Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Light quark fragmentation into S-wave fully charmed tetraquark

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that light-quark fragmentation into the S-wave fully-charmed tetraquark $T_{4c}$ gives a larger high-$p_T$ production rate than charm-quark fragmentation at the LHC and a comparable rate at the EIC, so the…

desk verdict First light-quark fragmentation functions for S-wave T4c at LO, with a clean mq->0 limit and solid perturbative matching; the phenomenological comparison needs documented inputs and LDME uncertainties. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19296 v2 pith:3IRC4UR7 submitted 2024-11-28 hep-ph

Xiao-Wei Bai , Yingsheng Huang , Wen-Long Sang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords fragmentationfunctionfully-charmedtetraquarkNRQCDshort-distancecoefficientX(6900)LHCEICDGLAPevolution
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 establishes that a light quark can fragment into an S-wave fully-charmed tetraquark ($T_{4c}$), and that at high transverse momentum this process is more likely than charm-quark fragmentation while remaining below gluon fragmentation. Within the nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD) factorization framework, the authors compute the leading-order (in $\alpha_s$ and $v$) short-distance coefficients for light-quark fragmentation into the $0^{++}$ and $2^{++}$ tetraquark states, and combine them with long-distance matrix elements from a potential model. Using these fragmentation functions, they predict the $T_{4c}$ production cross sections at the LHC and the EIC. The light-quark channel fills the gap between the previously known gluon and charm channels, and its size matters for interpreting the $X(6900)$ resonance as a fully-charmed tetraquark.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the NRQCD factorization formula $D_{q\to H}(z)=\sum_n d_n(z)\langle O^H_n\rangle$. For $T_{4c}$ the operators are the color-singlet four-quark operators $O^J_{3,3}$, $O^J_{6,6}$, and the interference term $O^J_{3,6}$, written in the diquark-antidiquark basis ($\bar{\mathbf{3}}\otimes\mathbf{3}$ and $\mathbf{6}\otimes\bar{\mathbf{6}}$). The new input is the set of perturbative short-distance coefficients $d_{3,3}$, $d_{6,6}$, $d_{3,6}$ for $J=0$ and $d_{3,3}$ for $J=2$, obtained by matching on-shell amplitudes for $q\to c\bar{c}c\bar{c}$ onto the operator basis; in the $m_q\to 0$ limit they reduce to the expressions in Eqs. (21). DGLAP evolution then mixes the quark and gluon fragmentation channels, which matters because the light-quark function gains a significant small-$z$ component from gluon splitting.

What would settle it

An independent perturbative recomputation of the $O(\alpha_s^4)$ short-distance coefficients for $q\to T_{4c}$ that disagrees with the closed-form normalizations in Eqs. (21) would falsify the calculation; so would a lattice determination of the four-quark matrix elements that contradicts the vacuum-saturation/potential-model values by amounts large enough to break the predicted channel ordering.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the fragmentation function $D_{q\to T_{4c}}(z,\mu)$ at leading order in $\alpha_s$ and $v$ is fixed by the short-distance coefficients in Eqs. (21), with the nonperturbative normalization carried by four-quark NRQCD matrix elements. In the massless-light-quark limit these coefficients take compact closed forms, such as $(z-4)^2(z-1)/(z(z-2))$ times $\pi^2\alpha_s^4/864$ for the $(6,6)$ color channel of the $0^{++}$ state. Combining the evolved fragmentation functions with partonic cross sections and standard proton PDFs gives integrated cross sections at the 13 TeV LHC and 140 GeV EIC. The predicted ordering at the LHC is gluon $>$ light quark $>$ charm, while at the EIC the light-quark and charm-quark contributions are comparable and both sit below the gluon one.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the long-distance matrix elements, estimated from a single potential model via the vacuum saturation approximation, set the normalization of all three fragmentation channels; if that model is unrepresentative, the absolute cross sections in Table II shift by potentially orders of magnitude even though the perturbative calculation itself would remain valid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the LHC with $p_T\ge 20$ GeV, light-quark fragmentation yields $8.1\times 10^3$ fb for the $1S$ $0^{++}$ state and $7.5\times 10^3$ fb for the $1S$ $2^{++}$ state, roughly one to two orders of magnitude below gluon fragmentation but one to two orders above charm-quark fragmentation.
  • At the EIC (140 GeV), the light-quark and charm-quark fragmentation channels contribute comparably to $T_{4c}$ production, while gluon fragmentation remains the dominant source by at least an order of magnitude.
  • DGLAP evolution substantially increases the fragmentation function at small and intermediate $z$ through mixing with the gluon channel, so predictions at LHC and EIC scales must use the evolved functions rather than the initial-scale ones.
  • The same short-distance coefficients, with the light-quark mass replaced by the bottom mass, provide the initial-scale fragmentation function for $b\to T_{4c}$; analogous substitutions give $c\to T_{4b}$, so the formulas cover all quark-initiated channels.
  • A complete $T_{4c}$ high-$p_T$ production calculation must sum gluon, charm, and light-quark fragmentation together with their DGLAP mixing, since no single channel dominates the quark-initiated contribution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the same long-distance matrix elements normalize all three fragmentation channels, the predicted ordering $D_g > D_q > D_c$ at the LHC is largely insensitive to the potential-model uncertainty; only the absolute rates, not the ratios, carry that normalization.
  • A lattice QCD evaluation of the four-quark matrix elements would convert the current single-model normalization into a first-principles prediction and would directly test the size of the light-quark contribution relative to the gluon one.
  • The $m_q\to 0$ closed forms in Eqs. (21) have a distinctive $z$-dependence; measuring the $p_T$ shape of $T_{4c}$ at the LHC could in principle separate the light-quark contribution from the charm-quark one, since their evolved shapes differ.
  • The same short-distance coefficient matching technique transfers to fully-bottom tetraquarks, where the larger heavy-quark mass changes the coupling and the velocity expansion, potentially altering the ordering between quark and gluon fragmentation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper computes, within the NRQCD factorization framework, the fragmentation function of a light quark into S-wave fully-charmed tetraquarks at leading order in alpha_s and v. The authors derive closed-form short-distance coefficients for the 0++ and 2++ tetraquark channels, take the massless light-quark limit, and then use LDMEs extracted from a single potential model via the vacuum-saturation approximation. They evolve the fragmentation functions with the DGLAP equation and predict pT distributions and integrated cross sections for T4c production at the LHC (13 TeV) and EIC (140 GeV), comparing their new light-quark channel with the previously computed gluon and charm-quark fragmentation channels. The headline result is that the light-quark fragmentation contribution is smaller than the gluon one but larger than the charm-quark one at the LHC, while at the EIC it is comparable to the charm-quark contribution.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, the paper fills a missing channel in the NRQCD factorization treatment of fully-charmed tetraquark production and provides a useful step toward a complete high-pT production inventory. The perturbative matching is standard in structure, the mq-to-0 limit of the SDCs is well behaved and presented in closed form, and the evolution setup is clearly described at the level of the method. The paper honestly flags the model dependence of the LDMEs in a footnote, but the phenomenological comparison and the absolute predictions rest on inputs whose consistency and uncertainty are not currently documented. The value of the paper lies mainly in the new SDC calculation and the relative-size analysis; those elements are worth publishing once the comparison inputs and LDME uncertainties are made explicit.

major comments (3)
  1. [§V, Figs. 3–4 and Table II] The comparison curves and numbers for gluon and charm fragmentation are imported from Refs. [43,50], but the manuscript does not state which LDME set, initial scale, alpha_s scheme/value, DGLAP evolution treatment, and kinematic cuts were used for those channels. Since all channels are proportional to LDMEs, the claimed ordering D_g > D_q > D_c and the ratios in Table II are only meaningful if the three channels are evaluated with identical inputs. The footnote in Section V admits that five model LDME sets are enumerated in [50]; the paper should state the inputs used for D_g and D_c and show how the ratios in Table II change across those five sets.
  2. [§V, Table I and Eq. (22)] The LDMEs are taken from a single potential model [11] with no quoted uncertainty. Because the absolute cross sections in Table II and Figs. 3–4 scale linearly with these LDMEs, the choice of model is a load-bearing input for every numerical prediction. The authors should quote at least the range spanned by the five model sets mentioned in the footnote, and show how the absolute cross sections and the relative ordering of D_q, D_g, and D_c behave under that spread.
  3. [§V, Eqs. (1)–(3) and Fig. 3 caption] It is not stated whether D_q in the phenomenological curves represents a single light quark flavor or the sum over u, d, s (and their antiquarks) with the corresponding PDFs. The integrated cross sections in Table II depend directly on this choice. The authors should specify the flavor-sum convention, list the active light flavors, and state how the subprocesses in Eq. (2) are combined in the numerical evaluation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section V] The numerical value of alpha_s used in the SDCs and partonic cross sections is not given; since the SDCs scale as alpha_s^4, the scheme, order, and input value at the initial scale mu = 4m_c are needed for reproducibility.
  2. [Section V] The DGLAP evolution is described as a Runge-Kutta solution including all parton channels, but the number of active flavors, the starting scale, and the treatment of flavor thresholds are not specified.
  3. [Table I and Section III] For the 2++ state, only the LDME <O^(2)_{3,3}> is listed; a sentence explicitly stating that the other color-spin configurations are forbidden by Fermi statistics, consistent with the diquark-antidiquark spin assignment in Section III, would prevent confusion.
  4. [Eq. (22)] The factors 16 and 80 in the vacuum-saturation relation are stated without derivation; a brief reference to the origin of these factors, or an explicit demonstration, would help the reader verify the normalization of Table I.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the light-quark fragmentation SDCs are derived by perturbative matching with external LDME inputs; the headline ordering is a computed comparison, not an input.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained and non-circular. The short-distance coefficients in Eqs. (18)-(21) are obtained by standard NRQCD perturbative matching to a fictitious four-free-charm-quark state, with the matching procedure described in Section IV and no parameter fitted to the predicted T4c cross sections. The long-distance matrix elements in Table I are external inputs from a potential-model wavefunction at the origin via the vacuum-saturation approximation of Eq. (22); they are stated as inputs, not derived from or fitted to the cross-section predictions. The comparison with gluon and charm fragmentation channels uses previously published results [43,50] as external benchmarks; these are independent, peer-reviewed calculations even though authored by overlapping groups, and the present paper's Dq result does not presuppose them. The headline ordering Dg > Dq > Dc is a computed outcome of convoluting independent fragmentation functions with standard partonic cross sections and PDFs, not a relation imposed by construction or by the LDME choice. The acknowledged limitation that only one of five potential-model LDME sets is used, and the lack of explicit restatement of the inputs for the Dg and Dc curves, are reproducibility or model-uncertainty concerns, not circularity: they do not make any predicted quantity equal to an input by definition.

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

Everything needed for the central prediction that is imported rather than derived in this paper: the NRQCD factorization hypothesis, the vacuum saturation approximation, the wavefunction from [11], and the leading-order evolution equations. The perturbative short-distance calculation itself is self-contained, but the normalization of the fragmentation functions and the collider predictions rest on these external or approximate inputs.

free parameters (1)
  • NRQCD LDME values for 1S tetraquarks (from [11]) = <O(0)_{6,6}>=0.0128 GeV^9, <O(0)_{3,6}>=0.0211 GeV^9, <O(0)_{3,3}>=0.0347 GeV^9, <O(2)_{3,3}>=0.072 GeV^9
    These nonperturbative matrix elements set the absolute normalization of the fragmentation functions and hence the cross sections. They are imported from one potential model and are not derived in this paper; the paper itself notes that five different models give different LDMEs in [50].
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption NRQCD factorization for light quark fragmentation into fully-heavy tetraquarks, Eq. (11): the fragmentation function is a sum of perturbative short-distance coefficients times long-distance matrix elements.
    This is the central theoretical framework used throughout; it is standard for quarkonia but less tested for tetraquarks.
  • domain assumption Vacuum saturation approximation, Eq. (22), relating the NRQCD LDMEs to products of four-body wavefunctions at the origin.
    This converts unknown LDMEs into potential-model wavefunction squares; its accuracy for fully-heavy tetraquarks is not established and it is a main source of numerical uncertainty.
  • standard math Perturbative matching: the short-distance coefficients can be extracted by replacing the physical tetraquark with four free charm quarks (Section IV).
    Standard matching procedure in NRQCD; it relies on the short-distance nature of the coefficients.
  • standard math DGLAP evolution with the leading-order splitting kernels of Eqs. (9) and (10) determines the scale dependence of the fragmentation functions.
    Standard QCD evolution; higher-order kernels are neglected.
  • domain assumption Leading-order partonic cross sections, Eqs. (2), (5) and (6), together with CT14llo PDFs and the EPA photon flux, model the high-pT production at LHC and EIC.
    Phenomenological setup; the paper does not include higher-order or resummed corrections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light quark fragmentation into S-wave fully charmed tetraquark." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3IRC4UR7

@misc{pith2026241119296,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light quark fragmentation into S-wave fully charmed tetraquark},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3IRC4UR7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19296}
}
abstract

We compute the fragmentation function of a light quark into S-wave fully-charmed tetraquarks ($T_{4c}$) within the nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD) framework, at leading order in $\alpha_{s}$ and $v$. We present results for light quark fragmentation into $T_{4c}$ and predict its contribution to $T_{4c}$ production at high transverse momentum ($p_{T}$) at the LHC and EIC. We also compare light quark fragmentation with charm quark and gluon fragmentation channels. Our analysis shows that the production cross section for $T_{4c}$ from light quark fragmentation is smaller than that from gluon fragmentation but larger than that from charm quark fragmentation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19296 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Typical Feynman diagram for the fragmentation function of a light quark into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Fragmentation functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to electromagnetic production and decay of fully charm tetraquarks

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The first NLO QCD corrections to fully charm tetraquark → γγ decay are given, with photon-fusion production cross sections predicted.

  2. Bottomoniumlike states in proton collisions: Fragmentation and resummation

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    New TQHL1.1 and TQ4Q1.1 fragmentation functions for doubly and fully bottomed tetraquarks are constructed and evolved, yielding first predictions for bottom-tetraquark plus jet distributions at 14 and 100 TeV.

  3. All-charm tetraquarks at hadron colliders: A high-precision fragmentation perspective

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.5 of 10

    TQ4Q2.0 supplies the first complete, uncertainty-quantified set of NRQCD-based fragmentation functions for all-heavy tetraquarks, including nonconstituent channels and public grids for jet-associated production.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [50]

    X. W. Bai, F. Feng, C. M. Gan, Y. Huang, W. L. Sang and H. F. Zhang, JHEP 09, 002 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2024)002 [arXiv:2404.13889 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [11]

    Q. F. L¨ u, D. Y. Chen and Y. B. Dong, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.9, 871 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08454-1 [arXiv:2006.14445 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [1]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Sci. Bull. 65, no.23, 1983-1993 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.scib.2020.08.032 [arXiv:2006.16957 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [2]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. [ATLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, no.15, 151902 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.151902 [arXiv:2304.08962 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [3]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. [CMS], Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, no.11, 111901 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.111901 [arXiv:2306.07164 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [4]

    Iwasaki, Phys

    Y. Iwasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1266 (1976) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.36.1266

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.36.1266 1976

  7. [5]

    K. T. Chao, Z. Phys. C 7, 317 (1981) doi:10.1007/BF01431564

    doi:10.1007/bf01431564 1981

  8. [6]

    J. P. Ader, J. M. Richard and P. Taxil, Phys. Rev. D 25, 2370 (1982) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.25.2370

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.25.2370 1982

Show all 69 references
  1. [7]

    J. Wu, Y. R. Liu, K. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.9, 094015 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.094015 [arXiv:1605.01134 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Becchi, J

    C. Becchi, J. Ferretti, A. Giachino, L. Maiani and E. Santopinto, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135952 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135952 [arXiv:2006.14388 [hep-ph]]

    2020

  3. [9]

    V. R. Debastiani and F. S. Navarra, Chin. Phys. C 43, no.1, 013105 (2019) doi:10.1088/1674- 1137/43/1/013105 [arXiv:1706.07553 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [10]

    M. A. Bedolla, J. Ferretti, C. D. Roberts and E. Santopinto, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.11, 1004 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08579-3 [arXiv:1911.00960 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

    M. S. liu, F. X. Liu, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.7, 076017 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.076017 [arXiv:2006.11952 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    J. Zhao, S. Shi and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.11, 114001 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.114001 [arXiv:2009.10319 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Z. Zhao, K. Xu, A. Kaewsnod, X. Liu, A. Limphirat and Y. Yan, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.11, 116027 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.116027 [arXiv:2012.15554 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    J. F. Giron and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.7, 074003 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.074003 [arXiv:2008.01631 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [16]

    H. W. Ke, X. Han, X. H. Liu and Y. L. Shi, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.5, 427 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09229-y [arXiv:2103.13140 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    X. Jin, Y. Xue, H. Huang and J. Ping, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.11, 1083 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08650-z [arXiv:2006.13745 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    G. J. Wang, Q. Meng and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.9, 096005 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.096005 [arXiv:2208.07292 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    W. L. Wu, Y. K. Chen, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.5, 054034 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.054034 [arXiv:2401.14899 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Y. Bai, S. Lu and J. Osborne, Phys. Lett. B 798, 134930 (2019) 13 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134930 [arXiv:1612.00012 [hep-ph]]

    2019

  14. [21]

    M. C. Gordillo, F. De Soto and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.11, 114007 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.114007 [arXiv:2009.11889 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [22]

    G. J. Wang, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.9, 096013 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.096013 [arXiv:1907.05177 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [23]

    G. J. Wang, L. Meng, M. Oka and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.3, 036016 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.036016 [arXiv:2105.13109 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [24]

    F. X. Liu, M. S. Liu, X. H. Zhong and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.11, 116029 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.116029 [arXiv:2110.09052 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [25]

    G. L. Yu, Z. Y. Li, Z. G. Wang, J. Lu and M. Yan, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.5, 416 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11445-7 [arXiv:2212.14339 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Mutuk, Eur

    H. Mutuk, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.4, 367 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09176-8 [arXiv:2104.11823 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Tiwari, D

    R. Tiwari, D. P. Rathaud and A. K. Rai, Indian J. Phys. 97, no.3, 943-954 (2023) doi:10.1007/s12648-022-02427-8 [arXiv:2108.04017 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [28]

    R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin and E. M. Savchenko, Symmetry 14, no.12, 2504 (2022) doi:10.3390/sym14122504 [arXiv:2210.16015 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Sci. Bull. 65, 1994-2000 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.scib.2020.08.038 [arXiv:2006.16027 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Z. G. Wang, Chin. Phys. C 44, no.11, 113106 (2020) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abb080 [arXiv:2006.13028 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [31]

    B. C. Yang, L. Tang and C. F. Qiao, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.4, 324 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09096-7 [arXiv:2012.04463 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [32]

    B. D. Wan and C. F. Qiao, Phys. Lett. B 817, 136339 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136339 [arXiv:2012.00454 [hep-ph]]

    2021

  26. [33]

    J. R. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.1, 014018 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.014018 [arXiv:2010.07719 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [34]

    C. M. Tang, C. G. Duan and L. Tang, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.7, 743 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13102-z [arXiv:2405.05042 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Hughes, E

    C. Hughes, E. Eichten and C. T. H. Davies, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.5, 054505 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.054505 [arXiv:1710.03236 [hep-lat]]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [36]

    W. L. Sang, T. Wang, Y. D. Zhang and F. Feng, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.5, 056016 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.056016 [arXiv:2307.16150 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [37]

    H. F. Zhang, X. M. Mo and Y. P. Yan, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.9, 096021 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.096021 [arXiv:2312.10850 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [38]

    H. X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y. R. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Rept. Prog. Phys. 86, no.2, 026201 (2023) doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aca3b6 [arXiv:2204.02649 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Maciu la, W

    R. Maciu la, W. Sch¨ afer and A. Szczurek, Phys. Lett. B 812, 136010 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.136010 [arXiv:2009.02100 [hep-ph]]

    2021

  33. [40]

    Carvalho, E

    F. Carvalho, E. R. Cazaroto, V. P. Gon¸ calves and F. S. Navarra, Phys. Rev. D 93, no.3, 034004 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.034004 [arXiv:1511.05209 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Karliner, S

    M. Karliner, S. Nussinov and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 95, no.3, 034011 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.034011 [arXiv:1611.00348 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [42]

    A. V. Berezhnoy, A. K. Likhoded, A. V. Luchinsky and A. A. Novoselov, Phys. Rev. D 84, 094023 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.094023 [arXiv:1101.5881 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  36. [43]

    F. Feng, Y. Huang, Y. Jia, W. L. Sang, X. Xiong and J. Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.11, 14 114029 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.114029 [arXiv:2009.08450 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [44]

    F. Feng, Y. Huang, Y. Jia, W. L. Sang and J. Y. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 818, 136368 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136368 [arXiv:2011.03039 [hep-ph]]

    2021

  38. [45]

    H. F. Zhang and Y. Q. Ma, [arXiv:2009.08376 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Huang, F

    Y. Huang, F. Feng, Y. Jia, W. L. Sang, D. S. Yang and J. Y. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 45, no.9, 093101 (2021) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac0b38 [arXiv:2104.03887 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Zhu, Nucl

    R. Zhu, Nucl. Phys. B 966, 115393 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115393 [arXiv:2010.09082 [hep-ph]]

    2021

  41. [48]

    F. Feng, Y. Huang, Y. Jia, W. L. Sang, D. S. Yang and J. Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.5, L051501 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.L051501 [arXiv:2304.11142 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [49]

    F. Feng, Y. Huang, Y. Jia, W. L. Sang, D. S. Yang and J. Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.5, 054007 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.054007 [arXiv:2311.08292 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper and G. F. Sterman, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 5, 1-91 (1989) doi:10.1142/9789814503266 0001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0409313 [hep-ph]]

    1989 arXiv

  44. [52]

    F. G. Celiberto, G. Gatto and A. Papa, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.10, 1071 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13345-w [arXiv:2405.14773 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer and M. Spira, Z. Phys. C 76, 689-700 (1997) doi:10.1007/s002880050591 [arXiv:hep-ph/9610267 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Flore, J

    C. Flore, J. P. Lansberg, H. S. Shao and Y. Yedelkina, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135926 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135926 [arXiv:2009.08264 [hep-ph]]

    2020

  47. [55]

    J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B 194, 445-492 (1982) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(82)90021-9

    1982 doi

  48. [56]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B 126, 298-318 (1977) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90384- 4

    1977 doi

  49. [57]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP 46, 641-653 (1977)

    1977

  50. [58]

    V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 438-450 (1972) IPTI-381-71

    1972

  51. [59]

    L. N. Lipatov, Yad. Fiz. 20, 181-198 (1974)

    1974

  52. [60]

    Suzuki, Phys

    M. Suzuki, Phys. Lett. B 71, 139-141 (1977) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90761-4

    1977 doi

  53. [61]

    Cacciari and M

    M. Cacciari and M. Greco, Nucl. Phys. B 421, 530-544 (1994) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(94)90515-0 [arXiv:hep-ph/9311260 [hep-ph]]

    1994 arXiv

  54. [62]

    B. A. Kniehl, G. Kramer, I. Schienbein and H. Spiesberger, Eur. Phys. J. C 41, 199-212 (2005) doi:10.1140/epjc/s2005-02200-7 [arXiv:hep-ph/0502194 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Petrelli, M

    A. Petrelli, M. Cacciari, M. Greco, F. Maltoni and M. L. Mangano, Nucl. Phys. B514, 245-309 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00801-8 [arXiv:hep-ph/9707223 [hep-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Binosi, J

    D. Binosi, J. Collins, C. Kaufhold and L. Theussl, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 1709-1715 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2009.02.020 [arXiv:0811.4113 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Hahn, Comput

    T. Hahn, Comput. Phys. Commun. 140, 418-431 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0010-4655(01)00290-9 [arXiv:hep-ph/0012260 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Mertig, M

    R. Mertig, M. Bohm and A. Denner, Comput. Phys. Commun. 64, 345-359 (1991) doi:10.1016/0010-4655(91)90130-D

    1991 doi

  59. [67]

    Feng and R

    F. Feng and R. Mertig, [arXiv:1212.3522 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Belov, A

    I. Belov, A. Giachino and E. Santopinto, [arXiv:2409.12070 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    Dulat, T

    S. Dulat, T. J. Hou, J. Gao, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, C. Schmidt, D. Stump and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 93, no.3, 033006 (2016) 15 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.033006 [arXiv:1506.07443 [hep-ph]]. 16

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

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