pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.31424 · v1 · pith:QPAZFFKOnew · submitted 2026-05-29 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-ex· hep-lat

CJ26 Global QCD Analysis with Large-x Jefferson Lab 6 and 12 GeV Data

Alberto Accardi , Matteo Cerutti , Cynthia E. Keppel , Shujie Li , J. F. Owens , Sanghwa Park , Peter Risse This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 21:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-exhep-lat
keywords global QCD analysislarge-x PDFsJLab DIS datan/p structure function ratiod/u valence quark ratiohigher-twist effectsoff-shell corrections
0
0 comments X

The pith

JLab 12 GeV data disentangles higher-twist effects from off-shell corrections to sharpen large-x n/p and d/u ratios.

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

The CJ26 global QCD analysis incorporates the complete set of JLab 6 GeV and first published 12 GeV deep inelastic scattering measurements. The higher Q2 reach of the 12 GeV data is used to separate higher-twist contributions from nucleon off-shell corrections in the large-x region. This separation produces more precise extractions of the neutron-to-proton structure function ratio and the down-to-up valence quark ratio. The work supplies the resulting next-to-leading-order PDFs and structure functions in LHAPDF format. Correlated experimental systematic uncertainties are shown to be essential for reaching the reported precision.

Core claim

The CJ26 analysis shows that the increased Q2 leverage of JLab 12 GeV data enables unique disentanglement of higher-twist effects from off-shell nucleon corrections, yielding a highly accurate determination of the n/p structure function ratio with uncertainties reduced by 30-50 percent and the d/u valence quark ratio with uncertainties reduced by 5-10 percent.

What carries the argument

The JLab 12 GeV DIS measurements provide the Q2 leverage needed to separate higher-twist effects from off-shell nucleon corrections at large x.

If this is right

  • The n/p structure function ratio is obtained with 30-50% smaller uncertainties than prior fits.
  • The d/u valence quark ratio is obtained with 5-10% smaller uncertainties than prior fits.
  • The resulting NLO PDFs and structure functions are released in LHAPDF format for external use.
  • Accounting for correlated systematic uncertainties is required to reach the stated precision.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Improved large-x valence distributions could tighten predictions for high-x observables at the LHC or future electron-ion colliders.
  • The separation technique may extend to other data sets once sufficient Q2 lever arm becomes available.
  • More precise d/u constraints could help test models of nucleon flavor structure at high momentum fractions.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen functional forms for higher-twist and off-shell corrections are flexible enough to allow the 12 GeV data to separate them from leading-twist PDFs without leftover model dependence.

What would settle it

A new analysis or data set that produces n/p or d/u ratios differing by more than the quoted uncertainty bands when alternate functional forms for the corrections are substituted would falsify the claim of unique disentanglement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.31424 by Alberto Accardi, Cynthia E. Keppel, J. F. Owens, Matteo Cerutti, Peter Risse, Sanghwa Park, Shujie Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Coverage of the data sets used in the CJ26 global fit. Left panel: DIS data and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Comparison of percent statistical experimental error as a function of the energy scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The pull distribution for the global dataset on the left and the Gaussian variable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Data-theory comparison for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Data-theory comparison for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Data-theory comparison for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Data-theory comparison for DØ W-boson asymmetry (left panel) and DØ 2015 lepton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Data-theory comparison for SeaQuest and NuSea measurements. The uncertainty bands [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Breakdown of PDFs at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Comparison of selected extracted quantities from the CJ26 fit (blue bands) with those [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Neutron-to-proton structure function ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Comparison of a subset of extracted quantities between the baseline (“no JLab”, dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Relative error ratio between baseline and CJ26 fits of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Ratios of the CJ26 PDFs to those from CT18 (red), MSHT20 (green), and NNPDF4.0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Comparison of CJ26 (blue band) fit to JAM26 (orange) CT18 (red), ABMP16 (green), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Comparison of pull distributions for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Same comparison and conventions as Fig. 16, but for the Hall C 12 GeV ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Comparison of the representative extracted quantities when implementing isospin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19: Comparison of the results when implementing isospin-dependent additive (green band) or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20: Comparison of the extracted off-shell function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21: Impact of separately including new JLab data from left to right on a subset of extracted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22: Same as Fig. 21 but for relative uncertainties. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p057_22.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present CJ26, the new CTEQ-JLab global QCD analysis that incorporates for the first time the complete suite of JLab 6 GeV DIS measurements and the first published JLab 12 GeV measurements. Focused on the large-$x$ region, the analysis utilizes the increased $Q^2$ leverage of the 12 GeV data to uniquely disentangle higher-twist effects from off-shell nucleon corrections. This leads to a highly accurate determination of the $n/p$ structure function ratio and the $d/u$ valence quark ratio, with uncertainties reduced by 30-50% and 5-10%, respectively. We highlight the critical role of experimental correlated systematic uncertainties in achieving this precision and provide the resulting NLO PDFs and structure functions in LHAPDF format for general use.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents CJ26, a new global NLO QCD analysis incorporating the full set of JLab 6 GeV DIS data plus the first published JLab 12 GeV measurements. Focused on the large-x region, the central claim is that the increased Q² reach of the 12 GeV data permits unique separation of higher-twist and off-shell nucleon corrections from leading-twist PDFs, yielding 30-50% smaller uncertainties on the n/p structure-function ratio and 5-10% smaller uncertainties on the d/u valence ratio. The paper stresses the role of correlated experimental systematics and releases the resulting PDFs and structure functions in LHAPDF format.

Significance. If the disentanglement procedure is robust against parametrization choices, the work would deliver improved large-x constraints that are directly relevant for LHC phenomenology and for interpreting future JLab and EIC data. The release of public grids is a clear positive. However, the quoted precision gains are obtained entirely from a fit to the same data used to determine the corrections, so independent cross-checks would be needed to establish that the reductions reflect genuine new information rather than internal fit constraints.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (methodology): the assertion that the 12 GeV data 'uniquely disentangle' higher-twist from off-shell corrections is load-bearing for the 30-50% and 5-10% uncertainty reductions, yet the text provides no explicit sensitivity tests to the chosen functional forms of the higher-twist (typically 1/Q²) or off-shell (x-dependent multiplicative) terms. Without such tests or alternative parametrizations, it remains possible that part of the correction uncertainty is absorbed into the PDFs, artificially tightening the reported errors on the ratios.
  2. [§4] §4 (data selection and systematics): the abstract highlights the importance of correlated systematic uncertainties, but the manuscript does not detail the data-selection cuts, the treatment of normalization uncertainties across experiments, or any validation (e.g., pull distributions or closure tests) of the procedure used to propagate those systematics into the final PDF errors. These choices directly affect whether the claimed precision is reproducible.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Table 1] Table 1: the breakdown of χ² per data set would benefit from an additional column showing the number of points after cuts, to allow readers to assess the effective weight of the new 12 GeV measurements.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure 3: the plotted uncertainty bands on the d/u ratio should be accompanied by a brief statement of whether they include only statistical or also systematic variations from the correction terms.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (methodology): the assertion that the 12 GeV data 'uniquely disentangle' higher-twist from off-shell corrections is load-bearing for the 30-50% and 5-10% uncertainty reductions, yet the text provides no explicit sensitivity tests to the chosen functional forms of the higher-twist (typically 1/Q²) or off-shell (x-dependent multiplicative) terms. Without such tests or alternative parametrizations, it remains possible that part of the correction uncertainty is absorbed into the PDFs, artificially tightening the reported errors on the ratios.

    Authors: We agree that explicit sensitivity tests to the functional forms would strengthen the presentation. The increased Q² reach of the 12 GeV data supplies the primary kinematic lever arm that enables separation of higher-twist and off-shell effects from the leading-twist PDFs; however, we will add in the revised §3 a set of alternative fits that vary the higher-twist parametrization (including 1/Q⁴ terms) and the x-dependence of the off-shell correction. The resulting variations in the n/p and d/u uncertainty bands will be shown explicitly to demonstrate that the quoted reductions are stable against these choices. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (data selection and systematics): the abstract highlights the importance of correlated systematic uncertainties, but the manuscript does not detail the data-selection cuts, the treatment of normalization uncertainties across experiments, or any validation (e.g., pull distributions or closure tests) of the procedure used to propagate those systematics into the final PDF errors. These choices directly affect whether the claimed precision is reproducible.

    Authors: We acknowledge that additional documentation is required for reproducibility. In the revised §4 we will specify the kinematic cuts applied to the JLab 6 GeV and 12 GeV datasets, describe the treatment of normalization uncertainties (including any floating normalizations between experiments), and report validation results in the form of pull distributions and closure-test outcomes. These additions will make the propagation of correlated systematics into the final PDF uncertainties fully transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Uncertainty reductions on n/p and d/u ratios are outputs of the same global fit that incorporates the new data and correction parametrizations

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract]
    "the analysis utilizes the increased Q^2 leverage of the 12 GeV data to uniquely disentangle higher-twist effects from off-shell nucleon corrections. This leads to a highly accurate determination of the n/p structure function ratio and the d/u valence quark ratio, with uncertainties reduced by 30-50% and 5-10%, respectively."

    The quoted uncertainty reductions and 'highly accurate determination' are direct outputs of fitting the leading-twist PDFs together with the chosen higher-twist (~1/Q^2) and off-shell correction parametrizations to the same JLab 6+12 GeV data set; the improvements are therefore internal to the fit rather than independent predictions.

full rationale

The paper's strongest claim is that 12 GeV data plus chosen HT and off-shell forms allow unique disentanglement, yielding 30-50% and 5-10% uncertainty reductions. These percentages are obtained by fitting the PDF parametrization plus correction terms directly to the JLab data set; no external validation or parameter-free derivation is shown. This matches the fitted_input_called_prediction pattern. The functional-form assumption is load-bearing but not shown to be general enough to guarantee uniqueness, producing partial circularity (score 6). No self-citation chain or renaming of known results is required for the central claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The fit rests on standard QCD factorization, assumed forms for higher-twist and off-shell corrections, and a large number of free parameters in the PDF parametrization that are adjusted to data.

free parameters (2)
  • PDF parametrization coefficients
    Standard in all global QCD analyses; many parameters are fitted to the combined data set including the new JLab points.
  • higher-twist and off-shell correction parameters
    Functional forms and coefficients for these corrections are chosen and fitted within the analysis.
axioms (2)
  • standard math QCD collinear factorization applies at the scales and x values of the included data
    Invoked throughout global PDF analyses; required to interpret DIS cross sections in terms of PDFs.
  • domain assumption The chosen parametrizations for higher-twist and off-shell corrections capture the dominant physics without large missing terms
    Central to the claim that 12 GeV data can disentangle these effects.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5696 in / 1464 out tokens · 27188 ms · 2026-06-28T21:46:51.906178+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

125 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Finally, the PDF4LHC21 set provides a representative combination of the CT18, NNPDF3.1, and MSHT20 analyses, that include higher-energy data from the LHC

    In all other analyses thed/uquark is forced to go to 0 or±∞whenx→1by the chosen parametrization. Finally, the PDF4LHC21 set provides a representative combination of the CT18, NNPDF3.1, and MSHT20 analyses, that include higher-energy data from the LHC. We observe good compatibility between CJ26 and JAM26 up tox= 0.8where the latter’s uncertainty band diver...

  2. [2]

    J. F. Owens, A. Accardi, and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. D87, 094012 (2013)

    2013

  3. [3]

    Accardi, L

    A. Accardi, L. T. Brady, W. Melnitchouk, J. F. Owens, and N. Sato, Phys. Rev. D93, 114017 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    Accardi, X

    A. Accardi, X. Jing, J. F. Owens, and S. Park, Phys. Rev. D107, 113005 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Cerutti, A

    M. Cerutti, A. Accardi, I. P. Fernando, S. Li, J. F. Owens, and S. Park, Phys. Rev. D111, 094013 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Georgi and H

    H. Georgi and H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. D14, 1829 (1976)

    1976

  7. [7]

    De Rujula, H

    A. De Rujula, H. Georgi, and H. D. Politzer, Annals Phys.103, 315 (1977)

    1977

  8. [8]

    M. A. G. Aivazis, F. I. Olness, and W.-K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D50, 3085 (1994)

    1994

  9. [9]

    Kretzer and M

    S. Kretzer and M. H. Reno, Phys. Rev. D66, 113007 (2002)

    2002

  10. [10]

    Accardi and J.-W

    A. Accardi and J.-W. Qiu, JHEP07, 090 (2008)

    2008

  11. [11]

    F. M. Steffens, M. D. Brown, W. Melnitchouk, and S. Sanches, Phys. Rev. C86, 065208 (2012)

    2012

  12. [12]

    Schienbein et al., J

    I. Schienbein et al., J. Phys. G35, 053101 (2008)

    2008

  13. [13]

    L. T. Brady, A. Accardi, T. J. Hobbs, and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. D84, 074008 (2011), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 85, 039902 (2012)]

    2011

  14. [14]

    Ruiz et al., Prog

    R. Ruiz et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.136, 104096 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Virchaux and A

    M. Virchaux and A. Milsztajn, Phys. Lett. B274, 221 (1992)

    1992

  16. [16]

    S. I. Alekhin, S. A. Kulagin, and S. Liuti, Phys. Rev. D69, 114009 (2004)

    2004

  17. [17]

    Blumlein, H

    J. Blumlein, H. Bottcher, and A. Guffanti, Nucl. Phys. B774, 182 (2007)

    2007

  18. [18]

    Alekhin, S

    S. Alekhin, S. A. Kulagin, and R. Petti, in 16th International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects (2008), p. 43, arXiv:0810.4893 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  19. [19]

    Blumlein and H

    J. Blumlein and H. Bottcher, Phys. Lett. B662, 336 (2008). 45

    2008

  20. [20]

    Accardi, M

    A. Accardi, M. E. Christy, C. E. Keppel, W. Melnitchouk, P. Monaghan, J. G. Morfín, and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D81, 034016 (2010)

    2010

  21. [21]

    Blumlein and H

    J. Blumlein and H. Bottcher, in 20th International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects (2012), pp. 237–241, arXiv:1207.3170 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [22]

    Alekhin, J

    S. Alekhin, J. Blumlein, and S. Moch, Phys. Rev. D86, 054009 (2012)

    2012

  23. [23]

    Cocuzza, C

    C. Cocuzza, C. E. Keppel, H. Liu, W. Melnitchouk, A. Metz, N. Sato, and A. W. Thomas (Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM)), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 242001 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    Alekhin, J

    S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, S. Moch, and R. Placakyte, Phys. Rev. D96, 014011 (2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    Alekhin, S

    S. Alekhin, S. Kulagin, and R. Petti, Phys. Rev. D96, 054005 (2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    S. I. Alekhin, S. A. Kulagin, and R. Petti, Phys. Rev. D105, 114037 (2022)

    2022

  27. [27]

    S. I. Alekhin, S. A. Kulagin, and R. Petti, Phys. Rev. D107, L051506 (2023)

    2023

  28. [28]

    S. A. Kulagin, Nucl. Phys. A500, 653 (1989)

    1989

  29. [29]

    S. A. Kulagin, G. Piller, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C50, 1154 (1994)

    1994

  30. [30]

    S. A. Kulagin and R. Petti, Nucl. Phys. A765, 126 (2006)

    2006

  31. [31]

    S. A. Kulagin and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. C77, 015210 (2008)

    2008

  32. [32]

    Y. Kahn, W. Melnitchouk, and S. A. Kulagin, Phys. Rev. C79, 035205 (2009)

    2009

  33. [33]

    Del Dotto, E

    A. Del Dotto, E. Pace, G. Salmè, and S. Scopetta, Phys. Rev. C95, 014001 (2017)

    2017

  34. [34]

    Fornetti, E

    F. Fornetti, E. Pace, M. Rinaldi, G. Salmè, S. Scopetta, and M. Viviani, Phys. Lett. B851, 138587 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    V. M. Abazov et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 151803 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 114, 049901 (2015)]

    2014

  36. [36]

    Adam et al

    J. Adam et al. (STAR), Phys. Rev. D103, 012001 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    Cerutti, A

    M. Cerutti, A. Accardi, I. P. Fernando, and S. Li, PoSDIS2024, 031 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    W. Ma, S. Yang, M. Xie, M. Liu, L. Han, and C. P. Yuan (2025), arXiv:2510.08941 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    M. Xie, S. Yang, Y. Fu, M. Liu, L. Han, T.-J. Hou, S. Dulat, and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 107, 054008 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    Cocuzza, W

    C. Cocuzza, W. Melnitchouk, A. Metz, and N. Sato (Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM)), Phys. Rev. D104, 074031 (2021)

    2021

  41. [41]

    R. D. Ball et al. (NNPDF), Eur. Phys. J. C82, 428 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    T.-J. Hou, M. Yan, J. Liang, K.-F. Liu, and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D106, 096008 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    Ablat et al., Eur

    A. Ablat et al., Eur. Phys. J. Plus139, 1063 (2024). 46

    2024

  44. [44]

    L. A. Harland-Lang, T. Cridge, M. Reader, and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 115 (2026)

    2026

  45. [45]

    Cocuzza, W

    C. Cocuzza, W. Melnitchouk, N. Sato, and A. W. Thomas (2026), arXiv:2605.00666 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    R. D. Ball, A. Chiefa, and R. Stegeman, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 281 (2026)

    2026

  47. [47]

    Wang et al

    D. Wang et al. (PVDIS), Nature506, 67 (2014)

    2014

  48. [48]

    Arrington et al

    J. Arrington et al. (Jefferson Lab SoLID), J. Phys. G50, 110501 (2023)

    2023

  49. [49]

    Boughezal, F

    R. Boughezal, F. Petriello, and D. Wiegand, Phys. Rev. D104, 016005 (2021)

    2021

  50. [50]

    Bacchetta, M

    A. Bacchetta, M. Cerutti, L. Manna, M. Radici, and X. Zheng, Phys. Lett. B849, 138455 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    Zaidi, M

    F. Zaidi, M. Sajjad Athar, and S. K. Singh (2026), arXiv:2603.14890 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    Accardi, PoSDIS2015, 001 (2015)

    A. Accardi, PoSDIS2015, 001 (2015)

    2015

  53. [53]

    Accardi et al., Eur

    A. Accardi et al., Eur. Phys. J. C76, 471 (2016)

    2016

  54. [54]

    Accardi, T

    A. Accardi, T. J. Hobbs, X. Jing, and P. M. Nadolsky, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 603 (2021)

    2021

  55. [55]

    R. D. Ball, A. Candido, S. Forte, F. Hekhorn, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, and C. Schwan, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 1160 (2022)

    2022

  56. [56]

    Ubiali (2024), arXiv:2404.08508 [hep-ph]

    M. Ubiali (2024), arXiv:2404.08508 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    L. T. Brady, A. Accardi, W. Melnitchouk, and J. F. Owens, JHEP06, 019 (2012)

    2012

  58. [58]

    Willis, R

    C. Willis, R. Brock, D. Hayden, T.-J. Hou, J. Isaacson, C. Schmidt, and C.-P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D99, 054004 (2019)

    2019

  59. [59]

    Y. Fu, R. Brock, D. Hayden, and C.-P. Yuan (2025), arXiv:2511.15683 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    A.Greljo, S.Iranipour, Z.Kassabov, M.Madigan, J.Moore, J.Rojo, M.Ubiali, andC.Voisey, JHEP07, 122 (2021)

    2021

  61. [61]

    Hammou, Z

    E. Hammou, Z. Kassabov, M. Madigan, M. L. Mangano, L. Mantani, J. Moore, M. M. Alvarado, and M. Ubiali, JHEP11, 090 (2023)

    2023

  62. [62]

    Hammou and M

    E. Hammou and M. Ubiali (2024), arXiv:2410.00963 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    E. Cole, M. N. Costantini, E. Hammou, L. Mantani, F. Merlotti, M. Morales-Alvarado, and M. Ubiali (2026), arXiv:2602.20235 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    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)

    2015

  65. [65]

    Krämer, F

    M. Krämer, F. I. Olness, and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D62, 096007 (2000)

    2000

  66. [66]

    Carli, D

    T. Carli, D. Clements, A. Cooper-Sarkar, C. Gwenlan, G. P. Salam, F. Siegert, P. Starovoitov, and M. Sutton, Eur. Phys. J. C66, 503 (2010). 47

    2010

  67. [67]

    R. L. Jaffe and M. Soldate, Phys. Rev. D26, 49 (1982)

    1982

  68. [68]

    R. K. Ellis, W. Furmanski, and R. Petronzio, Nucl. Phys. B207, 1 (1982)

    1982

  69. [69]

    R. K. Ellis, W. Furmanski, and R. Petronzio, Nucl. Phys. B212, 29 (1983)

    1983

  70. [70]

    Qiu, Phys

    J.-W. Qiu, Phys. Rev. D42, 30 (1990)

    1990

  71. [71]

    Corcella and L

    G. Corcella and L. Magnea, Phys. Rev. D72, 074017 (2005)

    2005

  72. [72]

    Accardi, D

    A. Accardi, D. P. Anderle, and F. Ringer, Phys. Rev. D91, 034008 (2015)

    2015

  73. [73]

    Bonvini, S

    M. Bonvini, S. Marzani, J. Rojo, L. Rottoli, M. Ubiali, R. D. Ball, V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, and N. P. Hartland, JHEP09, 191 (2015)

    2015

  74. [74]

    Simonelli, A

    A. Simonelli, A. Accardi, M. Cerutti, C. S. R. Costa, and A. Signori (2025), arXiv:2502.15033 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    S. A. Kulagin, W. Melnitchouk, G. Piller, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C52, 932 (1995)

    1995

  76. [76]

    Pumplin, D

    J. Pumplin, D. Stump, R. Brock, D. Casey, J. Huston, J. Kalk, H. L. Lai, and W. K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D65, 014013 (2001)

    2001

  77. [77]

    Pumplin, D

    J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky, and W. K. Tung, JHEP07, 012 (2002)

    2002

  78. [78]

    S. Li, A. Accardi, M. Cerutti, I. P. Fernando, C. E. Keppel, W. Melnitchouk, P. Monaghan, G. Niculescu, M. I. Niculescu, and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D109, 074036 (2024)

    2024

  79. [79]

    Stump, J

    D. Stump, J. Pumplin, R. Brock, D. Casey, J. Huston, J. Kalk, H. L. Lai, and W. K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D65, 014012 (2001)

    2001

  80. [80]

    N. T. Hunt-Smith, A. Accardi, W. Melnitchouk, N. Sato, A. W. Thomas, and M. J. White, Phys. Rev. D106, 036003 (2022)

    2022

Showing first 80 references.