Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

An Analysis on the Parton Distribution Functions of Heavy Mesons

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-20 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Heavy constituents carry larger momentum fractions than light ones inside heavy mesons.

desk verdict This extends the light-cone quark model to heavy pseudoscalars with NLO evolution and experiment-specific predictions, but the heavy-quark dominance result tracks directly from the model's own initial-scale inputs. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.17389 v1 pith:PWMQZQ72 submitted 2026-05-17 hep-ph nucl-th

Satyajit Puhan This is my paper
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords partondistributionfunctionsheavymesonslight-conequarkmodelDGLAPevolutionmomentumfractionskaonstructureDrell-Yancrosssections
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 calculates the parton distribution functions of the kaon and heavy pseudoscalar mesons in the light-cone quark model. It starts from initial-scale PDFs obtained via quark-quark correlation functions for each meson and evolves them to higher scales using next-to-leading-order DGLAP equations. Average longitudinal momentum fractions for each constituent are computed at both the initial model scale and the evolved scale. The results show that heavy quarks and antiquarks possess greater momentum shares than lighter constituents within heavy mesons. Predictions are also given for kaon structure functions at Electron-Ion Collider energies and for Drell-Yan cross sections in proposed kaon experiments.

What carries the argument

Light-cone quark model PDFs derived from quark-quark correlation functions, evolved with NLO DGLAP equations to extract constituent momentum fractions.

What would settle it

An experimental measurement of momentum fractions in a heavy meson at high scales showing the lighter constituent carrying a larger fraction than the heavy one would contradict the dominance result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the light-cone quark model, the initial-scale PDFs of heavy pseudoscalar mesons are constructed from quark-quark correlation functions, then evolved via NLO DGLAP equations; the resulting momentum fractions demonstrate that the heavy quark and antiquark carry larger shares of the total momentum than the lighter constituents both before and after evolution.

Load-bearing premise

The initial-scale quark and antiquark PDFs obtained by evaluating the quark-quark correlation functions for individual mesons accurately represent the mesons' partonic structure at the model scale.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Heavy mesons exhibit a partonic structure in which valence heavy quarks dominate the longitudinal momentum.
  • Kaon structure functions can be predicted at the energy scales of the upcoming Electron-Ion Collider.
  • Drell-Yan cross sections for both isospin states of the kaon can be computed for nuclear targets such as carbon, tungsten, and aluminum.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same dominance pattern may appear in other heavy-hadron systems once similar model calculations are performed.
  • Higher-order evolution or lattice comparisons could provide independent checks on the momentum-fraction ordering.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the parton distribution functions of the kaon and heavy pseudoscalar mesons in the light-cone quark model. Initial-scale valence PDFs are obtained by evaluating quark-quark correlation functions, followed by NLO DGLAP evolution to higher scales. Average longitudinal momentum fractions <x> are computed at both the model scale and after evolution; NLO structure functions for the kaon are predicted at EIC-relevant scales, and NLO Drell-Yan cross sections are given for kaon isospin states on Carbon, Tungsten, and Aluminum targets. The central claim is that heavy constituents dominate the momentum fractions in heavy mesons.

Significance. If the light-cone model inputs are reliable, the work supplies concrete predictions for upcoming EIC structure-function measurements and COMPASS++/AMBER Drell-Yan data, together with a quantitative statement of heavy-quark momentum dominance that could be tested. The approach of fixing model-scale PDFs and evolving them perturbatively is standard, but the absence of any reported validation, error propagation, or comparison to existing calculations or data limits the immediate utility of the results.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / initial-scale PDF construction] The central claim of heavy-constituent dominance rests on the average momentum fractions <x> evaluated directly from the quark-quark correlation functions that define the initial-scale PDFs (Abstract and workflow description). No validation against experimental constraints, lattice results, or alternative heavy-meson models is presented, so it is impossible to determine whether the reported dominance reflects the meson structure or the specific light-cone ansatz chosen for the heavy-light mass asymmetry.
  2. [Momentum-fraction and evolution sections] The manuscript supplies no error estimates, scale-variation bands, or sensitivity tests on the model-scale input. Because evolution preserves the ordering only when the initial asymmetry is sufficiently large, the lack of uncertainty quantification on the initial <x> values makes the post-evolution dominance statement difficult to assess quantitatively.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the initial scale and the precise definition of the model wave function should be stated explicitly in the main text rather than left implicit in the abstract description.
  2. Figure captions and table headings should include the numerical values of the model scale and the evolution scale used for each result.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major comment point by point below and indicate the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation and quantitative support for our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / initial-scale PDF construction] The central claim of heavy-constituent dominance rests on the average momentum fractions <x> evaluated directly from the quark-quark correlation functions that define the initial-scale PDFs (Abstract and workflow description). No validation against experimental constraints, lattice results, or alternative heavy-meson models is presented, so it is impossible to determine whether the reported dominance reflects the meson structure or the specific light-cone ansatz chosen for the heavy-light mass asymmetry.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not contain explicit side-by-side comparisons with lattice QCD or other non-perturbative calculations for heavy-meson PDFs. The light-cone quark model parameters are fixed by reproducing the known decay constants and masses of the mesons, which constitute indirect experimental constraints. In the revised version we will add a dedicated paragraph in Section II that recalls prior validations of the same light-cone ansatz for the kaon against available data and that briefly contrasts our <x> values with expectations from heavy-quark effective theory and selected Dyson-Schwinger studies. This addition clarifies that the reported dominance follows from the large mass asymmetry built into the model wave function rather than from an arbitrary choice of functional form. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Momentum-fraction and evolution sections] The manuscript supplies no error estimates, scale-variation bands, or sensitivity tests on the model-scale input. Because evolution preserves the ordering only when the initial asymmetry is sufficiently large, the lack of uncertainty quantification on the initial <x> values makes the post-evolution dominance statement difficult to assess quantitatively.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of uncertainty quantification limits the ability to judge how robust the dominance conclusion remains under reasonable variations of the model input. In the revised manuscript we will include a new sensitivity study: the constituent quark masses and the transverse-momentum scale parameter of the light-cone wave function are varied within intervals consistent with meson spectroscopy. The resulting spread in the initial-scale <x> values is propagated through the NLO DGLAP evolution and displayed as shaded bands on the relevant figures for both the momentum fractions and the predicted observables. We also add a short paragraph demonstrating that the ordering of <x> is preserved for all variations explored, thereby addressing the referee’s concern about the stability of the post-evolution statement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; model inputs yield direct momentum-fraction results

full rationale

The paper defines initial-scale valence PDFs by direct evaluation of quark-quark correlation functions inside the light-cone quark model for each meson, then computes average momentum fractions <x> as the first moment of those same PDFs at both the model scale and after NLO DGLAP evolution. This is a straightforward model calculation rather than a prediction that reduces to its inputs by construction. No load-bearing self-citation, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or ansatz smuggled via prior work is present in the provided text; the dominance statement follows immediately from integrating the model-defined distributions. The derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

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

Because only the abstract is available, the ledger is populated from the minimal set of modeling choices explicitly named; full details on wave-function parameters or evolution kernels are unknown.

free parameters (1)
  • model-scale initial PDFs
    Quark-quark correlation functions evaluated inside the light-cone quark model supply the starting distributions; their precise functional form and any normalization constants are not specified in the abstract.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Light-cone quark model wave functions correctly encode the meson structure at the initial scale
    Invoked when the initial PDFs are obtained from quark-quark correlation functions.
  • standard math NLO DGLAP evolution accurately describes the scale dependence of meson PDFs
    Standard perturbative QCD tool used without additional justification in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Analysis on the Parton Distribution Functions of Heavy Mesons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PWMQZQ72

@misc{pith2026260517389,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Analysis on the Parton Distribution Functions of Heavy Mesons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PWMQZQ72}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.17389}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we investigate the constituent parton distribution functions (PDFs) of the kaon and heavy pseudoscalar mesons within the light-cone quark model. Starting from the initial scale quark and antiquark PDFs, obtained by evaluating the quark-quark correlation functions for individual mesons, we perform quantum chromodynamics (QCD) evolution to determine the partonic structure at higher energy scales. The QCD evolution has been carried out through the next-to-leading order (NLO) Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi (DGLAP) equations. We further compute the average longitudinal momentum fractions carried by the individual constituents both at the model scale and evolved scale. In addition, the NLO structure functions for the kaon are predicted at higher energy scales relevant for the upcoming Electron-Ion Collider (EIC). For the COMPASS++/AMBER experiment, we further present detailed predictions for the NLO Drell-Yan cross sections corresponding to both isospin states of the kaon, employing Carbon, Tungsten, and Aluminum as nuclear targets. We demonstrate the dominance of the heavy constituents over the lighter constituents within their heavy mesons in terms of their possessed momentum fractions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.17389 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The quark and antiquark PDFs of different mesons as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color online) The lower and higher order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color online) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online) The evolved quark and antiquark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) The Mellin moment ratio of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (Color online) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (Color online) The differential cross-section for the kaon induced DY process by taking different target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (Color online) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: (Color online) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: (Color online) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: (Color online) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: (Color online) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: (Color online) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: (Color online) The constituent PDFs of all the mesons have been evolved to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: (Color online) The average momentum fractions carried by the total valence quark-antiquark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: (Color online) The Mellin moments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: (Color online) The difference in the valence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_18.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21: (Color online) Behavior of the bottom parton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22: (Color online) The distribution of top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_22.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Electron-Ion Collision Environment: Distribution of Quark Spin and Orbital Angular Momentum

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using NJL density-dependent quark masses in a light-front dressed-quark model, the paper predicts O(10–40%) medium modifications of GTMDs linked to quark OAM, spin, and spin–orbit correlation, and defines eA/eP GTMD r...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

119 extracted references · 119 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Now using the meson Fock-state of Eq

    and determines the path of the quark field operators, which has been taken as unity here. Now using the meson Fock-state of Eq. (15) and quark field operators from Ref. [90], the overlap form of the unpolarized quark PDFf(x) is found to be, fq(x) = Z d2k⊥ 16π3 |ϕ(x,k 2 ⊥)|2 × h |S(x,k ⊥,↑,↑)| 2 +|S(x,k ⊥,↓,↓)| 2 +|S(x,k ⊥,↓,↑)| 2 +|S(x,k ⊥,↑,↓)| 2 i . (17...

    work page

  2. [2]

    = 1, Z 1 0 dx f¯q(x, Q2

    work page

  3. [3]

    = 1, Z 1 0 dx x fq(x, Q2

    work page

  4. [4]

    + ¯f¯q(x, Q2 0) = 1. (19) As, we have not consider the gluon and sea-quark contri- butions in this work at the initial scale, so both of them 7 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 x 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8xf(x) JAM uK JAM sK This work uK This work sK Q2 = 4 GeV2 FIG. 4: (Color online) The evolved quark and antiquark PDFs of kaon have been compared with recent JAM results...

    work page

  5. [5]

    = 0, Z 1 0 dx S(x, Q2

    work page

  6. [6]

    (20) Here,gandSrepresent the gluon and sea-quark con- tributions, respectively

    = 0. (20) Here,gandSrepresent the gluon and sea-quark con- tributions, respectively. It is important to note thatQ 0 corresponds to the lower limit of the initial scale range considered in this work. The dynamical gluon contribu- tions arising from higher Fock states for the pion and kaon are currently under investigation, and the corre- sponding results ...

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    The momentum fraction carried by the total valence quark and antiquark of the heavy mesons is found to be higher compared to the light mesons. The valence quark and antiquark PDFs of bottomonia and B-mesons are found to carry almost 75%−83% of the total longitudi- nal momentum of the mesons, which one can expect from heavy quark systems. At the same time,...

    work page

  8. [8]

    22, we have plotted the top sea-quark distri- butions from different mesonic systems by taking the en- ergy scaleQ 2(105)> m 2 t (GeV2)

    In Fig. 22, we have plotted the top sea-quark distri- butions from different mesonic systems by taking the en- ergy scaleQ 2(105)> m 2 t (GeV2). At such scales, the top sea-quark distributions are generated perturbatively via gluon splittingg→t ¯t. The observed enhancement of the top sea-quark distribution for the kaon reflects its com- paratively larger ...

    work page

Show all 119 references
  1. [10]

    Mineo, W

    H. Mineo, W. Bentz, N. Ishii, A. W. Thomas, and K. Yazaki, Nucl. Phys. A735, 482 (2004), nucl- th/0312097

    2004

  2. [11]

    Nambu and G

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.122, 345 (1961)

    1961

  3. [12]

    S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys.64, 649 (1992)

    1992

  4. [13]

    Schlumpf, Phys

    F. Schlumpf, Phys. Rev. D50, 6895 (1994), hep- ph/9406267

    1994

  5. [14]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 201601 (2006), hep-ph/0602252

    2006 arXiv

  6. [15]

    C. D. Roberts and S. M. Schmidt, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.45, S1 (2000)

    2000

  7. [16]

    X. Ji, G. A. Miller, and C. Yang (2026), 2605.00339

    2026 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Meissner, A

    S. Meissner, A. Metz, and M. Schlegel, JHEP08, 056 18 (2009), 0906.5323

    2009 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Goeke, A

    K. Goeke, A. Metz, and M. Schlegel, Phys. Lett. B618, 90 (2005), hep-ph/0504130

    2005 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Puhan, S

    S. Puhan, S. Sharma, N. Kumar, and H. Dahiya (2025), 2504.14982

    2025

  11. [20]

    Diehl, Phys

    M. Diehl, Phys. Rept.388, 41 (2003), hep-ph/0307382

    2003 arXiv

  12. [21]

    J. M. M. Chavez, V. Bertone, F. De Soto Borrero, M. Defurne, C. Mezrag, H. Moutarde, J. Rodr´ ıguez- Quintero, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D105, 094012 (2022), 2110.06052

    2022

  13. [22]

    Zhang and J.-L

    J.-L. Zhang and J.-L. Ping, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 814 (2021)

    2021

  14. [23]

    Broniowski, V

    W. Broniowski, V. Shastry, and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Lett. B840, 137872 (2023), 2211.11067

    2023

  15. [24]

    Guidal, M

    M. Guidal, M. V. Polyakov, A. V. Radyushkin, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D72, 054013 (2005), hep-ph/0410251

    2005 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Puhan, S

    S. Puhan, S. Sharma, N. Kumar, and H. Dahiya (2026), 2604.11116

    2026 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Diehl, Eur

    M. Diehl, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 149 (2016), 1512.01328

    2016 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Angeles-Martinez et al., Acta Phys

    R. Angeles-Martinez et al., Acta Phys. Polon. B46, 2501 (2015), 1507.05267

    2015 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Pasquini, S

    B. Pasquini, S. Cazzaniga, and S. Boffi, Phys. Rev. D 78, 034025 (2008), 0806.2298

    2008 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Puhan, S

    S. Puhan, S. Sharma, N. Kaur, N. Kumar, and H. Dahiya, JHEP02, 075 (2024), 2310.03464

    2024

  21. [30]

    Puhan and H

    S. Puhan and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D109, 034005 (2024), 2310.03465

    2024

  22. [31]

    Puhan, S

    S. Puhan, S. Sharma, N. Kumar, and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D113, 036030 (2026), 2511.10981

    2026

  23. [32]

    J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B194, 445 (1982)

    1982

  24. [33]

    A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, W. J. Stirling, and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C4, 463 (1998), hep-ph/9803445

    1998 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Gluck, E

    M. Gluck, E. Reya, and A. Vogt, Z. Phys. C67, 433 (1995)

    1995

  26. [35]

    Puhan and H

    S. Puhan and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D111, 114039 (2025), 2505.02507

    2025

  27. [36]

    Arrington, C

    J. Arrington, C. D. Roberts, and J. M. Zanotti, J. Phys. G34, S23 (2007), nucl-th/0611050

    2007 arXiv

  28. [37]

    P. C. e. a. Barry, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 152001 (2018)

    2018

  29. [38]

    E. D. Bloom et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 930 (1969)

    1969

  30. [39]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B126, 298 (1977)

    1977

  31. [40]

    F. D. Aaron et al. (H1), Eur. Phys. J. C68, 381 (2010), 1001.0532

    2010 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Chekanov et al

    S. Chekanov et al. (ZEUS), Nucl. Phys. B637, 3 (2002), hep-ex/0205076

    2002 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Bonesini et al

    M. Bonesini et al. (WA70), Z. Phys. C37, 535 (1988)

    1988

  34. [43]

    Chang, J.-C

    W.-C. Chang, J.-C. Peng, S. Platchkov, and T. Sawada, Phys. Rev. D107, 056008 (2023), 2209.04072

    2023

  35. [44]

    S. D. Drell and T.-M. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett.25, 316 (1970), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 25, 902 (1970)]

    1970

  36. [45]

    Lorc´ e, A

    C. Lorc´ e, A. Metz, B. Pasquini, and P. Schweitzer (2025), 2507.12664

    2025

  37. [46]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP07, 223 (2021), 2101.05095

    2021

  38. [47]

    H. G. P, S. Puhan, A. K. P, R. Pandey, H. Dahiya, A. Kumar, and S. Dutt (2026), 2604.05762

    2026 arXiv

  39. [48]

    J. Lan, C. Mondal, S. Jia, X. Zhao, and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D101, 034024 (2020), 1907.01509

    2020

  40. [49]

    Gutsche, V

    T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, I. Schmidt, and A. Vega, J. Phys. G42, 095005 (2015), 1410.6424

    2015 arXiv

  41. [50]

    C. Shi, L. Lu, and W. Jia (2026), 2602.24187

    2026

  42. [51]

    J. S. Conway et al. (E615), Phys. Rev. D39, 92 (1989)

    1989

  43. [52]

    Bourrely, W.-C

    C. Bourrely, W.-C. Chang, and J.-C. Peng, Phys. Rev. D105, 076018 (2022), 2202.12547

    2022

  44. [53]

    P. C. Barry, C.-R. Ji, N. Sato, and W. Melnitchouk (Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM)), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 232001 (2021), 2108.05822

    2021

  45. [54]

    Chang, J.-C

    W.-C. Chang, J.-C. Peng, S. Platchkov, and T. Sawada, Phys. Rev. D102, 054024 (2020), 2006.06947

    2020

  46. [55]

    Novikov et al., Phys

    I. Novikov et al., Phys. Rev. D102, 014040 (2020), 2002.02902

    2020

  47. [56]

    Gluck, E

    M. Gluck, E. Reya, and I. Schienbein, Eur. Phys. J. C 10, 313 (1999), hep-ph/9903288

    1999 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Miller, J

    J. Miller, J. Torsiello, I. Anderson, K. Cichy, M. Con- stantinou, J. Delmar, and S. Lampreich (2025), 2512.06121

    2025 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Alexandrou et al

    C. Alexandrou et al. (Extended Twisted Mass), Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 131902 (2025), 2405.08529

    2025

  50. [59]

    Y. Choi, A. J. Arifi, H.-M. Choi, and C.-R. Ji (2025), 2512.21642

    2025

  51. [60]

    G. F. de Teramond and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 081601 (2009), 0809.4899

    2009 arXiv

  52. [61]

    M. Ding, K. Raya, D. Binosi, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D101, 054014 (2020), 1905.05208

    2020

  53. [62]

    Nam, Phys

    S.-i. Nam, Phys. Rev. D86, 074005 (2012), 1205.4156

    2012 arXiv

  54. [63]

    P. C. Barry, C.-R. Ji, W. Melnitchouk, N. Sato, and F. Steffens (JAM) (2025), 2510.11979

    2025

  55. [64]

    Chang, J.-C

    W.-C. Chang, J.-C. Peng, S. Platchkov, and T. Sawada, Phys. Lett. B855, 138820 (2024), 2402.02860

    2024

  56. [65]

    Bourrely, F

    C. Bourrely, F. Buccella, W.-C. Chang, and J.-C. Peng, Phys. Lett. B848, 138395 (2024), 2305.18117

    2024

  57. [66]

    Badier et al

    J. Badier et al. (Saclay-CERN-College de France-Ecole Poly-Orsay), Phys. Lett. B93, 354 (1980)

    1980

  58. [67]

    M. J. Corden et al., Phys. Lett. B96, 411 (1980)

    1980

  59. [68]

    Adams et al

    B. Adams et al. (2018), 1808.00848

    2018 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Z. Lu, Z. Yu, T. Lin, Y.-T. Liang, R. Wang, W. Chang, and W. Xiong (2025), 2512.01720

    2025

  61. [70]

    A. C. Aguilar et al., Eur. Phys. J. A55, 190 (2019), 1907.08218

    2019

  62. [71]

    Wu, Z.-F

    Q. Wu, Z.-F. Cui, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D111, 116023 (2025), 2503.07055

    2025

  63. [72]

    Albino, I

    L. Albino, I. M. Higuera-Angulo, K. Raya, and A. Bashir, Phys. Rev. D106, 034003 (2022), 2207.06550

    2022

  64. [73]

    J. Lan, C. Mondal, M. Li, Y. Li, S. Tang, X. Zhao, and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D102, 014020 (2020), 1911.11676

    2020

  65. [74]

    S. Tang, Y. Li, P. Maris, and J. P. Vary, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 522 (2020), 1912.02088

    2020

  66. [75]

    C. Shi, P. Liu, Y.-L. Du, and W. Jia, Phys. Rev. D110, 094010 (2024), 2409.05098

    2024

  67. [76]

    Puhan and H

    S. Puhan and H. Dahiya, PoSHQL2023, 089 (2024), 2408.07717

    2024

  68. [77]

    C. Shi, J. Li, M. Li, X. Chen, and W. Jia, Phys. Rev. D106, 014026 (2022), 2205.02757

    2022

  69. [78]

    Karlberg, P

    A. Karlberg, P. Nason, G. Salam, G. Zanderighi, and F. Dreyer, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 157 (2026), 2510.09310

    2026

  70. [79]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht, M. Sch¨ onherr, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 132 (2015), 1412.7420

    2015 arXiv

  71. [80]

    M. B. Hecht, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. C63, 025213 (2001), nucl-th/0008049

    2001 arXiv

  72. [81]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D22, 2157 (1980). 19

    1980

  73. [82]

    Ji, J.-P

    X.-d. Ji, J.-P. Ma, and F. Yuan, Eur. Phys. J. C33, 75 (2004), hep-ph/0304107

    2004 arXiv

  74. [83]

    S. J. Brodsky, M. Diehl, and D. S. Hwang, Nucl. Phys. B596, 99 (2001), hep-ph/0009254

    2001 arXiv

  75. [84]

    S. J. Brodsky, H.-C. Pauli, and S. S. Pinsky, Phys. Rept. 301, 299 (1998), hep-ph/9705477

    1998 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Pasquini, S

    B. Pasquini, S. Rodini, and S. Venturini (MAP (Multi- dimensional Analyses of Partonic distributions)), Phys. Rev. D107, 114023 (2023), 2303.01789

    2023

  77. [86]

    Luan and Z

    X. Luan and Z. Lu, Phys. Rev. D110, 074022 (2024), 2406.19376

    2024

  78. [87]

    Qian and B.-Q

    W. Qian and B.-Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. D78, 074002 (2008), 0809.4411

    2008 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Puhan, A

    Tanisha, S. Puhan, A. Yadav, and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D112, 054035 (2025), 2505.09213

    2025

  80. [89]

    Puhan, N

    S. Puhan, N. Kaur, and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D111, 014008 (2025), 2410.07596

    2025

  81. [90]

    Acharyya, S

    R. Acharyya, S. Puhan, and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D 110, 034020 (2024), 2405.00446

    2024

  82. [91]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D22, 2157 (1980)

    1980

  83. [92]

    S. J. Brodsky, Y. Frishman, G. P. Lepage, and C. T. Sachrajda, Phys. Lett. B91, 239 (1980)

    1980

  84. [93]

    B.-W. Xiao, X. Qian, and B.-Q. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. A 15, 523 (2002), hep-ph/0209138

    2002 arXiv

  85. [94]

    Puhan, N

    S. Puhan, N. Kaur, A. Kumar, S. Dutt, and H. Dahiya, Nucl. Phys. B1017, 116940 (2025), 2501.16706

    2025

  86. [95]

    A. J. Arifi, H.-M. Choi, C.-R. ji, and Y. Oh, Phys. Rev. D106, 014009 (2022), 2205.04075

    2022

  87. [96]

    H. M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, Nucl. Phys. A618, 291 (1997)

    1997

  88. [97]

    Dwibedi, S

    A. Dwibedi, S. Puhan, S. Ghosh, and H. Dahiya (2025), 2512.24921

    2025

  89. [98]

    Harindranath, inInternational School on Light-Front Quantization and Non-Perturbative QCD (To be fol- lowed by the Workshop 3-14 Jun 1996)(1996), hep- ph/9612244

    A. Harindranath, inInternational School on Light-Front Quantization and Non-Perturbative QCD (To be fol- lowed by the Workshop 3-14 Jun 1996)(1996), hep- ph/9612244

    1996

  90. [99]

    C. Chen, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, S. Wan, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D93, 074021 (2016), 1602.01502

    2016 arXiv

  91. [100]

    Watanabe, T

    A. Watanabe, T. Sawada, and C. W. Kao, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc.300-302, 121 (2018), 1810.04032

    2018 arXiv

  92. [101]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, I. Clo¨ et, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, G. Koutsou, and C. Lauer (ETM), Phys. Rev. D104, 054504 (2021), 2104.02247

    2021

  93. [102]

    Kovarik et al., Phys

    K. Kovarik et al., Phys. Rev. D93, 085037 (2016), 1509.00792

    2016 arXiv

  94. [103]

    Maji and D

    T. Maji and D. Chakrabarti, Phys. Rev. D94, 094020 (2016), 1608.07776

    2016 arXiv

  95. [104]

    Bacchetta, F

    A. Bacchetta, F. G. Celiberto, M. Radici, and P. Taels, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 733 (2020), 2005.02288

    2020

  96. [105]

    C. Shi, M. Li, X. Chen, and W. Jia, Phys. Rev. D104, 094016 (2021), 2108.10625

    2021

  97. [106]

    Acharyya, S

    R. Acharyya, S. Puhan, H. Dahiya, and N. Kumar, Chin. Phys. C49, 023104 (2025), 2408.07715

    2025

  98. [107]

    Y. Li, P. Maris, X. Zhao, and J. P. Vary, Phys. Lett. B 758, 118 (2016), 1509.07212

    2016 arXiv

  99. [108]

    Y. Li, P. Maris, and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D96, 016022 (2017), 1704.06968

    2017

  100. [109]

    S. Tang, Y. Li, P. Maris, and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D 98, 114038 (2018), 1810.05971

    2018 arXiv

  101. [110]

    Almeida-Zamora, L

    B. Almeida-Zamora, L. Albino, A. Bashir, J. J. Cobos- Mart´ ınez, and J. Segovia (2026), 2602.10775

    2026 arXiv

  102. [111]

    G. P. Salam and J. Rojo, Comput. Phys. Commun.180, 120 (2009), 0804.3755

    2009 arXiv

  103. [112]

    V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.15, 438 (1972)

    1972

  104. [113]

    L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.20, 94 (1975)

    1975

  105. [114]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP46, 641 (1977)

    1977

  106. [115]

    Horn and K

    T. Horn and K. e. a. Park, Tech. Rep. C12-15-006A, Jefferson Lab (2015), accessed: 2021-09-16, URL https://www.jlab.org/exp_prog/proposals/17/ C12-15-006A.pdf

    2015

  107. [116]

    Anastasiou, L

    C. Anastasiou, L. J. Dixon, K. Melnikov, and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 182002 (2003), hep- ph/0306192

    2003

  108. [117]

    J. Lan, J. Chen, Z. Zhu, C. Mondal, X. Zhao, and J. P. Vary (BLFQ), Phys. Lett. B868, 139654 (2025), 2501.03476

    2025

  109. [118]

    Chen, PoSDIS2018, 170 (2018), 1809.00448

    X. Chen, PoSDIS2018, 170 (2018), 1809.00448

    2018 arXiv

  110. [119]

    E. C. Aschenauer et al. (2014), 1409.1633

    2014

  111. [120]

    J. L. Abelleira Fernandez et al. (LHeC Study Group), J. Phys. G39, 075001 (2012), 1206.2913

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed May 20, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.