Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Conformal Mapping in Matching Quark Correlation Functions to Parton Distribution Functions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Rewriting a QCD matching kernel as a conformally mapped non-power series cuts its factorization-scale error band by about 40 percent.

desk verdict A modest but legitimate proof-of-principle that conformal mapping reduces scale dependence of the N3LO QCF matching kernel by ~40%; the number rests on one self-referential diagnostic and needs sensitivity tests before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16382 v1 pith:HEMLFV7U submitted 2024-11-25 hep-ph

Jia-Lu Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.Bx12.38.Aw12.38.Gc
keywords conformalmappingBorelsummationrenormalonsingularitiespartondistributionfunctionslatticeQCDmatchingkernelnon-powerseriesfactorizationscaleuncertainty
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 proposes that conformal mapping in the Borel plane can tame the divergent high-order expansion of the matching kernel that converts quark correlation functions into parton distribution functions (PDFs). For u- and d-quark PDFs from CT18NNLO at N3LO in the MS scheme, replacing the ordinary $\alpha_s$ power series by the mapped non-power series shrinks the RMS half-width of the factorization-scale error band from $1.31\times10^{-2}$ to $7.04\times10^{-3}$ for the u quark and from $1.40\times10^{-2}$ to $8.72\times10^{-3}$ for the d quark, an improvement of about 40%. A sympathetic reader would take away that lattice-based PDF extractions can gain accuracy at fixed loop order by resumming the matching kernel more cleverly, without waiting for another order of perturbation theory.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the conformal map $\tilde w(u)$ of Eq. (8), which reparametrizes the Borel variable $u$ so that the nearest singularities of the Borel-transformed matching kernel land on the unit circle $|w|=1$. The series is then re-expanded in powers of $w$, producing new coefficients $c'_k$, and the observable is rebuilt as $\phi(\alpha_s)=\sum_i c'_i W_i(\alpha_s)$ with principal-value integrals $W_i(\alpha_s)$ defined in Eq. (11). This construction preserves the original asymptotic expansion while turning it into a convergent non-power series over the holomorphic domain of the Borel transform, which is what shrinks the factorization-scale error band in the numerical section.

What would settle it

Looking at the Borel transform of the N3LO matching kernel at high order and locating the nearest singularity on the positive real axis would settle it: if it is not at $u=\frac12$ in the MS scheme, the map loses its justification. A cheaper check is to recompute the RMS band of Section IV with the factorization-scale range widened or with renormalization-scale variation included; if the non-power series then no longer beats the $\alpha_s$ series by roughly a factor of two, the claimed improvement is specific to the band measure used in the paper.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the non-power series built from the conformal map $\tilde w(u) = \frac{\sqrt{1-u/u_{\rm UV}} - \sqrt{1-u/u_{\rm IR}}}{\sqrt{1-u/u_{\rm UV}} + \sqrt{1-u/u_{\rm IR}}}$ makes the matching kernel for quark correlation functions more convergent in practice. With the nearest renormalon singularities at $u_{\rm UV}=-1$ and $u_{\rm IR}=\frac12$ in the MS scheme, the map moves them onto the unit circle, so the Borel-transformed series becomes well-defined in a larger domain. At N3LO with CT18NNLO PDFs, the RMS half-width of the band from varying the factorization scale between 1.3 GeV and 15 GeV drops from $1.31\times10^{-2}$ to $7.04\times10^{-3}$ for the u quark and from $1.40\times10^{-2}$ to $8.72\times10^{-3}$ for the d quark. The paper also notes that higher-order QCFs in the non-power series stay closely aligned with lower-order results, indicating that the order-by-order instability typical of the $\alpha_s$ series is mitigated.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the matching kernel's Borel transform really has its nearest singularities at $u_{\rm UV}=-1$ and $u_{\rm IR}=\frac12$ in the MS scheme, because the conformal map in Eq. (8) is built on exactly those points and the claimed convergence gain would not materialize if they sat elsewhere.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At fixed perturbative order, the non-power matching kernel gives narrower factorization-scale uncertainties, so PDF extractions from existing lattice correlators can be quoted with smaller theory errors.
  • Because the RMS band shrinks by about 40% for both u and d quarks, the same gain is expected in the valence-quark sector of the PDF, where lattice data are most precise.
  • If the $u=\frac12$ renormalon cancels in ratio or hybrid renormalization schemes, the same conformal treatment of those matching kernels should yield even faster convergence than the MS-scheme result shown here.
  • The method extends beyond quark PDFs: the paper's outlook applies the same non-power matching kernel strategy to distribution amplitudes and generalized parton distributions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported improvement is measured by the factorization-scale band alone; a natural next test is to vary the renormalization scale and the scheme to see whether the roughly 40% gain survives a more complete uncertainty budget.
  • The map's parameters come from the assumed singularity positions $u_{\rm UV}=-1$ and $u_{\rm IR}=\frac12$; directly extracting those positions from the N3LO Borel transform would convert the assumption into a measured input and would show how sensitive the gain is to the map.
  • The conformal-mapping mechanism applies to any Borel-summable QCD series with known leading renormalons, so the same construction could be tested on DGLAP evolution kernels or on the coefficient functions of other factorization theorems without new loop calculations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using a conformal mapping of the Borel plane, Eq. (8), to turn the conventional power series of the QCF-to-PDF matching kernel into a non-power series, Eq. (10), with the aim of taming renormalon-driven factorial growth. The construction uses the assumed nearest singularities at u_UV = -1 and u_IR = 1/2 in the MS scheme, adopted from refs. [46,47]. The numerical section evaluates QCFs with CT18NNLO PDFs and the N3LO matching kernel of ref. [30], varying the factorization scale between 1.3 GeV and 15 GeV, and reports that the RMS width of the resulting error band, Eq. (15), is reduced by about 40% when the non-power series is used for both u- and d-quarks (from 1.31e-2 to 7.04e-3 for u; from 1.40e-2 to 8.72e-3 for d). The central claim of the paper is that conformal mapping improves the convergence and stability of the matching series.

Significance. If the claimed improvement is robust, the paper offers a computationally cheap method to reduce perturbative uncertainty in lattice-QCD-based PDF extractions, with no new loop calculations required. The paper has genuine strengths: no parameters are fitted to the final result, the conformal map is fixed by external renormalon positions, and the numerical inputs are standard. The implementation of the Borel transform and conformal map is straightforward and, in principle, reproducible. However, the evidence for convergence improvement rests entirely on a single scale-variation proxy, and the paper does not provide sensitivity tests of the two load-bearing assumptions: the singularity positions and the range/window choices entering the RMS metric. The order mismatch between NNLO PDFs and an N3LO kernel further complicates the interpretation of the scale-variation band.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (15)] This is a complete sentence.
  2. [§III.B, Eq. (8)] This is a complete sentence.
  3. [§IV, order-mismatch paragraph] This is a complete sentence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II, Eq. (1)-(2)] This is a complete sentence.
  2. [§IV, Eq. (15)] This is a complete sentence.
  3. [FIG. 2] This is a complete sentence.
  4. [§III.B] This is a complete sentence.
  5. [§III.A, Eq. (11)] This is a complete sentence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the conformal map is fixed by literature-valued renormalon positions and external inputs, and the 40% RMS reduction is an empirical comparison, not a fit.

full rationale

The paper's central numerical claim is an application of a known resummation technique, not a derivation whose conclusion is assumed in its inputs. The conformal map in Eq. (8) depends only on the assumed nearest-singularity positions uUV = -1 and uIR = 1/2, which are taken from the literature (refs [46,47]) and are not fitted to the target RMS reduction. The inputs to the calculation are the external CT18NNLO PDFs and the N3LO hard kernel of ref [30]. The comparison between the alpha_s series and the non-power series is a self-consistency diagnostic: both series are rearrangements of the same input coefficients, and the claimed improvement is observed, not imposed. No parameter is tuned to the quoted sigma_RMS values, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The paper's self-citations (refs [35-37,48]) concern renormalization schemes and are not load-bearing for the conformal-mapping claim. The manuscript does flag limitations, but these are correctness and robustness issues rather than circularity: it states that 'the width of the error band alone cannot fully describe the convergence behavior of the series' (Section IV, after FIG. 2) and that 'The PDFs used are restricted to NNLO, precluding complete cancellation of factorization scale dependence at N3LO in the matching kernel.' These admissions weaken the evidential weight of the 40% figure but do not show that the result reduces to its inputs by construction. Therefore the circularity burden is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result relies on literature-provided renormalon positions, a standard factorization theorem, and the chosen scale variation range. No fitted parameters or invented entities are introduced. The key untested inputs are the singularity positions and the interpretation of scale variation as error.

free parameters (1)
  • factorization scale variation range = 1.3 GeV to 15 GeV
    The RMS error is defined over an error band generated by varying the factorization scale between 1.3 and 15 GeV. This range is chosen by hand; a different range would change the numeric RMS and possibly the claimed improvement.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Borel transform of the QCF has nearest singularities at uUV=-1 and uIR=1/2 in the MS scheme.
    Stateed in Section III.B without derivation, citing refs [46,47]. The conformal map (8) is built on these positions.
  • domain assumption The factorization formula in Eq. (4) holds, with the PDF absorbing long-distance physics and the kernel short-distance physics.
    Standard LaMET factorization theorem, stated in Section II.
  • domain assumption The conformal map (8) maps the cut Borel plane onto the unit disk and improves the convergence rate of the series.
    Standard result in Borel summation, cited from refs [23-26].
  • domain assumption CT18NNLO PDFs and the N3LO hard kernel of ref [30] are accurate inputs.
    Inputs chosen for the numerical test; the N3LO kernel is not independently derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The RMS width of the factorization-scale variation band is a meaningful proxy for the truncation error of the series.
    Implicit in Section IV, Eq. (15). This is not an external benchmark, so stability does not guarantee accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conformal Mapping in Matching Quark Correlation Functions to Parton Distribution Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HEMLFV7U

@misc{pith2026241116382,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conformal Mapping in Matching Quark Correlation Functions to Parton Distribution Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HEMLFV7U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16382}
}
abstract

In high-energy particle physics, extracting parton distribution functions (PDFs) from lattice quantum chromodynamics (QCD) calculations remains a significant challenge, particularly due to the divergent nature of perturbative expansions at high orders. The presence of renormalon singularities in the Borel plane further hinders the accurate determination of PDFs, especially in the context of lattice QCD and effective field theory approaches like Large Momentum Effective Theory (LaMET). This study explores the application of conformal mapping as a technique to improve the convergence of perturbative series for matching kernels. By transforming the Borel plane to map singularities onto the unit disk, this method mitigates the effects of divergent behavior in high-order perturbative expansions of matching kernels. The numerical analysis focuses on the matching kernel for quark correlation functions (QCFs), using the CT18NNLO PDFs for u-quarks and d-quarks, along with N3LO hard kernel inputs. The results demonstrate that conformal mapping enhances the stability of the perturbative series, reducing the root-mean-square (RMS) error by up to $40\%$ compared to conventional $\alpha_s$ series. These findings highlight the potential of conformal mapping to enhance the precision of PDFs and reduce theoretical uncertainties in high-order QCD calculations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16382 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The QCFs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The N3LO QCFs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Quark correlation functions at three-loop order and extraction of splitting functions

    C. Cheng, L. H. Huang, X. Li, Z. Y. Li and Y. Q. Ma, [arXiv:2410.05141 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [1]

    S. I. Alekhin, Phys. Rev. D 63, 094022 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.094022 [arXiv:hep- ph/0011002 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2001

  3. [2]

    T. J. Hou, J. Gao, T. J. Hobbs, K. Xie, S. Du- lat, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin and C. Schmidt, et al.Phys. Rev. D 103, no.1, 014013 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.014013 [arXiv:1912.10053 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [3]

    Brivio and M

    I. Brivio and M. Trott, Phys. Rept. 793, 1-98 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2018.11.002 [arXiv:1706.08945 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [4]

    Beacham, C

    J. Beacham, C. Burrage, D. Curtin, A. De Roeck, J. Evans, J. L. Feng, C. Gatto, S. Gninenko, A. Hartin and I. Irastorza, et al. J. Phys. G 47, no.1, 010501 (2020) doi:10.1088/1361-6471/ab4cd2 [arXiv:1901.09966 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [5]

    Cichy and M

    K. Cichy and M. Constantinou, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2019, 3036904 (2019) doi:10.1155/2019/3036904 [arXiv:1811.07248 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    Zhao, Int

    Y. Zhao, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, no.36, 1830033 (2019) doi:10.1142/S0217751X18300338 [arXiv:1812.07192 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    X. Ji, Y. S. Liu, Y. Liu, J. H. Zhang and Y. Zhao, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, no.3, 035005 (2021) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93.035005 [arXiv:2004.03543 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Izubuchi, X

    T. Izubuchi, X. Ji, L. Jin, I. W. Stewart and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 98, no.5, 056004 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.056004 [arXiv:1801.03917 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D 59, 014030 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.014030 [arXiv:hep- ph/9805342 [hep-ph]]

    1999

  3. [10]

    Hua et al.[Lattice Parton], Phys

    J. Hua et al.[Lattice Parton], Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, no.6, 062002 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.062002 [arXiv:2011.09788 [hep-lat]]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.3, 034025 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.034025 [arXiv:1705.01488 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  5. [12]

    X. Ji, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 57, 1407-1412 (2014) doi:10.1007/s11433-014-5492-3 [arXiv:1404.6680 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Constantinou, L

    M. Constantinou, L. Del Debbio, X. Ji, H. W. Lin, K. F. Liu, C. Monahan, K. Orginos, P. Petreczky, J. W. Qiu and D. Richards, et al.[arXiv:2202.07193 [hep- lat]]

    arXiv

  7. [14]

    Ji, Phys

    X. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 262002 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.262002 [arXiv:1305.1539 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [15]

    F. J. Dyson, Phys. Rev. 85, 631-632 (1952) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.631

    1952 doi

  9. [16]

    Beneke and V

    M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, Phys. Lett. B 348, 513-520 (1995) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00184-M [arXiv:hep- ph/9411229 [hep-ph]]

    1995

  10. [17]

    A. A. Belavin, A. M. Polyakov, A. S. Schwartz and Y. S. Tyupkin, Phys. Lett. B 59, 85-87 (1975) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(75)90163-X

    1975 doi

  11. [18]

    Brezin, G

    E. Brezin, G. Parisi and J. Zinn-Justin, Phys. Rev. D 16, 408-412 (1977) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.408

    1977 doi

  12. [19]

    D. J. Gross and A. Neveu, Phys. Rev. D 10, 3235 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.3235

    1974 doi

  13. [20]

    Beneke, Phys

    M. Beneke, Phys. Rept. 317, 1-142 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00130-6 [arXiv:hep- ph/9807443 [hep-ph]]

    1999

  14. [21]

    Beneke and V

    M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B 426, 301-343 (1994) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)90314-X [arXiv:hep- ph/9402364 [hep-ph]]

    1994

  15. [22]

    Beneke, Nucl

    M. Beneke, Nucl. Phys. B 405, 424-450 (1993) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90554-3

    1993 doi

  16. [23]

    W. R. Frazer, Phys. Rev. 123, 2180-2182 (1961) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.123.2180

    1961 doi

  17. [24]

    Seznec and J

    R. Seznec and J. Zinn-Justin, J. Math. Phys. 20, 1398 (1979) doi:10.1063/1.524247

    1979 doi

  18. [25]

    Caprini, Eur

    I. Caprini, Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, no.12-13, 2667- 2678 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjs/s11734-021-00256-0 [arXiv:2105.04819 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Caprini, Phys

    I. Caprini, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.7, 074002 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.074002 [arXiv:2403.10844 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [27]

    L. B. Chen, W. Wang and R. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.1, 011503 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.011503 [arXiv:2005.13757 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [28]

    L. B. Chen, W. Wang and R. Zhu, JHEP 10, 079 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2020)079 [arXiv:2006.10917 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [29]

    L. B. Chen, W. Wang and R. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, no.7, 072002 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.072002 [arXiv:2006.14825 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hua et al

    J. Hua et al. [Lattice Parton], Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, no.13, 132001 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.132001 [arXiv:2201.09173 [hep-lat]]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J. C. He et al. [Lattice Parton Collaboration (LPC)], Phys. Rev. D 109, no.11, 114513 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.114513 [arXiv:2211.02340 [hep-lat]]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Y. S. Liu et al. [Lattice Parton], Phys. Rev. D 101, no.3, 034020 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.034020 [arXiv:1807.06566 [hep-lat]]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    X. Ji, Y. Liu, A. Sch¨ afer, W. Wang, Y. B. Yang, J. H. Zhang and Y. Zhao, Nucl. Phys. B 964, 115311 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115311 [arXiv:2008.03886 [hep-ph]]

    2021

  27. [35]

    C. Han, W. Wang, J. Zeng and J. L. Zhang, JHEP 07, 019 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2024)019 [arXiv:2404.04855 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    C. Han, Y. Su, W. Wang and J. L. Zhang, JHEP 12, 044 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2023)044 [arXiv:2308.16793 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Han and J

    C. Han and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.1, 014034 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.014034 [arXiv:2311.02669 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Y. S. Liu, W. Wang, J. Xu, Q. A. Zhang, S. Zhao and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.9, 094036 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.094036 [arXiv:1810.10879 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    X. Gao, A. D. Hanlon, S. Mukherjee, P. Pe- treczky, P. Scior, S. Syritsyn and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, no.14, 142003 (2022) 7 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.142003 [arXiv:2112.02208 [hep-lat]]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    C. Y. Chou and J. W. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.1, 014507 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.014507 [arXiv:2204.08343 [hep-lat]]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Y. Su, J. Holligan, X. Ji, F. Yao, J. H. Zhang and R. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 991, 116201 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2023.116201 [arXiv:2209.01236 [hep-ph]]

    2023

  34. [42]

    Ji, [arXiv:2209.09332 [hep-lat]]

    X. Ji, [arXiv:2209.09332 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    X. Gao, A. D. Hanlon, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, P. Scior, S. Syritsyn and Y. Zhao, PoS LA TTICE2022, 104 (2023) doi:10.22323/1.430.0104

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    Maiezza and J

    A. Maiezza and J. C. Vasquez, Phys. Lett. B 817, 136338 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136338 [arXiv:2104.03095 [hep-ph]]

    2021

  37. [45]

    Aniceto, G

    I. Aniceto, G. Basar and R. Schiappa, Phys. Rept. 809, 1-135 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.02.003 [arXiv:1802.10441 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Liu and Y

    Y. Liu and Y. Su, JHEP 2024, 204 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2024)204 [arXiv:2311.06907 [hep- ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Holligan, X

    J. Holligan, X. Ji, H. W. Lin, Y. Su and R. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 993, 116282 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2023.116282 [arXiv:2301.10372 [hep-lat]]

    2023

  40. [48]

    C. Han, W. Wang, J. L. Zhang and J. H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.9, 094038 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.094038 [arXiv:2408.13486 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Orginos, A

    K. Orginos, A. Radyushkin, J. Karpie and S. Zafeiropou- los, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.9, 094503 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.094503 [arXiv:1706.05373 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    L. B. Chen, H. T. Li, H. S. Shao and J. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 803, 135292 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135292 [arXiv:1909.06808 [hep-ph]]

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.