Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 61 references

NNLO Determination of Polarized Parton Distribution Functions with Higher-Twist and Target-Mass Corrections

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A fully NNLO fit to inclusive polarized DIS data produces helicity PDFs that stay compatible whether higher-twist corrections are additive or multiplicative.

desk verdict Usable NNLO polarized PDF release with honest dual-HT systematics; the NLO→NNLO Δs+ story is real as a difference of sets but over-attributed to pure NNLO. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25001 v1 pith:RDB465K5 submitted 2026-07-27 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

Javad Shahrzad , Elliot Leader , Ali Khorramian This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-lat
keywords polarizedPDFsNNLOQCDhigher-twistcorrectionstarget-masshelicitydistributionsinclusiveDISnucleonspinaxialcharges
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 extracts polarized parton distribution functions at next-to-next-to-leading order from the world set of inclusive polarized deep-inelastic scattering measurements. The new set, called KLS26, folds in target-mass corrections, positivity bounds, and two different models of higher-twist power corrections inside one consistent NNLO framework. Both the additive and multiplicative higher-twist versions describe the data equally well and return polarized PDFs that agree within uncertainties, even though the higher-twist coefficients themselves differ. Relative to the authors’ earlier NLO determination, the largest shift appears in the polarized strange-quark distribution, with moderate change in the gluon and smaller shifts in the up- and down-quark helicities. Freeing the nonsinglet axial charges mainly enlarges the strange-quark uncertainty, confirming that the light-quark sector is robust while the strange sector remains the most assumption-sensitive piece of the spin structure.

What carries the argument

Dual higher-twist parametrizations (additive H(x)/Q² versus multiplicative C(x)/Q²) realized by linear interpolation on a fixed six-node x-grid, combined with NNLO polarized coefficient functions, DGLAP evolution, exact target-mass corrections, and leading-order positivity bounds against unpolarized PDFs.

What would settle it

A new high-precision polarized inclusive DIS data set at moderate Q² and large x that systematically prefers one higher-twist form over the other, or that forces the extracted strange-quark helicity outside the present uncertainty bands when the same NNLO plus TMC framework is reapplied.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within a fully NNLO treatment that includes target-mass corrections, positivity, and either additive or multiplicative higher-twist terms, the world inclusive polarized DIS data yield a stable helicity PDF set (KLS26) whose fit quality is essentially identical for both higher-twist forms and whose central distributions, especially for up and down quarks, change only modestly from the prior NLO result; the polarized strange quark shows the clearest NNLO-driven and axial-charge-driven shifts.

Load-bearing premise

The effective higher-twist functions, built from a fixed six-node grid with no extra logarithmic Q² dependence and with large-x exponents frozen by hand, are assumed to soak up all leftover power corrections without biasing the extracted helicity densities in the moderate-Q² region that is kept in the fit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • KLS26 grids in LHAPDF format can be used directly for NNLO predictions of polarized observables without mixing orders.
  • Future spin analyses can treat the spread between additive and multiplicative higher-twist fits as a concrete estimate of residual power-correction uncertainty.
  • The polarized strange-quark distribution remains the dominant source of model dependence once axial charges are freed, guiding where new data or SIDIS input will matter most.
  • Relaxed kinematic cuts that retain Jefferson Lab large-x points become usable once TMC and HT are treated consistently at NNLO.
  • Nucleon spin decompositions that rely on first moments of Δs+ and Δg can now quote an NNLO baseline with controlled HT variation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the two HT models agree on PDFs while disagreeing on HT coefficients, the data are mainly constraining the leading-twist sector; HT is still under-determined and will need dedicated low-Q² or higher-twist-sensitive observables.
  • The strong negative correlation between a8 and local xΔs+ implies that any independent lattice or hyperon-decay revision of a8 will translate almost linearly into a shift of the strange helicity at intermediate x.
  • Keeping only inclusive DIS leaves the gluon largely indirect; adding polarized jet or SIDIS data at the same NNLO-plus-HT standard would test whether the moderate gluon peak survives.
  • The stability of Δu+ and Δd+ under free axial charges suggests that the proton spin sum rule’s light-quark piece is already close to data-limited rather than theory-limited at this order.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The authors present an NNLO QCD fit of polarized PDFs (KLS26) to the world inclusive polarized DIS data, using APFEL++ evolution with NNLO coefficient functions and splitting functions, target-mass corrections, MSHT20-based positivity constraints, and two phenomenological higher-twist implementations — additive H(x)/Q² and multiplicative (1+C(x)/Q²) — parametrized on a common six-node x-grid with W² ≥ 4 GeV² and Q² ≥ 1 GeV² cuts that retain Jefferson Lab preasymptotic data. Both HT forms give essentially identical fit quality (χ²/n.d.o.f. ≈ 0.76, Table I) and compatible PDFs. Stability tests releasing the axial charges a3, a8 show negligible χ² change, robust Δu+/Δd+, and the expected large degradation of Δs+ (Figs. 6–7, Table III). Comparison with the authors' earlier KLSS21 NLO set shows the largest differences in xΔs+, moderate ones in Δg, and small ones in Δu+/Δd+; the manuscript attributes these primarily to the NNLO corrections. The resulting sets are provided in LHAPDF6 format with Hessian eigenvectors. The fit methodology is standard and, from what can be checked (moment-sum-rule consistency in Table III, partial χ² bookkeeping in Table I), internally consistent.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper delivers a useful and timely resource: an NNLO-accurate polarized PDF set with consistent TMC and HT treatment, released publicly in LHAPDF6 format with the full set of Hessian eigenvectors for four fit variants (additive/multiplicative HT, fixed/free axial charges). The side-by-side additive vs. multiplicative HT comparison and the a8–xΔs+ covariance-ellipse analysis (Fig. 7) are genuinely informative diagnostics, and the free-axial-charge cross-check is a falsifiable stability test rather than a tuned input. The set fills a niche (inclusive-DIS-only, relaxed W² cut, NNLO) complementary to BDSSV24, MAPPDFpol1.0 and NNPDFpol2.0, and is directly relevant to EIC-era spin physics.

major comments (2)
  1. [§V.A / abstract] §V.A, paragraph following the Fig. 3 discussion (and abstract): the text states that 'the inclusion of the higher-order perturbative QCD corrections remains the dominant driver behind the observed shifts' relative to KLSS21, while noting in the same paragraph that KLSS21 used αs(M_Z²)=0.120 and MMHT14-NLO-based positivity, versus αs=0.118 and MSHT20-NNLO-based positivity here (§III.C). In addition, βs+=17.99 and βg=2.1278 were re-frozen to values guided by the MSHT20 large-x shape (§III.C). The KLS26-vs-KLSS21 comparison therefore changes at least four ingredients simultaneously with the perturbative order, and no single-factor control fit is shown. This matters most in precisely the channel the paper highlights: xΔs+ is normalized through the a8 sum rule, radiatively fed by a positivity-bounded gluon, and pinned at large x by the re-frozen βs+. Any of these could shift Δs+ toward less n
  2. [§V.B] §V.B, reported χ² values for the free-{a3,a8} fits: for the additive HT case the total χ² *increases* from 504.41 (fixed axial charges, Table I) to 504.61 when a3 and a8 are released as free parameters. At a converged minimum, freeing two parameters cannot raise the minimum χ²; the multiplicative case (501.77→501.61) behaves as expected. Please clarify the origin of the additive-fit increase (minimization tolerance, a different local minimum, or some other difference between the two fits). The numerical claim that 'the overall fit quality changes only marginally' is unaffected in substance, but the direction of the change needs an explanation since the stability narrative of §V.B rests on these numbers.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§III.D / Table I] The χ² function is never defined in the manuscript: the treatment of correlated systematic uncertainties and experimental normalizations, and the counting of free parameters entering n.d.o.f., are not stated (Table I reports only χ²/n.d.o.f. ≈ 0.76). Since all Hessian uncertainties derive from this χ², a brief defining equation and a comment on why χ²/n.d.o.f. is well below unity would make the error analysis self-contained rather than relying on Ref. [12].
  2. [§II.B / §IV] Both HT parametrizations share the same six-node grid and a pure 1/Q² form with no logarithmic Q² dependence (§II.B), so the additive-vs-multiplicative comparison may not span the full HT model uncertainty. Given that the relaxed W² ≥ 4 GeV² cut deliberately retains preasymptotic data, a short discussion of robustness — e.g., sensitivity to node placement or to a W² ≥ 6.5 GeV² variant — would strengthen the claim that HT systematics are quantified.
  3. [Table II] Table II: the normalizations A_{u+} and A_{d+} are listed without uncertainties, presumably because they are fixed by the a3 and a8 sum rules, but they are not marked with (*) like βs+ and βg. Please indicate in the caption which parameters are constrained, fixed, or freely fitted.
  4. [Fig. 4] Fig. 4: legends appear only in the top (xΔu+) panels; the xΔd+, xΔs+, and xΔg panels lack visible curve labels, making the multi-set comparison hard to read. Please add legends or a shared legend.
  5. [Fig. 8] Fig. 8: please specify what is plotted — the markers presumably show the effective HT coefficients at the node x-values (or binned averages), and the neutron multiplicative panel uses a very different vertical scale than the proton panel; clarifying units and the meaning of the points would help.
  6. [misc] Typographical: abstract, 'denoted asKLS26' (missing space); §II.B, 'This flexible method localized' → 'localizes'; §V.B, 'Figure 8 compare' → 'compares'. Ref. [21] cites the MAPPDFpol DIS-only sets as private communication — please update if a public reference becomes available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Standard phenomenological PDF fit: no circular reduction of claims to inputs by construction.

full rationale

KLS26 is a global NNLO fit of parametrized helicity PDFs (plus effective HT nodes) to inclusive polarized DIS data, with TMC, positivity bounds from an external unpolarized set, and optional free a3/a8. Fit quality, PDF shapes, HT coefficients, and free-axial-charge stability tests are outputs of minimization against external data (Tables I–III, Figs. 3–8), not identities forced by the input definitions. The KLSS21 comparison is a cross-order benchmark against prior work by overlapping authors; it does not supply a uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise that forbids alternatives—the new determination stands on the present χ² and Hessian. Additive vs multiplicative HT and fixed vs free axial charges are explicit sensitivity tests, not predictions renamed from fitted inputs. No equation equates a claimed first-principles result to a quantity defined or fitted from the same observable. Confounding in attributing NLO→NNLO Δs+ shifts (αs, positivity reference, frozen β) is an interpretive/correctness issue, not circularity. Score 0 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The result is a phenomenological global fit. Load-bearing inputs are standard pQCD factorization at NNLO, external αs and unpolarized PDFs for positivity, PDG axial charges in the baseline, a fixed flexible PDF parametrization with several frozen exponents, and two ad hoc HT node models. No new particles or forces are postulated; the ‘entities’ are effective HT coefficient functions and the PDF parametrization itself.

free parameters (6)
  • PDF shape parameters (A, α, β, ε, γ for Δu+, Δd+, Δs+, Δg) = See Table II (e.g. additive: Au+ norm and exponents with quoted errors; βs+=17.99*, βg=2.1278* fixed)
    Input-scale parametrization coefficients fitted to polarized DIS; subset of shape terms omitted or frozen where data cannot constrain them (Eq. 15, Table II).
  • Additive HT node values H(xi) = Node values shown graphically in Fig. 8 (not a single scalar)
    Six-node linear-interpolation HT function fitted independently of leading twist (Sec. II.B).
  • Multiplicative HT node values C(xi) = Node values in Fig. 8
    Alternate six-node HT factor fitted in independent analyses (Sec. II.B).
  • a3, a8 when treated as free = Additive: a3=1.253±0.043, a8=0.780±0.274; Multiplicative: a3=1.225±0.047, a8=0.838±0.315
    Nonsinglet axial charges floated in stability fits (Sec. V.B).
  • αs(MZ^2) = 0.118 (fixed)
    Fixed from MSHT20 rather than fitted (Sec. III.D).
  • Q0^2, Q2_cut, W2_cut, HT node grid = Q0^2=1 GeV^2; Q2>1 GeV^2; W2≥4 GeV^2; xi∈{0.003,0.05,0.15,0.25,0.40,0.75}
    Analysis choices that define the fit domain and HT flexibility (Secs. III–IV).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Collinear NNLO factorization for g1 in the MS-bar scheme with known polarized coefficient and splitting functions
    Sec. II.A, Eqs. (6)–(8); standard pQCD assumption for DIS analyses.
  • domain assumption Target-mass corrections are purely kinematic and can be separated from dynamical higher twist
    Eq. (7) and Sec. II.A citing Nachtmann-type TMC.
  • ad hoc to paper Residual power corrections are well described by 1/Q^2 additive H(x) or multiplicative C(x) without explicit log Q^2 dependence
    Sec. II.B phenomenological HT models used to estimate theory uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Baseline nonsinglet axial charges equal PDG values a3=gA and a8=3F−D under approximate SU(3)
    Sec. III.B, Eqs. (18)–(19); later relaxed in cross-checks.
  • domain assumption LO-style positivity |Δf|≤f using MSHT20 NNLO unpolarized PDFs remains a valid phenomenological constraint at NNLO
    Sec. III.C; authors cite recent work on perturbative stability of positivity.
  • domain assumption Inclusive polarized DIS alone (no SIDIS/pp) suffices for the claimed PDF determination and strange-sector conclusions
    Stated motivation in Introduction and Sec. IV; limits flavor separation by construction.
  • domain assumption Hessian uncertainty with tolerance Δχ^2=1 adequately represents PDF errors
    Sec. III.D numerical setup.
invented entities (2)
  • KLS26 polarized PDF sets (additive/multiplicative HT and free-axial variants) independent evidence
    purpose: Public NNLO helicity PDF grids for phenomenology
    Output of the global fit; not a new physical degree of freedom.
  • Effective higher-twist coefficient functions H(x) and C(x) on a discrete node grid
    purpose: Absorb dynamical power corrections beyond TMC in g1
    Phenomenological constructs fitted to data; different between additive and multiplicative realizations by design (Sec. II.B).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NNLO Determination of Polarized Parton Distribution Functions with Higher-Twist and Target-Mass Corrections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RDB465K5

@misc{pith2026260725001,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NNLO Determination of Polarized Parton Distribution Functions with Higher-Twist and Target-Mass Corrections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RDB465K5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25001}
}
read the original abstract

We present a next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) QCD analysis of polarized parton distribution functions (PDFs) based on the world data set of inclusive polarized deep-inelastic scattering (DIS). The resulting PDF set, denoted as \texttt{KLS26}, includes a consistent treatment of target-mass corrections (TMCs), higher-twist (HT) contributions, and positivity constraints within a fully NNLO framework. To estimate the residual theoretical uncertainty associated with nonperturbative power corrections, both additive and multiplicative HT parametrizations are considered. Although these two approaches lead to different higher-twist coefficients, the current results yield very similar fit qualities and compatible polarized PDFs within uncertainties. The impact of NNLO corrections is assessed through a comparison with the KLSS21 polarized PDF determination at NLO, showing the most visible changes in the polarized strange-quark distribution, together with moderate modifications in the gluon sector and smaller effects in the up- and down-quark helicity distributions. Additional fits treating the nonsinglet axial charges as free parameters, together with different higher-twist implementations, induce small but flavor-dependent modifications in the PDFs, with the most noticeable effects in the polarized strange-quark distribution and moderate sensitivity in the gluon. The \texttt{KLS26} set establishes an updated determination of helicity-dependent parton distributions, enabling future precision studies of nucleon spin structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25001 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Feynman diagram for inelastic lepton–nucleon scat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Kinematic coverage in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Polarized parton distribution functions obtained in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Polarized parton distribution functions obtained from the present NNLO QCD analysis using additive higher-twist [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of the axial charges [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Polarized parton distributions at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Representative Hessian confidence ellipses showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Extracted higher-twist contributions to the po [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 48 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    = Au+ xαu+ (1 − x)βu+ 1 + ϵu+ √x + γu+ x , x∆d+(x, Q2

  2. [2]

    = Ad+ xαd+ (1 − x)βd+ 1 + ϵd+ √x + γd+ x , x∆s+(x, Q2

  3. [3]

    = As+ xαs+ (1 − x)βs+ 1 + γs+ x , x∆g(x, Q2

  4. [4]

    (15) As in the KLSS21 analysis [12], no additional assump- tions are imposed on the light sea-quark polarizations, ∆¯u and ∆ ¯d

    = Agxαg (1 − x)βg (1 + γgx) . (15) As in the KLSS21 analysis [12], no additional assump- tions are imposed on the light sea-quark polarizations, ∆¯u and ∆ ¯d. The fit therefore determines the helicity combinations ∆q+ directly from polarized DIS data. In addition to the normalization parameters and the small- and large-x exponents, the input parametrizati...

    1902

  5. [5]

    Leader, A

    E. Leader, A. V. Sidorov and D. B. Stamenov, Phys. Rev. D 82, 114018 (2010) [arXiv:1010.0574 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    de Florian, R

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Stratmann and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 072001 (2008) [arXiv:0804.0422 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    de Florian, R

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Stratmann and W. Vogel- sang, Phys. Rev. D80, 034030 (2009) [arXiv:0904.3821 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    de Florian, R

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Epele, R. J. Hernandez- PintoandM.Stratmann, Phys.Rev.D 91, 014035(2015) [arXiv:1410.6027 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    E. R. Noceraet al. [NNPDF Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. B 887, 276–308 (2014) [arXiv:1406.5539 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Sato et al

    N. Sato et al. , Phys. Rev. D 93, 074005 (2016) [arXiv:1601.07782 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Etheridge et al

    J. Etheridge et al. [JAM Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 105, 056015 (2022) [arXiv:2201.07888 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Hirai, S

    M. Hirai, S. Kumano and N. Saito, Phys. Rev. D69, 054021 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0312112]

    2004 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Blumlein and H

    J. Blumlein and H. Bottcher, Nucl. Phys. B841, 205–230 (2010) [arXiv:1005.3113 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Leader, A

    E. Leader, A. V. Sidorov and D. B. Stamenov, Phys. Rev. D 91, 054017 (2015) [arXiv:1410.1657 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Leader, A

    E. Leader, A. V. Sidorov and D. B. Stamenov, Phys. Rev. D 84, 014002 (2011) [arXiv:1103.5974 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Khorramian, E

    A. Khorramian, E. Leader, D. B. Stamenov and A. Shabanpour, Phys. Rev. D 103, 054003 (2021) [arXiv:2009.04808 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Salimi Amiri, A

    M. Salimi Amiri, A. Khorramian and S. Atash- bar Tehrani, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 470 (2019) [arXiv:1811.00375 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Taheri Monfared, A

    A. Taheri Monfared, A. Khorramian and S. Atash- bar Tehrani, Phys. Rev. D 89, 074052 (2014) [arXiv:1403.3682 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Jimenez-Delgado, A

    P. Jimenez-Delgado, A. Accardi and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. D89, 034025 (2014) [arXiv:1310.3734 [hep- ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Khorramian and S

    A. Khorramian and S. A. Tehrani, Phys. Rev. D 78, 074019 (2008) [arXiv:0805.3063 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Atashbar Tehrani and A

    S. Atashbar Tehrani and A. Khorramian, JHEP07, 048 (2007) [arXiv:0705.2647 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Khorramian and S

    A. Khorramian and S. A. Tehrani, Phys. Rev. D 75, 014019 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0411390]

    2007 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Arbabifar, A

    F. Arbabifar, A. N. Khorramian and M. Soleymaninia, Phys. Rev. D89, 034006 (2014) [arXiv:1311.1830 [hep- ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Borsa, M

    I. Borsa, M. Stratmann, W. Vogelsang, D. de Florian and R. Sassot, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, no.15, 15 (2024) [arXiv:2407.11635 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bertone et al

    V. Bertone et al. [MAP (Multi-dimensional Analyses of Partonic distributions)] Phys. Lett. B865, 139497 (2025) [arXiv:2404.04712 [hep-ph]], and private communication

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Cruz-Martinez, T

    J. Cruz-Martinez, T. Hasenack, F. Hekhorn, G. Magni, E. R. Nocera, T. R. Rabemananjara, J. Rojo, T. Sharma and G. van Seeventer, JHEP07, 168 (2025) [arXiv:2503.11814 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Altarelli, S

    G. Altarelli, S. Forte and G. Ridolfi, Nucl. Phys. B534, 277–296 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9806345]

    1998 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Leader, A

    E. Leader, A. V. Sidorov and D. B. Stamenov, Eur. Phys. J. C23, 479–485 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0111267]

    2002 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Leader, A

    E. Leader, A. V. Sidorov and D. B. Stamenov, Phys. Rev. D 73, 034023 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0512114]

    2006 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Candido et al

    A. Candido et al. , JHEP 02, 098 (2024) [arXiv:2401.10814 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Accardi et al., Eur

    A. Accardi et al., Eur. Phys. J. A52, no.9, 268 (2016) [arXiv:1212.1701 [nucl-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bertone, PoSDIS2017, 201 (2018) [arXiv:1708.00911 [hep-ph]]

    V. Bertone, PoSDIS2017, 201 (2018) [arXiv:1708.00911 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Nachtmann, Nucl

    O. Nachtmann, Nucl. Phys. B63, 237 (1973)

    1973

  26. [34]

    Mertig and W

    R. Mertig and W. L. van Neerven, Z. Phys. C70, 637 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9506451]

    1996 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Vogelsang, Phys

    W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D54, 2023 (1996) [arXiv:hep- ph/9512218]

    2023

  28. [36]

    E. B. Zijlstra and W. L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B417, 61 (1994) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B426, 245 (1994)]

    1994

  29. [37]

    S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B 889, 351 (2014) [arXiv:1409.5131 [hep-ph]]. 17

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A. Vogt, S. Moch and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Nucl. Phys. B 688, 101 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0403192]

    2004 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Accardi, X

    A. Accardi, X. Jing, J. F. Owens and S. Park, Phys. Rev. D107, no.11, 113005 (2023) [arXiv:2303.11509 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Shahrzad and A

    J. Shahrzad and A. Khorramian, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.11, 114002 (2024) [arXiv:2405.02254 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Accardi, M

    A. Accardi, M. Cerutti, C. E. Keppel, S. Li, J. F. Owens, S. Park and P. Risse, [arXiv:2605.31424 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    S. I. Alekhin, S. A. Kulagin and R. Petti, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.5, L051506 (2023) [arXiv:2211.09514 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    R. D. Ball, A. Chiefa and R. Stegeman, Eur. Phys. J. C 86, no.3, 281 (2026) [arXiv:2511.14387 [hep-ph]]

    2026

  36. [44]

    Cerutti, A

    M. Cerutti, A. Accardi, I. P. Fernando, S. Li, J. F. Owens and S. Park, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.9, 9 (2025) [arXiv:2501.06849 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    L. A. Harland-Lang, T. Cridge, M. Reader and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C 86, no.2, 115 (2026) [arXiv:2510.03753 [hep-ph]]

    2026

  38. [46]

    Navaset al

    S. Navaset al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Bailey, T

    S. Bailey, T. Cridge, L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.4, 341 (2021) [arXiv:2012.04684 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, P. Motylinski and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 204 (2015) [arXiv:1412.3989 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  41. [49]

    James and M

    F. James and M. Roos, Comput. Phys. Commun.10, 343-367 (1975)

    1975

  42. [50]

    Ashman et al

    J. Ashman et al. [European Muon Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B206, 364 (1988)

    1988

  43. [51]

    Adeva et al

    B. Adeva et al. [Spin Muon Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 420, 180 (1998)

    1998

  44. [52]

    Adolphet al

    C. Adolphet al. [COMPASS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 753, 18 (2016) [arXiv:1503.08935 [hep-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    M. G. Alekseevet al. [COMPASS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B690, 466 (2010) [arXiv:1001.4654 [hep-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  46. [54]

    P. L. Anthonyet al. [E142 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 54, 6620 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ex/9610007]

    1996 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. [E143 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 58, 112003 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ph/9802357]

    1998 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. [E154 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 26 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ex/9705012]

    1997 arXiv

  49. [57]

    P. L. Anthonyet al. [E155 Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 493, 19 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0007248]

    2000 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Airapetian et al

    A. Airapetian et al. [HERMES Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D75, 012007 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ex/0609039]

    2007 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Zheng et al

    X. Zheng et al. [Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C70, 065207 (2004) [arXiv:nucl-ex/0405006]

    2004 arXiv

  52. [60]

    [CLASCollaboration], Phys

    K.V.Dharmawardane et al. [CLASCollaboration], Phys. Lett. B641, 11 (2006) [arXiv:nucl-ex/0605028]

    2006 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordström, B. Page, M. Rüfenacht, M. Schönherr and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 132 (2015) [arXiv:1412.7420 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.