:2304.03302 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Signori, A

    A. Signori, A. Bacchetta, M. Radici, and G. Schnell, JHEP 11, 194 (2013), arXiv:1309.3507 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, J. O. Gonzalez Hernan- dez, S. Melis, and A. Prokudin, JHEP 04, 005 (2014), arXiv:1312.6261 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Scimemi and A

    I. Scimemi and A. Vladimirov, JHEP 06, 137 (2020), arXiv:1912.06532 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bertone, I

    V. Bertone, I. Scimemi, and A. Vladimirov, JHEP 06, 028 (2019), arXiv:1902.08474 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Dove et al

    J. Dove et al. (FNAL E906, SeaQuest), Phys. Rev. C 108, 035202 (2023), arXiv:2212.12160 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Lin, J.-W

    H.-W. Lin, J.-W. Chen, Z. Fan, J.-H. Zhang, and R. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 103, 014516 (2021), arXiv:2003.14128 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Pascalutsa and M

    V. Pascalutsa and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Lett. B636, 31 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0511261

    2006 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Scherer and M

    S. Scherer and M. R. Schindler, A Primer for Chiral Perturbation Theory, Vol. 830 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    D. B. Clark, E. Godat, and F. I. Olness, Comput. Phys. Commun. 216, 126 (2017), arXiv:1605.08012 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    R. L. Jaffe and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B 412, 79 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9306201

    1994 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Fickinger, S

    M. Fickinger, S. Fleming, C. Kim, and E. Mereghetti, JHEP 11, 095 (2016), arXiv:1606.07737 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    von Kuk, J

    R. von Kuk, J. K. L. Michel, and Z. Sun, (2024), arXiv:2404.08622 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    L. Dai, C. Kim, and A. K. Leibovich, (2023), arXiv:2310.19207 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Bacchetta, V

    A. Bacchetta, V. Bertone, C. Bissolotti, G. Bozzi, M. Cerutti, F. Piacenza, M. Radici, and A. Signori (MAP (Multi-dimensional Analyses of Partonic distribu- tions)), JHEP 10, 127 (2022), arXiv:2206.07598 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    V. Moos, I. Scimemi, A. Vladimirov, and P. Zurita, JHEP 05, 036 (2024), arXiv:2305.07473 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bacchetta, V

    A. Bacchetta, V. Bertone, C. Bissolotti, G. Bozzi, M. Cerutti, F. Delcarro, M. Radici, L. Rossi, and A. Sig- nori (MAP), JHEP 08, 232 (2024), arXiv:2405.13833 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    von Kuk, J

    R. von Kuk, J. K. L. Michel, and Z. Sun, JHEP 09, 205 (2023), arXiv:2305.15461 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Copeland, S

    M. Copeland, S. Fleming, R. Gupta, R. Hodges, and T. Mehen, (2023), arXiv:2310.13737 [hep-ph]. 7

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Copeland, S

    M. Copeland, S. Fleming, R. Gupta, R. Hodges, and T. Mehen, (2023), arXiv:2308.08605 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    X. G. Wang, C.-R. Ji, W. Melnitchouk, Y. Salamu, A. W. Thomas, and P. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 94, 094035 (2016), arXiv:1610.03333 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    X. G. Wang, C.-R. Ji, W. Melnitchouk, Y. Salamu, A. W. Thomas, and P. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 762, 52 (2016), arXiv:1602.06646 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    M. G. Echevarria, Y. Makris, and I. Scimemi, JHEP 10, 164 (2020), arXiv:2007.05547 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B 255, 558 (1991). 8 Appendix A: Hadronic distribution function results In this section we list the results for the χPT calculations of the collinear and TMD HDFs. Additionally, we provide a useful integral used for the Fourier tran...

    1991

  45. [53]

    Collinear HDFs In this section, we list the results for the collinear fπp(y), which receives contributions from the diagrams in Fig. 1. We use the notation fϕBp to denote the contributions from different intermediate states, where ϕ indicates the meson and B the intermediate b...

  46. [54]

    Like the collinear HDFs, the contributions to fπp(y, kT ) can be decomposed into three pieces

    TMD HDFs Here we list the results for the TMD HDFs. Like the collinear HDFs, the contributions to fπp(y, kT ) can be decomposed into three pieces. fπp(y, kT ) = fπ+np(y, kT ) − fπ−∆++p(y, kT ) + fπ+∆0p(y, kT ) (A4) The dominant contribution comes from fπ+np(y, kT ), which was ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.