Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Adding projected EIC semi-inclusive measurements to existing data in a next-to-leading-order global fit would markedly sharpen the flavor separation of the polarized sea and reduce the small-x uncertainty on the gluon helicity.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 22:16 UTC pith:4IY2G2LD

load-bearing objection Solid EIC projection study with a real circularity caveat; worth refereeing but needs more disclosure and a robustness test. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2602.17298 v2 pith:4IY2G2LD submitted 2026-02-19 hep-ph hep-ex

Toward Precision Helicity PDFs from Global DIS and SIDIS Fits with Projected EIC Measurements

HAPS Collaboration: Hamzeh Khanpour , Maryam Soleymaninia , Majid Azizi , Michael Klasen , Hadi Hashamipour , Maral Salajegheh , Ulf-G. Mei{\ss}ner This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords helicity-dependent parton distribution functionspolarized proton spin structuresemi-inclusive deep-inelastic scatteringElectron-Ion Collider projectionsflavor separation of sea quarksstrange helicity asymmetryNLO QCD global fitMonte Carlo replica method
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents a new next-to-leading-order (NLO) global determination of the proton's helicity-dependent parton distribution functions (polarized PDFs) built from existing inclusive and semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering data, and then examines what simulated measurements from a future Electron-Ion Collider (EIC) would add. Its central claim is that projected EIC double-spin asymmetries for charge-separated pion and kaon production, at two beam-energy configurations, would markedly reduce the uncertainties on the polarized sea-quark flavors (Δū, Δd̄, Δs) and on the small-x gluon helicity, with the largest improvement at x down to about 10⁻⁵. The fit uses a neural-network parametrization with Monte Carlo replica uncertainties and enforces positivity, and the authors show the EIC pseudodata are fully compatible with existing world data. This matters because it gives a concrete, methodologically consistent estimate of how much the EIC would advance the long-standing proton-spin decomposition, including the elusive strange-quark helicity contribution.

Core claim

The central claim, on the paper's own terms, is that projected EIC measurements of longitudinal double-spin asymmetries for charge-separated π± and K± production in semi-inclusive DIS, simulated from detector-level projections at Ee×Ep = 5×41 GeV² and 18×275 GeV², provide a major gain in constraining polarized PDFs. Added to a base fit of all available polarized inclusive DIS and SIDIS data, the pseudodata are shown to improve the flavor separation of the polarized sea (Δū, Δd̄, Δs) and to reduce the uncertainty on the gluon helicity distribution Δg at small x, especially through the extended (x, Q²) lever arm and the flavor tagging provided by hadron identification. The kaon channels carry

What carries the argument

The central objects are the helicity-dependent parton distribution functions, Δf(x,Q²) for quarks and gluons, defined as the difference between parton densities with spin aligned and anti-aligned with the proton's longitudinal spin. The argument is carried by NLO QCD factorization: the inclusive DIS structure function g1 and the semi-inclusive structure function g1^h are written as convolutions of these polarized PDFs with coefficient functions, and in the SIDIS case with fragmentation functions for charged pions and kaons. The fitting procedure is a Monte Carlo replica method with a neural-network parametrization at the input scale: for each fluctuated data replica the network is trained, p

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated EIC pseudodata, whose central values are generated from the same NLO theory framework used to fit the PDFs (with the input polarized PDF set and fragmentation functions unspecified), faithfully represent what the EIC will actually measure; if the true data differ from that generator, the claimed precision gains are biased rather than informative.

What would settle it

Regenerate the projected EIC pseudo-data using an independent generator — a different input polarized PDF set and a different set of pion/kaon fragmentation functions — and rerun the fit; if the uncertainty reductions on Δū, Δd̄, Δs, and Δg at small x largely disappear or the flavor-separation claims change materially, the paper's central projections are an artifact of the generator rather than robust EIC information.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Uncertainties on the polarized sea-quark distributions Δū, Δd̄, and Δs shrink substantially, with the biggest gain at small x (down to ~10⁻⁵), which is the region where current data are effectively extrapolations.
  • The small-x gluon helicity Δg becomes better constrained indirectly through NLO DGLAP evolution and global-fit correlations; the truncated first moment Mg(x_min) relevant to the proton spin sum rule has markedly smaller uncertainty at small x_min.
  • Independent extraction of Δs and Δs̄ becomes possible: charge-separated kaon SIDIS at the EIC sharpens the constraint on the strange helicity and can expose a Δs−Δs̄ asymmetry that existing analyses are blind to.
  • The projected EIC data are shown to be compatible with existing world data: χ² contributions for the base data sets remain stable when the pseudodata are added, so the future measurements would not introduce tension but would populate previously unconstrained kinematic regions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • These projected gains are conditional on the generator: because the pseudodata are produced from NLO theory with the same framework used in the fit and the input polarized PDF set and fragmentation-function replicas are not specified, the numerical size of the improvement is an upper bound on what real data can independently confirm; real EIC data would also test the framework itself rather than m
  • The strange-sector conclusions rest on the accuracy of the kaon fragmentation functions. A combined fit of polarized PDFs and FFs to the same projected EIC data — or a fit that propagates FF uncertainties consistently — could shift the central value of Δs, not just narrow the band.
  • If the small-x behavior of Δg at x ~ 10⁻⁵ is governed by effects beyond NLO DGLAP (small-x resummation or nonlinear evolution), the precision gains claimed here could be optimistic; the same EIC kinematics would be the place to test such alternatives.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a new NLO global determination of helicity-dependent PDFs from polarized inclusive DIS and SIDIS data, using the MontBlanc/Denali frameworks with neural-network parametrization and Monte Carlo replicas. It augments the basefit with projected EIC SIDIS pseudodata for charge-separated pion and kaon asymmetries at two beam-energy configurations, and reports improved flavor separation of the polarized sea and reduced small-x uncertainties, with LHAPDF grids released publicly. The central claim is that the EIC projections significantly improve constraints on Δū, Δd̄, Δs, and Δg, especially at small x.

Significance. If the EIC projection is taken at face value, the analysis framework is standard and well executed: the basefit has χ²/Ndat=0.727 with a stable dataset-by-dataset breakdown, the z_min stability scans are a good practice, and the comparison with MAPPDFpol10 and NNPDFpol2.0 provides useful context. The authors also make the resulting PDF sets publicly available in LHAPDF format. However, the headline 'improvement' is a self-consistency statement because the pseudodata central values are generated from the same theory framework used in the fit. Disclosing and varying the generator input is essential before the projected precision gain can be interpreted as a robust physics result. With that fixed, the paper would be a valuable quantitative projection of EIC physics potential.

major comments (2)
  1. [III.B, Eq. (8), and Sec. IV.E] The pseudodata central values A^{h,th}_{1,i} are NLO theory predictions computed with MontBlanc/Denali, the same frameworks used in the fit, and the manuscript never states which polarized PDF set and which MAPFF1.0 FF replicas produced them. If the generator coincides with the fit's own prior, the uncertainty reductions reported in Secs. IV.C–IV.D and Figs. 4–9, and the claimed sensitivity to a Δs−Δs̄ asymmetry in Sec. IV.E, measure the fit's ability to rediscover its generator rather than the constraining power of EIC data. The sign-stability resampling in Sec. III.B additionally truncates fluctuations of small asymmetries and biases the pseudodata toward the generator's sign. To support the abstract's central claim, please (i) identify the exact input PDF and FF replicas used in Eq. (8), (ii) repeat the projection with at least one independent generator or with a deliberately varied Δ
  2. [II.d, Eq. (7), and Sec. IV.A] The basefit uses W²_cut = 4 GeV², retaining data below the W²=6.25 GeV² cut adopted in MAPPDFpol10, while target-mass corrections, higher-twist contributions, and nuclear corrections for deuteron data are neglected. The text acknowledges this, but the baseline χ²/Ndat=0.727 and the comparison with MAPPDFpol10 in Fig. 7 are then not a clean leading-twist benchmark. Since the basefit is the reference against which EIC improvements are measured, please show the stability of the basefit and of the EIC impact under a tighter W² cut (e.g., 6.25 GeV²) or with estimates of TMC/HT effects; otherwise the 'precision' in the title is difficult to evaluate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [IV.C and figure captions] The text and figure captions sometimes refer to 'x∆d(x)' where the context indicates x∆d̄(x), and the phrase 'sea-quark-focused presentation, showing ∆¯u(x), ∆d(x), and ∆s(x)' is internally inconsistent. Please proofread the distribution labels throughout.
  2. [III.C(a)] The input scale is written as 'Q0 = 1 GeV' in one place and 'Q0² = 1 GeV²' elsewhere. Use the latter consistently.
  3. [Figure 2] The figure text contains LaTeX artifacts such as 'two.superior' and the axis label is garbled. These should be cleaned up before publication.
  4. [Sec. III.A and references] The text cites 'NNPDFpol1.0' when describing the g1/F1 reconstruction but references [66]; the relationship to NNPDFpol2.0 [31] should be clarified to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

EIC impact claim rests on pseudodata generated from the same NLO theory frameworks used in the fit, so the projected uncertainty reduction is a self-consistency forecast rather than an independent empirical prediction.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III B, Eq. (8); abstract and Sec. IV C]
    "we construct EIC pseudodata for the longitudinal double-spin asymmetries A^h_1(x,z,Q^2) by starting from NLO theory predictions computed with the MontBlanc [44,50] and Denali [51] frameworks in the same SIDIS kinematics ... for each kinematic bin i we take the NLO prediction A^{h,th}_{1,i} and define a pseudo-measurement as A^{h,(EIC)}_{1,i}=A^{h,th}_{1,i}+r_i σ^{unc}_i+δ_{pol} A^{h,th}_{1,i}"

    The 'projected EIC measurements' are not independent data: their central values are the NLO theory predictions A^{h,th}_{1,i} computed with the same MontBlanc/Denali codes that provide the theory predictions in the subsequent fits. The paper does not state which polarized PDF set or which FF replicas generated those central values. Consequently, the reported tightening of Δū, Δd̄, Δs, Δg and the claimed sensitivity to a possible Δs−Δs̄ asymmetry measure how well the fit can rediscover its own generator, given the assumed error bars. The qualitative conclusion that EIC will improve precision is therefore conditional on the undisclosed generator and is not an independent empirical prediction; if real EIC data differ from that generator, the projected constraints are biased rather than inform

full rationale

The basefit to world polarized DIS and SIDIS data is a genuine global fit and is externally benchmarked against MAPPDFpol10 and NNPDFpol2.0, so the statistical framework is not circular and the paper is largely self-contained. The circularity concern is concentrated in the EIC projection: although the paper is transparent that the EIC points are 'pseudodata' or 'simulated', Eq. (8) defines each pseudo-measurement as an NLO theory prediction plus a fluctuation, and those predictions are produced by the same MontBlanc/Denali frameworks used to fit the PDFs. The central claim that the EIC measurements 'significantly improve flavor separation' and reduce small-x uncertainties is thus a self-consistency forecast: it quantifies the constraining power of data generated from the assumed theory, not a prediction tested against independent physics. The sign-stability resampling further truncates fluctuations around small asymmetries, making the projected error bands optimistic. No load-bearing self-citation chain, uniqueness import, or ansatz-smuggling was found; the issue is the generator-dependence of the headline projection, which is significant but not total, because the fit machinery and basefit remain independently meaningful.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central new content is a projection, and its main axiom is that the pseudodata (Eq. 8) can stand in for real EIC measurements. The basefit rests on standard collinear-factorization assumptions plus a deliberately loose W² cut with TMC/HT/nuclear corrections neglected. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • zmin cut = 0.2 (default; scan over 0.05–0.25)
    Chosen after a χ² scan (Sec. IV B) that showed mild preference for tighter cuts; the reported conclusions use this selection.
  • W² cut = 4 GeV²
    Looser than MAP's 6.25 GeV² (Sec. III A); retains more low-W² points while TMC/HT are neglected.
  • χ² replica tolerance χ²Max = 3.0
    Replicas with anomalously poor χ² are discarded (Sec. III C d); affects the composition of the replica ensemble.
  • Neural network parameters = 1-10-7 NN, O(180) weights per replica
    Fit parameters of the parametrization (Eq. 11); standard functional freedom of the model.
  • polarization scale uncertainty δpol = 2%
    Correlated systematic shift applied coherently to all EIC pseudodata bins; adopted from ECCE Ref. [40].
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Leading-twist collinear factorization at NLO for g1 and g1^h (Eqs. 1, 3)
    Standard QCD framework; assumed valid at the low Q²/W² kinematics admitted by the cuts.
  • ad hoc to paper EIC pseudodata central values equal the fit's own NLO theory (Eq. 8)
    The simulated asymmetries are generated from NLO theory predictions computed with the same frameworks (MontBlanc/Denali) used for the fit; the 'measurements' therefore encode the model's own physics.
  • domain assumption MAPFF1.0 NLO fragmentation functions are accurate and their uncertainty is neglected
    SIDIS flavor separation (esp. Δs via kaons) depends on FFs; FF uncertainty is not propagated (Sec. IV C, V).
  • domain assumption Positivity bound |Δfi| ≤ fi at Q0 using NNPDF4.0 replicas (Eq. 13)
    LO-motivated constraint enforced by construction; the choice of bound shapes the allowed functional space at small x.
  • standard math αs(MZ)=0.118, mc=1.51 GeV, mb=4.92 GeV
    External constants from PDG/MAP [30,52].
  • domain assumption No RHIC pp data; Δg constrained only via NLO evolution and PDF correlations
    Gluon helicity is weakly constrained in the basefit; the small-x Δg improvement is an indirect projection.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24710 in / 18104 out tokens · 166102 ms · 2026-08-02T22:16:20.576564+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a new global determination of the helicity-dependent parton distribution functions (PDFs) of the proton, based on inclusive deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) and semi-inclusive DIS (SIDIS) data within a consistent next-to-leading order (NLO) QCD framework. In addition to existing measurements, we incorporate simulated pseudodata for the future Electron-Ion Collider (EIC), considering two beam-energy configurations, $E_e \times E_p = 5 \times 41~\mathrm{GeV^2}$ and $18 \times 275~\mathrm{GeV^2}$, corresponding to an extended kinematic reach down to $x \sim 10^{-5}$. We focus on longitudinal double-spin asymmetries $A_1^h$ for charge-separated pion and kaon production in SIDIS off a longitudinally polarized proton target. These projected measurements significantly improve the flavor separation of sea-quark polarized PDFs ($\Delta \bar{u}$, $\Delta \bar{d}$, $\Delta s$) and reduce the uncertainties on both quark and gluon helicity distributions, with the largest impact at small $x$. Polarized PDFs are extracted using a neural-network parametrization and a Monte Carlo replica methodology to propagate experimental uncertainties, while theoretical constraints such as positivity are imposed during the fit. We demonstrate that the inclusion of EIC pseudodata leads to a substantially more precise determination of polarized PDFs, with the largest impact in the small-$x$ region. The resulting polarized PDF sets are provided in the LHAPDF format.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.17298 by Hadi Hashamipour, HAPS Collaboration: Hamzeh Khanpour, Majid Azizi, Maral Salajegheh, Maryam Soleymaninia, Michael Klasen, Ulf-G. Mei{\ss}ner.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Kinematic coverage in the (x, Q2 ) plane for the datasets included in this analysis: polarized inclusive DIS (triangles) and polarized SIDIS π +, π −, K+ and K− from HERMES and COMPASS (squares), together with projected EIC SIDIS asymmetries for π +, π −, K+ and K− at 5 × 41 GeV2 (circles) and 18 × 275 GeV2 (stars). The shaded region corresponds to the excluded domain imposed by the cuts Q 2 > 1 GeV2 and W… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Impact of different z-cut thresholds on the quality of the global fit. The left (right) panel shows the χ 2 values for the total dataset and its individual components, polarized DIS (pDIS), SIDIS, and EIC pseudodata, as a function of the minimum z cut, separately for the 5 × 41 GeV2 and (18 × 275 GeV2 ) configurations. 2. EIC at 18 × 275 GeV2 We next include the higher-energy 18×275 GeV2 EIC pseudodata. Re… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of χ 2 contributions for the fitted data subsets in the pDIS+SIDIS base fit (blue) and in the EIC-augmented fits (red), shown separately for the 5 × 41 GeV2 (upper) and 18 × 275 GeV2 (lower) EIC configurations. Results are displayed for the default zmin > 0.2 selection. try and lead to a noticeably improved constraint on both x ∆s and x ∆¯s in the region where current data provide only limited l… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of polarized PDFs at Q = 10 GeV obtained with EIC pseudodata at 5 × 41 GeV2 using two minimum-z selections, zmin > 0.1 and zmin > 0.2. ity distributions, MΣ(xmin) = ˆ 1 xmin dx ∆Σ(x, Q2 ), (15) Mg(xmin) = ˆ 1 xmin dx ∆g(x, Q2 ), (16) Mspin(xmin) = ˆ 1 xmin dx 1 2 ∆Σ(x, Q2 ) + ∆g(x, Q2 ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of polarized PDFs at Q = 10 GeV obtained with EIC pseudodata at 18 × 275 GeV2 using two minimum-z selections, zmin > 0.1 and zmin > 0.2. of Bjorken x, together with the NLO predictions from the pDIS+SIDIS Base fit and from the pDIS+SIDIS+EIC fit (18×275 GeV, z > 0.2). The shaded bands represent the propagated fit uncertainty on the theoretical predictions, evaluated point-by-point at the same ki… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of polarized PDFs at Q = 10 GeV obtained from the pDIS+SIDIS base fit and from fits including projected EIC SIDIS pseudodata for the two beam-energy configurations Ee × Ep = 5 × 41 GeV2 and 18 × 275 GeV2 , using the default hadron-energy cut z > zmin = 0.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of polarized PDFs at Q = 10 GeV between our default EIC-augmented fit (with zmin > 0.2) and the MAPPDFpol10NLO determination [30] at NLO accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of polarized PDFs at Q = 10 GeV between our default EIC-augmented fit (with zmin > 0.2) and the NNPDFpol2.0 NLO determination [31] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Truncated first moments of the gluon and quark-singlet polarized PDFs at Q 2 = 100 GeV2 as functions of the lower integration limit xmin. Shown are the truncated integrals Mg(xmin) = ´ 1 xmin dx ∆g(x, Q2 ) (top), MΣ(xmin) = ´ 1 xmin dx ∆Σ(x, Q2 ) (middle), and Mspin(xmin) = ´ 1 xmin dx 1 2 ∆Σ(x, Q2 ) + ∆g(x, Q2 ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: COMPASS measurements of the longitudinal SIDIS double-spin asymmetry A p,h± 1 (x, z, Q) for identified hadrons, compared to NLO predictions from the pDIS+SIDIS Base fit and from the pDIS+SIDIS+EIC fit (18×275 GeV2 , z > 0.2). Shaded bands represent the propagated fit uncertainty. Lower panels show the ratio theory/data, with the data displayed at unity and their relative experimental uncertainties [PITH_… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Global analyses of helicity-dependent parton distribution functions

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 2.0

    Modern global QCD analyses agree that up-quark helicity is positive and down-quark helicity negative, with positive gluon polarisation at moderate x, while the full gluon spin moment remains limited by the unmeasured ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 51 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Figure 4 compares representative po- larized PDFs atQ= 10 GeVobtained with two alter- native selections,z min >0.1andz min >0.2

    EIC at5×41GeV 2 We first assess the impact of adding the5×41 GeV2 EIC pseudodata. Figure 4 compares representative po- larized PDFs atQ= 10 GeVobtained with two alter- native selections,z min >0.1andz min >0.2. We adopt, however, a minimal and representative set of distribu- tions that best illustrate the physics impact of the EIC SIDISpseudodata, namelyt...

  2. [2]

    proton spin puzzle

    EIC at18×275GeV 2 9 D. Comparison withpDIS+SIDIS basefit 9 E. Comparison with recent global determinations 9 arXiv:2602.17298v1 [hep-ph] 19 Feb 2026 2 V. Summary and conclusion 12 Availability of polarized proton PDF sets 14 Acknowledgement 14 References 19 I. INTRODUCTION A precise understanding of the internal spin structure of the proton remains a cent...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    (13) wheref (rk) i denotes a replica of the chosen unpolar- ized PDF set

    = [2 NNi(x)−1]f (rk) i (x, Q2 0), i=g, u,¯u, d,¯d, s,¯s . (13) wheref (rk) i denotes a replica of the chosen unpolar- ized PDF set. With the replica policy used here, the unpolarized-PDF replica indexr k is selected randomly for each fitted polarized replica, thereby propagating the uncertainty of the positivity bound into the polarized PDFs. An alternati...

  4. [4]

    EIC at18×275GeV 2 We next include the higher-energy18×275 GeV2 EIC pseudodata. Relative to5×41 GeV 2, this configura- tion provides a substantially extended reach inxand a broaderQ 2 span, strengtheningconstraintsinthesmall-x region where current data provide limited direct sensitiv- ity. The dependence on thez min selection is illustrated in Fig. 5, agai...

    2018

  5. [5]

    What we know and what we don’t know about the proton spin after 30 years,

    X. Ji, F. Yuan and Y. Zhao, “What we know and what we don’t know about the proton spin after 30 years,” Nature Rev. Phys.3, no.1, 27-38 (2021), [arXiv:2009.01291 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    A Measurement of the Spin Asymmetry and Determination of the Structure Function g(1) in Deep Inelastic Muon-Proton Scatter- ing,

    J. Ashmanet al.[European Muon], “A Measurement of the Spin Asymmetry and Determination of the Structure Function g(1) in Deep Inelastic Muon-Proton Scatter- ing,” Phys. Lett. B206, 364 (1988),

    1988

  7. [7]

    An Investigation of the Spin Structure of the Proton in Deep Inelastic Scat- tering of Polarized Muons on Polarized Protons,

    J. Ashmanet al.[European Muon], “An Investigation of the Spin Structure of the Proton in Deep Inelastic Scat- tering of Polarized Muons on Polarized Protons,” Nucl. Phys. B328, 1 (1989)

    1989

  8. [8]

    The The- ory and phenomenology of polarized deep inelastic scat- tering,

    M. Anselmino, A. Efremov and E. Leader, “The The- ory and phenomenology of polarized deep inelastic scat- tering,” Phys. Rept.261, 1-124 (1995) [erratum: Phys. Rept.281, 399-400 (1997)], [arXiv:hep-ph/9501369 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  9. [9]

    Parton Distributions in Nucleons and Nuclei,

    J. J. Ethier and E. R. Nocera, “Parton Distributions in Nucleons and Nuclei,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70, 43- 76 (2020), [arXiv:2001.07722 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Models for the polarized parton distributions of the nucleon,

    M. Gluck, E. Reya, M. Stratmann and W. Vogelsang, “Models for the polarized parton distributions of the nucleon,” Phys. Rev. D63, 094005 (2001), [arXiv:hep- ph/0011215 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2001

  11. [11]

    Determination of polarized parton distribution functions and their uncer- tainties,

    M. Hiraiet al.[Asymmetry Analysis], “Determination of polarized parton distribution functions and their uncer- tainties,” Phys. Rev. D69, 054021 (2004), [arXiv:hep- ph/0312112 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2004

  12. [12]

    Determination of polarized parton distribution functions with recent data on polarization asymmetries,

    M. Hirai, S. Kumano and N. Saito, “Determination of polarized parton distribution functions with recent data on polarization asymmetries,” Phys. Rev. D74, 014015 (2006), [arXiv:hep-ph/0603213 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  13. [13]

    QCD Analysis of Polarized Deep Inelastic Scattering Data,

    J. Blumlein and H. Bottcher, “QCD Analysis of Polarized Deep Inelastic Scattering Data,” Nucl. Phys. B841, 205- 230 (2010), [arXiv:1005.3113 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  14. [14]

    Determi- nation of Polarized PDFs from a QCD Analysis of Inclu- sive and Semi-inclusive Deep Inelastic Scattering Data,

    E. Leader, A. V. Sidorov and D. B. Stamenov, “Determi- nation of Polarized PDFs from a QCD Analysis of Inclu- sive and Semi-inclusive Deep Inelastic Scattering Data,” Phys. Rev. D82, 114018 (2010), [arXiv:1010.0574 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  15. [15]

    GlobalanalysisofpolarizedDISandSIDISdata with improved small-x helicity evolution,

    D. Adamiaket al.[Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM)],“GlobalanalysisofpolarizedDISandSIDISdata with improved small-x helicity evolution,” Phys. Rev. D 108, no.11, 11 (2023), [arXiv:2308.07461 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Extraction of Spin-Dependent Parton Densi- ties and Their Uncertainties,

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Stratmann and W. Vo- gelsang, “Extraction of Spin-Dependent Parton Densi- ties and Their Uncertainties,” Phys. Rev. D80, 034030 (2009), [arXiv:0904.3821 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  17. [17]

    Small- and large-xnucleon spin structure from a global QCD analysis of polarized Parton Distri- bution Functions,

    E. R. Nocera, “Small- and large-xnucleon spin structure from a global QCD analysis of polarized Parton Distri- bution Functions,” Phys. Lett. B742, 117-125 (2015), [arXiv:1410.7290 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  18. [18]

    Global Analysis of Helicity Parton Densities and Their Uncertainties,

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Stratmann and W. Vo- gelsang, “Global Analysis of Helicity Parton Densities and Their Uncertainties,” Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 072001 (2008), [arXiv:0804.0422 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  19. [19]

    de Florian, R

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Stratmann and W. Vo- gelsang, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, no.1, 012001 (2014), [arXiv:1404.4293 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  20. [20]

    It- erative Monte Carlo analysis of spin-dependent parton distributions,

    N. Satoet al.[Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum], “It- erative Monte Carlo analysis of spin-dependent parton distributions,” Phys. Rev. D93, no.7, 074005 (2016), [arXiv:1601.07782 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [21]

    First si- multaneous extraction of spin-dependent parton distri- butions and fragmentation functions from a global QCD analysis,

    J. J. Ethier, N. Sato and W. Melnitchouk, “First si- multaneous extraction of spin-dependent parton distri- butions and fragmentation functions from a global QCD analysis,” Phys. Rev. Lett.119, no.13, 132001 (2017), [arXiv:1705.05889 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    A first unbiased global de- termination of polarized PDFs and their uncertainties,

    E. R. Noceraet al.[NNPDF], “A first unbiased global de- termination of polarized PDFs and their uncertainties,” Nucl. Phys. B887, 276-308 (2014), [arXiv:1406.5539 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order Global Anal- ysis of Polarized Parton Distribution Functions,

    I. Borsa, M. Stratmann, W. Vogelsang, D. de Florian and R. Sassot, “Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order Global Anal- ysis of Polarized Parton Distribution Functions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133, no.15, 15 (2024), [arXiv:2407.11635 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Polarized Neutral and Charged Cur- rent Semi-Inclusive Deep-Inelastic Scattering at NNLO in QCD,

    L. Bonino, T. Gehrmann, M. Löchner, K. Schönwald and G. Stagnitto, “Polarized Neutral and Charged Cur- rent Semi-Inclusive Deep-Inelastic Scattering at NNLO in QCD,” [arXiv:2510.00100 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  25. [25]

    NNLO QCD corrections to unpolarized and polarized SIDIS,

    S. Goyal, R. N. Lee, S. O. Moch, V. Pathak, N. Rana and V. Ravindran, “NNLO QCD corrections to unpolarized and polarized SIDIS,” Phys. Rev. D111, no.9, 9 (2025), [arXiv:2412.19309 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    NNLO corrections to SIDIS coefficient functions,

    L. Bonino, T. Gehrmann, M. Löchner, K. Schönwald and G. Stagnitto, “NNLO corrections to SIDIS coefficient functions,” PoSLL2024, 054 (2024), [arXiv:2408.08741 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    The Unresolved Be- haviour of Polarized Scattering Matrix Elements at NNLO in QCD,

    T. Gehrmann and M. Löchner, “The Unresolved Be- haviour of Polarized Scattering Matrix Elements at NNLO in QCD,” [arXiv:2511.09691 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  28. [28]

    AAK24: Global QCD analysis on polarized parton dis- tribution in the presence ofA 2 asymmetry measure- ments,

    F. Arbabifar, S. Atashbar Tehrani and H. Khanpour, “AAK24: Global QCD analysis on polarized parton dis- tribution in the presence ofA 2 asymmetry measure- ments,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus139, no.9, 834 (2024), [arXiv:2408.16552 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Study of spin-dependent structure functions of3Heand 3Hat NNLO approximation and corresponding nuclear corrections,

    H. Khanpour, S. T. Monfared and S. Atashbar Tehrani, “Study of spin-dependent structure functions of3Heand 3Hat NNLO approximation and corresponding nuclear corrections,” Phys. Rev. D96, no.7, 074037 (2017), [arXiv:1710.05747 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  30. [30]

    Nucleon spin structure functions at NNLO in the pres- ence of target mass corrections and higher twist effects,

    H. Khanpour, S. T. Monfared and S. Atashbar Tehrani, “Nucleon spin structure functions at NNLO in the pres- ence of target mass corrections and higher twist effects,” Phys. Rev. D95, no.7, 074006 (2017), [arXiv:1703.09209 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  31. [31]

    Revisiting helicity parton distributions at a future electron-ion collider,

    I. Borsa, G. Lucero, R. Sassot, E. C. Aschenauer and A. S. Nunes, “Revisiting helicity parton distributions at a future electron-ion collider,” Phys. Rev. D102, no.9, 094018 (2020), [arXiv:2007.08300 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Global QCD analysis of spin PDFs in the proton with high-x and lattice constraints,

    C. Cocuzzaet al.[JAM Collaboration (Spin PDF Anal- ysis Group)], “Global QCD analysis of spin PDFs in the proton with high-x and lattice constraints,” Phys. Rev. D112, no.11, 11 (2025), [arXiv:2506.13616 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    First study of polarized proton-proton scatter- ing with small-x helicity evolution,

    D. Adamiaket al.[JAM Collaboration (Small-x Analysis Group)], “First study of polarized proton-proton scatter- ing with small-x helicity evolution,” Phys. Rev. D112, no.9, 094032 (2025), [arXiv:2503.21006 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Helicity-dependent parton dis- tribution functions at next-to-next-to-leading order ac- 20 curacy from inclusive and semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering data,

    V. Bertoneet al.[MAP (Multi-dimensional Analyses of Partonic distributions)], “Helicity-dependent parton dis- tribution functions at next-to-next-to-leading order ac- 20 curacy from inclusive and semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering data,” Phys. Lett. B865, 139497 (2025), [arXiv:2404.04712 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    NNPDFpol2.0: a global deter- mination of polarised PDFs and their uncertainties at next-to-next-to-leading order,

    J. Cruz-Martinez, T. Hasenack, F. Hekhorn, G. Magni, E. R. Nocera, T. R. Rabemananjara, J. Rojo, T. Sharma and G. van Seeventer, “NNPDFpol2.0: a global deter- mination of polarised PDFs and their uncertainties at next-to-next-to-leading order,” JHEP07, 168 (2025), [arXiv:2503.11814 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Order-α2 s correc- tions to the polarized structure functiong1(x, Q2),

    E. B. Zijlstra and W. L. van Neerven, “Order-α2 s correc- tions to the polarized structure functiong1(x, Q2),” Nucl. Phys. B417, 61-100 (1994) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B426, 245 (1994); erratum: Nucl. Phys. B773, 105-106 (2007); erratum: Nucl. Phys. B501, 599-599 (1997)]

    1994

  37. [37]

    Science Require- ments and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Col- lider: EIC Yellow Report,

    R. Abdul Khalek, A. Accardi, J. Adam, D. Adamiak, W. Akers, M. Albaladejo, A. Al-bataineh, M. G. Alex- eev, F. Ameli and P. Antonioli,et al.“Science Require- ments and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Col- lider: EIC Yellow Report,” Nucl. Phys. A1026, 122447 (2022), [arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Snowmass 2021 White Paper: Electron Ion Collider for High Energy Physics,

    R. Abdul Khalek, U. D’Alesio, M. Arratia, A. Bacchetta, M. Battaglieri, M. Begel, M. Boglione, R. Boughezal, R. Boussarie and G. Bozzi,et al.“Snowmass 2021 White Paper: Electron Ion Collider for High Energy Physics,” [arXiv:2203.13199 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Re- visiting constraints on proton PDFs from HERA DIS, Drell-Yan, W and Z boson production, and projected EIC measurements,

    M. Azizi, M. Soleymaninia, H. Hashamipour, M. Sala- jegheh, H. Khanpour and U. G. Meißner, “Re- visiting constraints on proton PDFs from HERA DIS, Drell-Yan, W and Z boson production, and projected EIC measurements,” Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) no.3, 034023 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.034023 [arXiv:2412.10727 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Impact of inclusive electron ion collider data on collinear parton distributions,

    N. Armesto, T. Cridge, F. Giuli, L. Harland-Lang, P. Newman, B. Schmookler, R. Thorne and K. Wich- mann, “Impact of inclusive electron ion collider data on collinear parton distributions,” Phys. Rev. D 109(2024) no.5, 5 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.054019 [arXiv:2309.11269 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Improved constraints on pion frag- mentation functions from simulated electron-ion col- lider data,

    M. Soleymaninia, H. Khanpour, M. Azizi and H. Hashamipour, “Improved constraints on pion frag- mentation functions from simulated electron-ion col- lider data,” Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.5, 054032 doi:10.1103/gm92-w63j [arXiv:2503.16053 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Semi-inclusive Deep-Inelastic Scattering, Par- ton Distributions and Fragmentation Functions at a Future Electron-Ion Collider,

    E. C. Aschenauer, I. Borsa, R. Sassot and C. Van Hulse, “Semi-inclusive Deep-Inelastic Scattering, Par- ton Distributions and Fragmentation Functions at a Future Electron-Ion Collider,” Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) no.9, 094004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.094004 [arXiv:1902.10663 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Design of the ECCE detector for the Electron Ion Collider,

    J. K. Adkins, Y. Akiba, A. Albataineh, M. Amaryan, I. C. Arsene, C. Ayerbe Gayoso, J. Bae, X. Bai, M. D. Baker and M. Bashkanov,et al.“Design of the ECCE detector for the Electron Ion Collider,” Nucl. In- strum. Meth. A1073, 170240 (2025), [arXiv:2209.02580 [physics.ins-det]]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Evaluation of longitudinal double-spin asymmetry measurements in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering from the proton for the ECCE detector design,

    C. Van Hulse, J. K. Adkins, Y. Akiba, A. Albataineh, M. Amaryan, I. C. Arsene, C. Ayerbe Gayoso, J. Bae, X. Bai and M. D. Baker,et al.“Evaluation of longitudinal double-spin asymmetry measurements in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering from the proton for the ECCE detector design,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1056, 168563 (2023)

    2023

  45. [45]

    Lepton - Hadron Processes Beyond Leading Order in Quantum Chromodynamics,

    W. Furmanski and R. Petronzio, “Lepton - Hadron Processes Beyond Leading Order in Quantum Chromodynamics,” Z. Phys. C11, 293 (1982) doi:10.1007/BF01578280

    doi:10.1007/bf01578280 1982

  46. [46]

    de Florian, M

    D. de Florian, M. Stratmann and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D57, 5811-5824 (1998), [arXiv:hep-ph/9711387 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  47. [47]

    Determination of unpolar- ized pion fragmentation functions using semi-inclusive deep-inelastic-scattering data,

    R. A. Khaleket al.[MAP (Multi-dimensional Analyses of Partonic distributions)], “Determination of unpolar- ized pion fragmentation functions using semi-inclusive deep-inelastic-scattering data,” Phys. Rev. D104, no.3, 034007 (2021), [arXiv:2105.08725 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Pion and kaon fragmen- tation functions at next-to-next-to-leading order,

    R. Abdul Khaleket al.[MAP (Multi-dimensional Analy- ses of Partonic distributions)], “Pion and kaon fragmen- tation functions at next-to-next-to-leading order,” Phys. Lett. B834, 137456 (2022), [arXiv:2204.10331 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    The path to proton structure at 1% accuracy,

    R. D. Ballet al.[NNPDF], “The path to proton structure at 1% accuracy,” Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.5, 428 (2022), [arXiv:2109.02653 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    A Review of Target Mass Corrections,

    I. Schienbein, V. A. Radescu, G. P. Zeller, M. E. Christy, C. E. Keppel, K. S. McFarland, W. Melnitchouk, F. I. Ol- ness, M. H. Reno and F. Steffens,et al.“A Review of Target Mass Corrections,” J. Phys. G35, 053101 (2008), [arXiv:0709.1775 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  51. [51]

    Some Remarks on Methods of QCD Analysis of Polarized DIS Data,

    E. Leader, A. V. Sidorov and D. B. Stamenov, “Some Remarks on Methods of QCD Analysis of Polarized DIS Data,” Phys. Rev. D80, 054026 (2009), [arXiv:0908.2390 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  52. [52]

    APFEL: A PDF Evolution Library with QED corrections,

    V. Bertone, S. Carrazza and J. Rojo, “APFEL: A PDF Evolution Library with QED corrections,” Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 1647-1668 (2014), [arXiv:1310.1394 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  53. [53]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [54]

    https://github.com/MapCollaboration/MontBlanc

  55. [55]

    Bertone, A

    V. Bertone, A. Chiefa, and E. R. Nocera,Mapcollabora- tion/denali: Sheldon chalet, Apr., 2024

    2024

  56. [56]

    Review of particle physics,

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    Spin asymmetries A(1) and structure functions g1 of the proton and the deuteron from polarized high-energy muon scattering,

    B. Adevaet al.[Spin Muon], “Spin asymmetries A(1) and structure functions g1 of the proton and the deuteron from polarized high-energy muon scattering,” Phys. Rev. D58, 112001 (1998),

    1998

  58. [58]

    The spin structure func- tiong p 1 of the proton and a test of the Bjorken sum rule,

    C. Adolphet al.[COMPASS], “The spin structure func- tiong p 1 of the proton and a test of the Bjorken sum rule,” Phys. Lett. B753, 18-28 (2016), [arXiv:1503.08935 [hep- ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  59. [59]

    Final COMPASS results onthedeuteronspin-dependentstructurefunctiong d 1 and the Bjorken sum rule,

    C. Adolphet al.[COMPASS], “Final COMPASS results onthedeuteronspin-dependentstructurefunctiong d 1 and the Bjorken sum rule,” Phys. Lett. B769, 34-41 (2017), [arXiv:1612.00620 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    Deep inelastic scattering of polarized electrons by polarized He-3 and the study of the neutron spin structure,

    P. L. Anthonyet al.[E142], “Deep inelastic scattering of polarized electrons by polarized He-3 and the study of the neutron spin structure,” Phys. Rev. D54, 6620-6650 (1996), [arXiv:hep-ex/9610007 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  61. [61]

    Measurements of the proton and deuteron spin structure functions g(1) and g(2),

    K. Abeet al.[E143], “Measurements of the proton and deuteron spin structure functions g(1) and g(2),” Phys. Rev. D58, 112003 (1998), [arXiv:hep-ph/9802357 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  62. [62]

    Precision determination of the neu- tron spin structure function g1(n),

    K. Abeet al.[E154], “Precision determination of the neu- tron spin structure function g1(n),” Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 26-30 (1997), [arXiv:hep-ex/9705012 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  63. [63]

    Measurements of the Q**2 dependence of the proton and neutron spin structure functions g(1)**p and g(1)**n,

    P. L. Anthonyet al.[E155], “Measurements of the Q**2 dependence of the proton and neutron spin structure functions g(1)**p and g(1)**n,” Phys. Lett. B493, 19-28 (2000), [arXiv:hep-ph/0007248 [hep-ph]]. 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  64. [64]

    Measurement of the neu- tron spin structure function g1(n) with a polarized He- 3 internal target,

    K. Ackerstaffet al.[HERMES], “Measurement of the neu- tron spin structure function g1(n) with a polarized He- 3 internal target,” Phys. Lett. B404, 383-389 (1997), [arXiv:hep-ex/9703005 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  65. [65]

    Precise determina- tion of the spin structure function g(1) of the proton, deuteron and neutron,

    A. Airapetianet al.[HERMES], “Precise determina- tion of the spin structure function g(1) of the proton, deuteron and neutron,” Phys. Rev. D75, 012007 (2007), [arXiv:hep-ex/0609039 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  66. [66]

    Measurements ofdn 2 andA n 1: Probing the neutron spin structure,

    D. Flayet al.[Jefferson Lab Hall A], “Measurements ofdn 2 andA n 1: Probing the neutron spin structure,” Phys. Rev. D94, no.5, 052003 (2016), [arXiv:1603.03612 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    The Search for Higher Twist Effects in the Spin-Structure Functions of the Neutron,

    K. M. Kramer [Jefferson Lab E97-103], “The Search for Higher Twist Effects in the Spin-Structure Functions of the Neutron,” AIP Conf. Proc.675, no.1, 615-619 (2003)

    2003

  68. [68]

    Precision mea- surement of the neutron spin asymmetries and spin- dependent structure functions in the valence quark re- gion,

    X. Zhenget al.[Jefferson Lab Hall A], “Precision mea- surement of the neutron spin asymmetries and spin- dependent structure functions in the valence quark re- gion,” Phys. Rev. C70, 065207 (2004), [arXiv:nucl- ex/0405006 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2004

  69. [69]

    Precision measurements ofg 1 of the proton and the deuteron with 6 GeV electrons,

    Y. Proket al.[CLAS], “Precision measurements ofg 1 of the proton and the deuteron with 6 GeV electrons,” Phys. Rev. C90, no.2, 025212 (2014), [arXiv:1404.6231 [nucl-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  70. [70]

    Unbiased determination of polarized parton distributions and their uncertainties,

    R. D. Ballet al.[NNPDF], “Unbiased determination of polarized parton distributions and their uncertainties,” Nucl. Phys. B874, 36-84 (2013), [arXiv:1303.7236 [hep- ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  71. [71]

    Quark helicity dis- tributions from longitudinal spin asymmetries in muon- proton and muon-deuteron scattering,

    M. G. Alekseevet al.[COMPASS], “Quark helicity dis- tributions from longitudinal spin asymmetries in muon- proton and muon-deuteron scattering,” Phys. Lett. B 693, 227-235 (2010), [arXiv:1007.4061 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  72. [72]

    Longitudinal double- spin asymmetries in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scat- tering of electrons and positrons by protons and deuterons,

    A. Airapetianet al.[HERMES], “Longitudinal double- spin asymmetries in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scat- tering of electrons and positrons by protons and deuterons,” Phys. Rev. D99, no.11, 112001 (2019), [arXiv:1810.07054 [hep-ex]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  73. [73]

    Agarwal, K

    S. Agarwal, K. Mierle, and T. C. S. Team,Ceres Solver, 10, 2023

    2023

  74. [74]

    LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era,

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordström, B. Page, M. Rüfenacht, M. Schönherr and G. Watt, “LHAPDF6: parton density access in the LHC precision era,” Eur. Phys. J. C75, 132 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3318-8 [arXiv:1412.7420 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015