Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

Mellin Moments of the Unpolarized Gluon PDF in the Proton from Nonlocal Operators in Lattice QCD

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-28 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Lattice QCD determines the ratio of the third to first Mellin moment for the gluon PDF at 2 GeV.

desk verdict This paper extracts a new lattice ratio for the third-to-first gluon Mellin moment on one ensemble using nonlocal operators, with internal checks on OPE truncation and mixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.30193 v1 pith:DPKP5JGJ submitted 2026-05-28 hep-lat hep-phhep-thnucl-th

Joseph Delmar , Krzysztof Cichy , Martha Constantinou , Yong Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-phhep-thnucl-th
keywords latticeQCDgluonPDFMellinmomentsIoffe-timedistributionnonlocaloperatorspartondistributionsprotonstructure
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 uses lattice QCD with nonlocal gluon operators in momentum-boosted proton states to compute ratios of higher Mellin moments of the unpolarized gluon PDF to the first moment. The work is performed on an Nf=2+1+1 ensemble of twisted mass fermions at a pion mass of roughly 260 MeV. Within the short-distance OPE of the reduced gluon Ioffe-time distribution, the authors extract these ratios while examining truncation order, Wilson-line separation choices, and quark-singlet mixing under perturbative matching. They report a value for ⟨x³⟩_g/⟨x⟩_g at 2 GeV that folds in statistical errors and the leading theoretical systematics. A sympathetic reader cares because the result supplies a first-principles anchor for the gluon momentum distribution inside the proton that experiments access only indirectly.

What carries the argument

The short-distance operator product expansion (OPE) of the reduced gluon Ioffe-time distribution, which converts the lattice nonlocal matrix elements into ratios of Mellin moments.

What would settle it

If extending the OPE to higher orders or altering the Wilson-line separation window shifts the central value of ⟨x³⟩_g/⟨x⟩_g outside the reported uncertainties, the truncation assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using matrix elements of nonlocal gluon operators coupled to boosted proton states on an Nf=2+1+1 ensemble, the short-distance OPE of the reduced gluon Ioffe-time distribution yields the ratio ⟨x³⟩_g/⟨x⟩_g at a scale of 2 GeV, with uncertainties that account for both statistical and the dominant theoretical systematic uncertainties.

Load-bearing premise

The short-distance operator product expansion of the reduced gluon Ioffe-time distribution remains accurate after truncation at the order used, for the chosen minimum and maximum Wilson-line separations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ratio supplies an additional constraint on the x-dependence of the gluon PDF beyond the total momentum fraction.
  • DGLAP evolution of the moments permits a direct check of perturbative truncation effects by varying the renormalization scale.
  • The same OPE framework can be applied to extract further moments n>3 once more terms are retained.
  • Quantified dependence on the minimum and maximum Wilson-line separations sets a benchmark for controlling finite-separation systematics in future runs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The lattice ratio can be inserted into global PDF analyses to test whether current parametrizations of the gluon at moderate x are consistent with first-principles input.
  • Repeating the calculation at the physical pion mass would isolate the size of the chiral extrapolation uncertainty present at 260 MeV.
  • A side-by-side comparison with moments inferred from jet or heavy-flavor production data would expose any tension between lattice and phenomenological determinations.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a lattice QCD determination of ratios of Mellin moments of the unpolarized gluon PDF, specifically ⟨x³⟩_g/⟨x⟩_g at 2 GeV, extracted from matrix elements of nonlocal gluon operators on an N_f=2+1+1 twisted-mass clover ensemble at m_π≈260 MeV. The extraction uses the short-distance OPE applied to the reduced gluon Ioffe-time distribution, with reported investigations of OPE truncation order, Wilson-line separation cuts, quark-singlet mixing under perturbative matching, and stability under DGLAP scale evolution to assess perturbative truncation effects.

Significance. If robust, the result supplies a non-perturbative lattice anchor for a higher gluon moment ratio that can be compared directly to global PDF analyses and used to constrain the gluon contribution to the proton's momentum. The explicit checks on multiple sources of systematic uncertainty and the use of scale variation to probe perturbative truncation represent concrete strengths in an area where such controls are essential.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the quoted uncertainties 'account for both statistical and the dominant theoretical systematic uncertainties' cannot be verified from the provided text, as no numerical tables, extracted central values, or detailed error budgets are shown; this directly affects the load-bearing claim that the ratio is determined with controlled systematics.
  2. [OPE analysis] OPE analysis (described in the abstract and method): the truncation error on the short-distance OPE of the reduced gluon Ioffe-time distribution at the accessed Wilson-line separations is assessed only via internal consistency checks (order variation, min/max cuts, scale evolution); because the OPE is asymptotic, these checks do not independently constrain the size of omitted higher-order coefficients, leaving open the possibility that the reported systematic band underestimates the true truncation uncertainty at z∼0.2–0.6 fm.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'the choice of minimum and maximum Wilson-line separations entering the analysis' without quoting the numerical range or the criterion used to select them; adding these values would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below. Where the comments identify areas for improved clarity or documentation, we have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the quoted uncertainties 'account for both statistical and the dominant theoretical systematic uncertainties' cannot be verified from the provided text, as no numerical tables, extracted central values, or detailed error budgets are shown; this directly affects the load-bearing claim that the ratio is determined with controlled systematics.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract's claim regarding the uncertainties cannot be directly verified without the supporting numerical results and error budget. The full manuscript presents the extracted ratio ⟨x³⟩_g/⟨x⟩_g together with statistical and systematic variations in Section 4 and the associated figures, but a consolidated error-budget table was not included. We will add a new table that lists the central value, statistical uncertainty, and individual contributions from OPE truncation, Wilson-line cuts, quark-singlet matching, and DGLAP scale variation. This revision will make the error accounting explicit and allow readers to assess the claim. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [OPE analysis] OPE analysis (described in the abstract and method): the truncation error on the short-distance OPE of the reduced gluon Ioffe-time distribution at the accessed Wilson-line separations is assessed only via internal consistency checks (order variation, min/max cuts, scale evolution); because the OPE is asymptotic, these checks do not independently constrain the size of omitted higher-order coefficients, leaving open the possibility that the reported systematic band underestimates the true truncation uncertainty at z∼0.2–0.6 fm.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the OPE is asymptotic and that consistency checks based on order variation, z-cuts, and scale evolution provide an estimate rather than a rigorous upper bound on omitted higher-order coefficients. These checks follow the standard methodology used in other lattice PDF studies. To strengthen the presentation, we will expand the relevant section to explicitly discuss the asymptotic nature of the series, report the observed convergence pattern, and add a conservative estimate of the possible size of the next term based on the last included coefficient. We will also state that the quoted band should be viewed as an indicative rather than exhaustive uncertainty. This addresses the concern without altering the central result. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The derivation extracts ratios of gluon Mellin moments from lattice matrix elements of nonlocal operators via the short-distance OPE applied to the reduced Ioffe-time distribution on an external N_f=2+1+1 ensemble. The OPE truncation, separation cuts, perturbative matching, and DGLAP evolution are treated as systematic variations on independent lattice inputs rather than self-definitions or fitted parameters renamed as predictions. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to the target ratio itself, and the central result remains a direct computation from external gauge configurations with standard external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Only abstract available; main unverified inputs are the validity of the truncated OPE at the separations used and the perturbative treatment of quark-singlet mixing. The 260 MeV pion mass is an explicit simulation choice away from the physical point.

free parameters (1)
  • Pion mass
    Fixed at approximately 260 MeV by the chosen Nf=2+1+1 ensemble; not the physical value and affects chiral extrapolation uncertainty.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Short-distance OPE of the reduced gluon Ioffe-time distribution is valid and truncatable at the order employed for the Wilson-line separations chosen
    Invoked to convert matrix elements into moment ratios; location: abstract description of the analysis method.
  • domain assumption Perturbative matching to the quark-singlet sector introduces controllable errors
    Required when isolating the pure-gluon contribution; abstract notes investigation of this mixing.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mellin Moments of the Unpolarized Gluon PDF in the Proton from Nonlocal Operators in Lattice QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DPKP5JGJ

@misc{pith2026260530193,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mellin Moments of the Unpolarized Gluon PDF in the Proton from Nonlocal Operators in Lattice QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DPKP5JGJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.30193}
}
abstract

We present a lattice QCD determination of the Mellin moments of the unpolarized gluon parton distribution function in the proton. The analysis is based on matrix elements of nonlocal gluon operators coupled to momentum-boosted proton states. The calculation relies on an $N_f=2+1+1$ ensemble of maximally twisted mass fermions with clover improvement and the Iwasaki-improved gauge action, at a pion mass of approximately 260 MeV. Working within the short-distance operator product expansion (OPE) of the reduced gluon Ioffe-time distribution, we extract ratios of higher-order gluon moments, $\langle x^n\rangle$ with $n>1$, to the gluon momentum fraction, $\langle x\rangle$. We investigate systematic effects associated with the truncation of the order of moment in the OPE, the choice of minimum and maximum Wilson-line separations entering the analysis, and the treatment of mixing with the quark-singlet under perturbative matching. The stability of the extracted moments is further studied under scale evolution using DGLAP equations, allowing us to assess uncertainties related to perturbative truncation by varying the scale. Our work provides a determination of the ratio $\langle x^3\rangle_g/\langle x\rangle_g$ at a scale of 2 GeV, with uncertainties that account for both statistical and the dominant theoretical systematic uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.30193 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Left: Bare matrix elements as a function of the length of the Wilson line, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Fixed-order results for the ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. A comparison of ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. A comparison of moments extracted for different systematics and evolved from initial scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: at κ = 1/ √ 2, 1, √ 2. The band is taken at κ = 1, while the variation under κ → 1/ √ 2, √ 2 provides an estimate of the perturbative uncertainty associated with matching-scale variation, in addition to the statistical uncertainties. 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: , which incorporates scale evolution. In particular, we select the analysis with (zmin, zmax) = (2a, 3a) as our preferred window, and truncation order nmax = 4, which provides an optimal choice between perturbative control, stability of the extracted moments, and stati…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. A comparison of ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.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. Parton distribution functions from lattice QCD

    hep-lat 2026-07 unverdicted

    A review of lattice-QCD approaches to parton distribution functions concludes that the field is moving from feasibility studies to quantitatively controlled calculations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 ⟨ x3⟩ / ⟨ x ⟩ nmax = 4, z ∈ (0.186fm, 0.279fm) FIG

    The band is taken atκ= 1, while the variation underκ→1/ √ 2, √ 2 provides an estimate of the perturbative uncertainty associated with matching-scale variation, in addition to the statistical uncertainties. 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 ⟨ x3⟩ / ⟨ x ⟩ nmax = 4, z ∈ (0.186fm, 0.279fm) FIG. 5. Comparison of ratios⟨x 3⟩g/⟨x⟩g for gluon only at ...

  2. [2]

    We include a band covering the uncertainties associated with extracted value atκ= 1 and a lighter band including additional theoretical error determined from varyingκ. E. Impact of Mixing with Quark-Singlet Contribution In the extraction of gluon Mellin moments, the perturbative matching receives contributions from mixing with the quark-singlet operator. ...

  3. [3]

    Pion and Kaon Form Factors using Lattice QCD

    The shaded band corresponds to the final lattice-only determination obtained from the analysis without quark-singlet mixing of Eq. (23). The central value is taken from theκ= 1 analysis, corresponding to the natural choiceµ 0 ∼1/z, while the variation underκ→1/ √ 2 andκ→ √ 2 is used to estimate the associated perturbative systematic uncertainty. Our final...

    2021

  4. [4]

    New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC

    T.-J. Houet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 014013 (2021), 1912.10053

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Simultaneous Monte Carlo analysis of parton densities and fragmentation functions

    Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM), E. Moffatet al., Phys. Rev. D104, 016015 (2021), 2101.04664. 16

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    R. D. Ballet al., The European Physical Journal C82(2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier - Understanding the glue that binds us all

    A. Accardiet al., Electron ion collider: The next QCD frontier - understanding the glue that binds us all, 2014, 1212.1701

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Abdul Khaleket al., Nuclear Physics A1026, 122447 (2022)

    R. Abdul Khaleket al., Nuclear Physics A1026, 122447 (2022)

    2022

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Ji, Phys

    X. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 262002 (2013), 1305.1539

    2013 arXiv

  2. [10]

    X. Ji, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.57, 1407 (2014), 1404.6680

    2014 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Jiet al., Rev

    X. Jiet al., Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 035005 (2021), 2004.03543

    2021

  4. [12]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D96, 034025 (2017), 1705.01488

    2017 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Radyushkin, Phys

    A. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D98, 014019 (2018), 1801.02427

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Braun and D

    V. Braun and D. Mueller, Eur. Phys. J.C55, 349 (2008), 0709.1348

    2008 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ma and J.-W

    Y.-Q. Ma and J.-W. Qiu, Phys. Rev.D98, 074021 (2018), 1404.6860

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ma and J.-W

    Y.-Q. Ma and J.-W. Qiu, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 022003 (2018), 1709.03018

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Liu and S.-J

    K.-F. Liu and S.-J. Dong, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 1790 (1994), hep-ph/9306299

    1994 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Detmold and C

    W. Detmold and C. J. D. Lin, Phys. Rev.D73, 014501 (2006), hep-lat/0507007

    2006 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A. J. Chamberset al., Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 242001 (2017), 1703.01153

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Detmoldet al., Phys

    HOPE, W. Detmoldet al., Phys. Rev. D105, 034506 (2022), 2109.15241

    2022

  13. [21]

    Davoudi and M

    Z. Davoudi and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D86, 054505 (2012), 1204.4146

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Shindler, Phys

    A. Shindler, Phys. Rev. D110, L051503 (2024), 2311.18704

    2024

  15. [23]

    Cichy and M

    K. Cichy and M. Constantinou, Adv. High Energy Phys.2019, 3036904 (2019), 1811.07248

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Constantinouet al., Prog

    M. Constantinouet al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.121, 103908 (2021), 2006.08636

    2021

  17. [25]

    Lin, Prog

    H.-W. Lin, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.144, 104177 (2025), 2506.05025. [23]Precision QCD with the Electron-Ion Collider, 2026, 2604.04765

    2025

  18. [26]

    Fanet al., Phys

    Z.-Y. Fanet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 242001 (2018), 1808.02077

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Zhanget al., Phys

    J.-H. Zhanget al., Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 142001 (2019), 1808.10824

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Z. Fan, R. Zhang, and H.-W. Lin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A36, 2150080 (2021), 2007.16113

    2021

  21. [29]

    Fan and H.-W

    Z. Fan and H.-W. Lin, Phys. Lett. B823, 136778 (2021), 2104.06372

    2021

  22. [30]

    Salas-Chavira, Z

    A. Salas-Chavira, Z. Fan, and H.-W. Lin, Phys. Rev. D106, 094510 (2022), 2112.03124

    2022

  23. [31]

    Khanet al., Phys

    HadStruc, T. Khanet al., Phys. Rev. D104, 094516 (2021), 2107.08960

    2021

  24. [32]

    Egereret al., Phys

    HadStruc, C. Egereret al., Phys. Rev. D106, 094511 (2022), 2207.08733

    2022

  25. [33]

    T. Khan, T. Liu, and R. S. Sufian, Phys. Rev. D108, 074502 (2023), 2211.15587

    2023

  26. [34]

    Z. Fan, W. Good, and H.-W. Lin, Phys. Rev. D108, 014508 (2023), 2210.09985

    2023

  27. [35]

    T. A. Chowdhuryet al., Phys. Rev. D111, 074509 (2025), 2409.17234

    2025

  28. [36]

    W. Good, F. Yao, and H.-W. Lin, Physics Letters B872, 140067 (2026)

    2026

  29. [37]

    Chenet al., Unpolarized gluon pdf of the nucleon from lattice qcd in the continuum limit, 2025, 2510.26425

    C. Chenet al., Unpolarized gluon pdf of the nucleon from lattice qcd in the continuum limit, 2025, 2510.26425

    2025

  30. [38]

    Delmaret al., Phys

    J. Delmaret al., Phys. Rev. D108, 094515 (2023), 2310.01389

    2023

  31. [39]

    K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev.179, 1499 (1969)

    1969

  32. [40]

    Izubuchiet al., Phys

    T. Izubuchiet al., Phys. Rev. D98, 056004 (2018), 1801.03917

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Balitsky, W

    I. Balitsky, W. Morris, and A. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B808, 135621 (2020), 1910.13963

    2020

  34. [42]

    Balitsky, W

    I. Balitsky, W. Morris, and A. Radyushkin, SciPost Phys. Proc.8, 161 (2022), 2106.01916

    2022

  35. [43]

    Ji, J.-H

    X. Ji, J.-H. Zhang, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 112001 (2018), 1706.08962

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ishikawaet al., Phys

    T. Ishikawaet al., Phys. Rev. D96, 094019 (2017), 1707.03107

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Green, K

    J. Green, K. Jansen, and F. Steffens, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 022004 (2018), 1707.07152

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Orginoset al., Phys

    K. Orginoset al., Phys. Rev. D96, 094503 (2017), 1706.05373

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Alexandrouet al., Phys

    C. Alexandrouet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 142002 (2017), 1706.02973

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Alexandrouet al., Phys

    C. Alexandrouet al., Phys. Rev. D101, 094513 (2020), 2003.08486

    2020

  41. [49]

    Gaoet al., Phys

    X. Gaoet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 094504 (2021), 2102.01101

    2021

  42. [50]

    Suet al., Nucl

    Y. Suet al., Nucl. Phys. B991, 116201 (2023), 2209.01236. 17

    2023

  43. [51]

    S. Moch, J. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, Nuclear Physics B688, 101–134 (2004)

    2004

  44. [52]

    A. Vogt, S. Moch, and J. Vermaseren, Nuclear Physics B691, 129–181 (2004)

    2004

  45. [53]

    Ledoit and M

    O. Ledoit and M. Wolf, Journal of Multivariate Analysis88, 365 (2004)

    2004

  46. [54]

    Li, Y.-Q

    Z.-Y. Li, Y.-Q. Ma, and J.-W. Qiu, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 062002 (2019), 1809.01836

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Alexandrouet al., Phys

    C. Alexandrouet al., Phys. Rev. D98, 054518 (2018), 1807.00495

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Alexandrouet al., Phys

    Extended Twisted Mass, C. Alexandrouet al., Phys. Rev. D104, 074515 (2021), 2104.13408

    2021

  49. [57]

    QUDA, M. A. Clarket al., (2016), 1612.07873

    2016 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Alexandrouet al., Phys

    C. Alexandrouet al., Phys. Rev. D94, 114509 (2016), 1610.02370

    2016 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bacchio, C

    S. Bacchio, C. Alexandrou, and J. Finkerath, EPJ Web Conf.175, 02002 (2018), 1710.06198

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, and J. Finkenrath, Comput. Phys. Commun.236, 51 (2019), 1805.09584

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Morningstar and M

    C. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, Phys. Rev. D69, 054501 (2004), hep-lat/0311018

    2004 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Alexandrouet al., Phys

    C. Alexandrouet al., Phys. Rev. D96, 054503 (2017), 1611.06901

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    G. S. Baliet al., Phys. Rev. D93, 094515 (2016), 1602.05525

    2016 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Alexandrouet al., Phys

    C. Alexandrouet al., Phys. Rev. D96, 014513 (2017), 1610.03689

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Gaoet al., Phys

    X. Gaoet al., Phys. Rev. D106, 074505 (2022), 2206.04084

    2022

  58. [66]

    Gaoet al., Phys

    X. Gaoet al., Phys. Rev. D107, 074509 (2023), 2212.12569

    2023

  59. [67]

    I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann, and W. J. Waalewijn, Journal of High Energy Physics2010(2010)

    2010

  60. [68]

    Buckleyet al., The European Physical Journal C75(2015)

    A. Buckleyet al., The European Physical Journal C75(2015)

    2015

  61. [69]

    Cocuzzaet al., Phys

    JAM Collaboration (Spin PDF Analysis Group), C. Cocuzzaet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 114017 (2025), 2506.13616

    2025

  62. [70]

    Cocuzzaet al., Stability of parton distributions at highx: impact of nuclear and power corrections, 2026, 2605.00666

    C. Cocuzzaet al., Stability of parton distributions at highx: impact of nuclear and power corrections, 2026, 2605.00666

    2026 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Frommeret al., SIAM J

    A. Frommeret al., SIAM J. Sci. Comput.36, A1581 (2014), 1303.1377

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed June 28, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.