Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

A simple non-parametric reconstruction of parton distributions from limited Fourier information

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a Gaussian process prior with fixed, physically motivated hyperparameters turns a limited set of low-frequency Fourier modes of a parton distribution into a complete reconstruction with exactly Gaussian…

desk verdict A practical, honestly presented GP recipe for PDF reconstruction from limited Ioffe-time data, whose main soft spot is the subjective sigma^2 calibration rule that the authors themselves acknowledge. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05227 v1 pith:2I4JAIBJ submitted 2024-12-06 hep-lat hep-ph

Hervé Dutrieux , Joseph Karpie , Kostas Orginos , Savvas Zafeiropoulos This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-lathep-ph
keywords partondistributionfunctionsGaussianprocesspriorBayesianinverseproblemIoffetimelatticeQCDnon-parametricreconstructionuncertaintyquantificationFouriermodes
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

Parton distribution functions (PDFs) encode how quarks and gluons share a hadron's momentum, but first-principles lattice calculations only give access to a limited range of Fourier modes (Ioffe times $\nu$) of the distribution. This paper tries to turn that incomplete Fourier information into a full PDF without imposing a rigid parametric shape. The proposed route is a Gaussian process prior on $x$-space with a logarithmic correlation kernel, with all hyperparameters fixed by physical rules rather than fitted to the data. Because the hyperparameters are fixed, the posterior is exactly Gaussian and analytic, so the reconstruction and its uncertainty can be computed in about a second and shared exactly. If the prior choices are accepted, a handful of low-$\nu$ modes plus this prescription yields a PDF reconstruction with controlled, tunable uncertainty down to small $x$, where common parametric fits tend to produce artificially narrow error bands.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Gaussian process posterior evaluated on a grid of $x$ values, with the logarithmic kernel $K(x,x')=\sigma^2 \exp\left(-\frac{(\ln x-\ln x')^2}{2l^2}\right)$ serving as the prior covariance. The fixed hyperparameter prescription, $l=\ln 2$, $g(x)=\sigma$, and the Fourier-extrapolation rule for $\sigma^2$, is what makes the procedure non-parametric yet fully specified. The posterior mean and covariance are obtained analytically from $\langle f_q(x_i)\rangle = g(x_i)+KB^T[C+BKB^T]^{-1}[M-Bg]$ and $H=(K^{-1}+B^T C^{-1}B)^{-1}$, so the entire reconstruction is an exact multivariate normal distribution and no sampling is required. The kernel's logarithmic argument is the physics-carrying ingredient: it decorrelates behavior at small $x$ from behavior near $x=1$ while enforcing smoothness across ratios $e^{-l}<x/x'<e^{l}$.

What would settle it

A coverage test would settle whether the uncertainty is controlled: simulate many datasets from known input distributions with realistic small-$x$ behavior, keep only the Fourier modes up to $\nu_{\max}=10$, apply the prescription, and count how often the true input lies inside the reported 68% posterior band; coverage clearly below 68% for $x$ below the resolution limit would show the fixed prior is too confident in the extrapolation region.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the ill-posed inverse problem $M(\nu)=\int_{-1}^{1} dx\, e^{ix\nu} f_q(x)$ can be regularized non-parametrically by a Gaussian process prior on $x\in[0,1]$, with covariance $K(x,x')=\sigma^2 \exp\left(-\frac{(\ln x-\ln x')^2}{2l^2}\right)$, mean $g(x)=\sigma$, and the fixed choices $l=\ln 2$, $g(x)=\sigma$, and $\sigma^2$ chosen so that the largest standard deviation of the posterior's Fourier transform for $\nu\ge\nu_{\max}$ equals $\max(1.3\Delta M(\nu_{\max}), 0.3|M(\nu_{\max})|)$. With these choices the posterior is a multivariate normal whose mean and covariance follow from closed-form linear equations, and the paper shows in closure tests and on real lattice data that the reconstruction tracks the input where the data has information and that its uncertainty in $x$ grows roughly as $x\approx 2/\nu_{\max}$ toward small $x$, while remaining under explicit control in the Fourier extrapolation region.

Load-bearing premise

The method's reliability rests on the prior's fixed structure: that parton distributions decorrelate between small and large $x$ on a log scale, and that inflating the last data point's uncertainty by 30% (or 30% of the signal when the signal dominates) is the right way to set extrapolation uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the procedure works as claimed, a lattice calculation reaching only $\nu_{\max}\approx 10$ still yields a useful PDF reconstruction with uncertainty growing near $x\approx 2/\nu_{\max}\approx 0.2$, and the resolved region extends as $\nu_{\max}$ grows.
  • Because the posterior is a multivariate normal, the full reconstruction can be stored and shared exactly as a mean vector and covariance matrix, without Monte Carlo replicas.
  • In the small-$x$ region the non-parametric reconstruction avoids the artificially narrow error bands and numerical instabilities of the $N x^\alpha(1-x)^\beta$ parametric fit, including the bimodal fit distribution seen for the imaginary part at $z=3a$.
  • The same fixed prescription transfers to quasi-PDFs by extending the support to $x\in[0,2]$, where the reconstruction yields tiny contributions outside $[0,1]$ that shrink as the hadron momentum increases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the resolution heuristic $x\approx 2/\nu_{\max}$ gives a concrete planning target—resolving momentum fraction $x_0$ requires Ioffe-time coverage $\nu_{\max}\gtrsim 2/x_0$, which could be used to design future lattice ensembles or to decide when data are sufficient.
  • Editorial extension: because $\sigma^2$ is set from the uncertainty of the last data point, the error bars inherit that point's noise; a robustified variant would estimate the endpoint uncertainty from several trailing points or from a smoothed variance, and the paper's $z=9a$ comparison shows how strongly this choice matters.
  • Editorial extension: the kernel's log-decorrelation assumption is testable—one could introduce a second correlation length or a cross-term linking small and large $x$ and ask whether the data likelihood favors it, which would change the extrapolation uncertainty.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a non-parametric reconstruction of parton distribution functions f_q(x) from limited Fourier information M(ν), using a Gaussian process prior with hyperparameters fixed by a physical prescription. The prior mean is g(x)=σ, the covariance is a squared-exponential kernel in log-x with correlation length l=ln(2), and σ² is chosen so that the maximum posterior standard deviation in the extrapolation region ν∈[νmax,∞] equals max(1.3ΔM(νmax), 0.3|M(νmax)|). The posterior is a multivariate normal distribution that can be computed analytically, making the method numerically efficient. The authors test the procedure with a closure test using 1000 samples of the two-parameter family f_q=N x^α(1-x)^β for νmax=4, 10, and 25, and apply it to lattice QCD data from [30], comparing with a parametric fit of the form N x^α(1-x)^β. The central claim is that this simple, fixed-hyperparameter prescription gives reconstructions with uncertainties that are easy to understand and control.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper offers a computationally inexpensive and transparent alternative to evidence-based hyperparameter sampling for a class of ill-posed inverse problems in lattice QCD. The strengths of the paper are its clean use of the closed-form GP posterior, the explicit algorithm in Section III, the clarity of the closure-test protocol, and the real-data comparison that exposes known pathologies of parametric fits. The paper also gives a falsifiable heuristic, x≈2/νmax in Eq. (12), for the resolution limit. However, the validation is too narrow to fully support the main claim: the closure test uses only one smooth two-parameter input family, and the σ² prescription is calibrated to a single endpoint in Fourier space. The z=9a real-data example in Section V shows that the x-space uncertainty can be strongly altered by the noise of one endpoint. The paper is a useful proposal, but the load-bearing parts of the uncertainty-calibration claim require additional robustness and coverage analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Procedure item 3; §V, Fig. 8–9] The σ² prescription sets the Fourier-space extrapolation uncertainty using only the endpoint value νmax, through max(1.3ΔM(νmax), 0.3|M(νmax)|). The z=9a real-data case in Section V demonstrates the fragility of this rule: when the last datapoint has an unusually large uncertainty, the reconstruction's x-space uncertainty widens considerably, and replacing the endpoint by the former-to-last datapoint gives a qualitatively different posterior (Fig. 8 vs. Fig. 9). The authors acknowledge this by saying 'we may want to not base our extrapolation on this point.' Since the stated goal is to 'understand and keep control easily of the uncertainty,' the procedure should include a robustness test or a criterion for identifying atypical endpoints, otherwise the uncertainty is controlled only in an average sense and can be dominated by a single noisy measurement.
  2. [§IV, Closure test] The closure test is performed with inputs drawn from the single smooth two-parameter family f_q=N x^α(1-x)^β with α~N(-0.2,0.1) and β~N(2.5,0.5). This family does not exercise the small-x/large-x decorrelation that the log-x kernel is designed to encode, because both regimes are tied to the same two parameters. The authors themselves note, at the end of Section IV, that 'it seems unwarranted to assume that the first principles parton distribution would have the simple features of this two-parameter input distribution.' To support the claim of honest uncertainty, the paper should include closure tests with inputs having independent small-x and large-x structure (e.g., sums of terms with different powers or inputs drawn from a broader GP), and it should report coverage probabilities, i.e., the fraction of inputs falling inside the 68% posterior credible intervals as a function of x.
  3. [§III, hyperparameter discussion; comparison to [20]] The paper argues against evidence-based hyperparameter sampling as in [20] on the grounds that it may over-estimate correlation lengths and under-estimate prior variances, but this is supported only by qualitative remarks and by a reference to 'a subsequent publication.' Since the central methodological novelty is the fixed-hyperparameter prescription, the absence of any quantitative comparison with hyperparameter sampling under the same kernel and the same ν range leaves the claimed advantage unsubstantiated. At minimum, the closure test should include a comparison of the fixed prescription with sampling-based hyperparameter inference for at least one νmax, or the paper should state more precisely what evidence would be needed to distinguish the two approaches.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§II, after Eq. (6)] The discussion of the functional determinant via zeta operators or a discretized path integral is not used in the rest of the paper; it could be shortened or moved to a footnote to avoid distracting the reader.
  2. [§III, Procedure item 3] The wording 'the maximal standard deviation ... is exactly max(1.3ΔM(νmax), 0.3|M(νmax)|)' is a bit confusing because the right-hand side is itself a maximum; I suggest rephrasing to 'the posterior maximum over ν∈[νmax,∞] equals the larger of 1.3ΔM(νmax) and 0.3|M(νmax)|.'
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption does not define the normalization used for the y-axis; the text explains it, but the caption should state explicitly that the plotted quantity is (Reconstruction − mean(input))/std(input) so that the figure is self-contained.
  4. [§V, Fig. 9 discussion] The sentence 'Both the parametric and non-parametric then coincide well' would benefit from a quantitative measure of agreement (e.g., a χ² or the fraction of overlapping errors) rather than a visual claim.
  5. [§VI, GPD paragraph] There is a typo: 'per seas' should be 'per se.'
  6. [References] Several references are missing years (e.g., [8], [9], [13], [16], [17], [32]); these should be completed in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the Gaussian-process prior hyperparameters are fixed by an explicit physical prescription, and the closure tests use independent input distributions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained for circularity purposes. Section II uses the standard Gaussian-process posterior mean and covariance, eqs. (7)-(9), cited to [20,21], which are external references and standard results. Section III fixes l=ln(2), g(x)=sigma, and chooses sigma^2 so that the maximal Fourier-space posterior standard deviation for nu >= nu_max equals max(1.3 Delta M(nu_max), 0.3 |M(nu_max)|). This is an explicit prior-calibration rule, not a parameter fitted to the target f_q and not a hidden restatement of the reconstruction: 'We have chosen to require the maximum uncertainty in the extrapolation region [nu_max, +infinity] to be 30% larger than the uncertainty of the point M(nu_max).' The endpoint value and uncertainty are data-space inputs used to set the prior scale; the x-space posterior mean and covariance are then computed from eqs. (7)-(9). The closure test generates 1000 independent samples from f_q = N x^alpha (1-x)^beta and compares the posterior to the known input; although this family is narrow, the hyperparameters are not chosen using the input f_q, so the test is not circular. The real-data sections compare against the parametric ansatz and data from [30]; these are data and method comparisons, not load-bearing self-citations. The paper's own caveats, such as sigma^2 being 'dictated by a perception of what a good extrapolation uncertainty is' and the warning that it is 'unwarranted to assume that the first principles parton distribution would have the simple features of this two-parameter input distribution,' are acknowledged limitations of the prior, not circular reductions. No equation or fitted quantity reduces to the claimed output by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-chosen hyperparameters and a subjective uncertainty target rather than on new physical entities. No free parameters are fitted to the reconstructed function itself; the prior is fixed a priori, which keeps circularity low but shifts the burden to the validity of the prior choices.

free parameters (3)
  • l = ln(2) ≈ 0.693
    Logarithmic correlation length chosen by hand to set the flexibility of the x-dependence; Section III, step 1.
  • prior mean g(x) = sigma
    Chosen to set the posterior at x=0 to one standard deviation above zero, enforcing loose positivity; Section III, step 2.
  • sigma^2 = Determined by max(1.3 Delta M(nu_max), 0.3 |M(nu_max)|) criterion
    Variance scale fixed by an arbitrary target for Fourier-space extrapolation uncertainty; the 1.3 and 0.3 factors are hand-chosen; Section III, step 3.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The posterior of a Gaussian process conditioned on Gaussian data is a multivariate normal given by eqs. (7)-(9).
    Used throughout Section II; standard result in Gaussian process regression.
  • domain assumption The lattice matrix element M(nu) is the Fourier transform ∫_{-1}^{1} e^{i x nu} f_q(x) dx in the short-distance factorization scheme; matching is ignored.
    Equation (2), Section I; this is the inverse problem being solved.
  • domain assumption Parton distributions are smooth functions of log x, and small-x and large-x physics are decorrelated.
    Motivates kernel (11), Section III.
  • ad hoc to paper The extrapolation uncertainty target max(1.3 Delta M(nu_max), 0.3 |M(nu_max)|) is an appropriate calibration for reconstruction uncertainty.
    Section III step 3 and Table I; the paper acknowledges this is a perception-based choice.
  • standard math At x=0 the covariance kernel gives K(0,x')=0, so the posterior equals the prior there.
    Section III explanation 2; used to set 100% uncertainty at x=0.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A simple non-parametric reconstruction of parton distributions from limited Fourier information." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2I4JAIBJ

@misc{pith2026241205227,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A simple non-parametric reconstruction of parton distributions from limited Fourier information},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2I4JAIBJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05227}
}
read the original abstract

Some calculations of parton distributions from first principles only give access to a limited range of Fourier modes of the function to reconstruct. We present a physically motivated procedure to regularize the inverse integral problem using a Gaussian process as a Bayesian prior. We propose to fix the hyperparameters of the prior in a meaningful physical fashion, offering a simple implementation, great numerical efficiency, and allowing us to understand and keep control easily of the uncertainty of the reconstruction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05227 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Explanation of our targeted reconstruction uncer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of the posterior reconstruction for dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The input (green band) represents the known distribution used to generate the fitted dataset (blue points). The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. See caption of Fig. 3. This range in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. See caption of Fig. 3. The range in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Non-parametric (orange) and parametric (red) reconstruction from the real part of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as Fig. 6 for the real part of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as Fig. 6 for the real part of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as Fig. 8 for the real part of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Non-parametric (orange) and parametric (red) reconstruction from the imaginary part of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Same as Fig. 10 for the imaginary part of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Same as Fig. 10 for the imaginary part of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Non-parametric reconstruction of the quasi-PDF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.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. Gradient flow for parton distribution functions: first application to the pion

    hep-lat 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Pion PDF moment ratios up to <x^5> were extracted from lattice QCD with gradient flow and agree with phenomenological fits.

  2. Decoding the proton's gluonic density with lattice QCD-informed machine learning

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A variational autoencoder inverse mapper extracts the proton's gluon PDF from lattice QCD pseudo-Ioffe-time distributions, yielding results consistent with global fits.

  3. Comment on "LaMET's Asymptotic Extrapolation vs. Inverse Problem"

    hep-lat 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper defends the inverse-problem view of LaMET reconstructions and argues that rigid parametric extrapolations underestimate PDF uncertainties when lattice data are noisy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [30]

    Candido, L

    A. Candido, L. Del Debbio, T. Giani, and G. Petrillo, Inverse Problems in PDF determinations, PoS LA T- TICE2022, 098 (2023), arXiv:2302.14731 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [20]

    X. Gao, A. D. Hanlon, N. Karthik, S. Mukherjee, P. Pe- treczky, P. Scior, S. Shi, S. Syritsyn, Y. Zhao, and K. Zhou, Continuum-extrapolated NNLO valence PDF of the pion at the physical point, Phys. Rev. D 106, 114510 (2022), arXiv:2208.02297 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [1]

    Set the logarithmic correlation length to l = ln(2)

    work page

  4. [2]

    Always keep g(x) = σ

    work page

  5. [3]

    Explanations

    Fix σ2 such that the maximal standard de- viation of the Fourier transform of the pos- terior for any ν ∈ [νmax, +∞] is exactly max(1.3∆M (νmax), 0.3|M (νmax)|), where νmax is the maximal value of ν in the dataset 1. Explanations

    work page

  6. [4]

    This is a physics-driven prescription on the degree of flexi- bility that one expects in ordinary parton distribu- tions

    A logarithmic correlation length of ln(2) corre- sponds to starting to decorrelate x = 1 from x = 0 .5, x = 0 .5 from x = 0 .25, etc. This is a physics-driven prescription on the degree of flexi- bility that one expects in ordinary parton distribu- tions. The dataset itself may have features that en- force a stronger smoothness than what this baseline cor...

    work page

  7. [5]

    By picking g(x) = σ, we introduce by definition a prior which is uniformly one standard deviation above 0 for all x. Because our data is not infor- mative on the behavior at the point x = 0 and the prior covariance kernel enforces no correlation in this limit, the posterior is exactly equal to the prior when x = 0. Therefore, the posterior will be just on...

    work page

  8. [6]

    One has typically no control over this feature when sampling over (σ2, l) according to the evidence P(M |I)

    We want the uncertainty to increase in the extrapo- lation region away from νmax. One has typically no control over this feature when sampling over (σ2, l) according to the evidence P(M |I). Yet, a visual inspection of the uncertainty in the extrapolation region is a powerful empirical criterion to evaluate whether an x-space reconstruction is too optimis...

    work page

Show all 54 references
  1. [7]

    Lin, Overview of Lattice Results for Hadron Struc- ture, Few Body Syst

    H.-W. Lin, Overview of Lattice Results for Hadron Struc- ture, Few Body Syst. 64, 58 (2023)

    2023

  2. [8]

    Cichy, L

    K. Cichy, L. Del Debbio, and T. Giani, Parton distribu- tions from lattice data: the nonsinglet case, JHEP 10, 137, arXiv:1907.06037 [hep-ph]

    1907 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Ji, Parton Physics on a Euclidean Lattice, Phys

    X. Ji, Parton Physics on a Euclidean Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 262002 (2013), arXiv:1305.1539 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Ji, Parton Physics from Large-Momentum Effective Field Theory, Sci

    X. Ji, Parton Physics from Large-Momentum Effective Field Theory, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 57, 1407 (2014), arXiv:1404.6680 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [11]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Quasi-parton distribution func- tions, momentum distributions, and pseudo-parton dis- tribution functions, Phys. Rev. D 96, 034025 (2017), arXiv:1705.01488 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [12]

    To isolate the effect of the Fourier transform uncer- tainty and not introduce the question of the perturbative matching which comes with its own separate uncertainty, we Fourier transform directly the object M (ν, z2) defined in eq. (1). Therefore, the various reconstructions...

  7. [13]

    Orginos, A

    K. Orginos, A. Radyushkin, J. Karpie, and S. Zafeiropou- los, Lattice QCD exploration of parton pseudo- distribution functions, Phys. Rev. D 96, 094503 (2017), arXiv:1706.05373 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Constantinou et al., Parton distributions and lattice- QCD calculations: Toward 3D structure, Prog

    M. Constantinou et al., Parton distributions and lattice- QCD calculations: Toward 3D structure, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 121, 103908 (2021), arXiv:2006.08636 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Constantinou, The x-dependence of hadronic parton distributions: A review on the progress of lattice QCD, Eur

    M. Constantinou, The x-dependence of hadronic parton distributions: A review on the progress of lattice QCD, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 77 (2021), arXiv:2010.02445 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Burnier and A

    Y. Burnier and A. Rothkopf, Bayesian Approach to Spec- tral Function Reconstruction for Euclidean Quantum Field Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 182003 (2013), arXiv:1307.6106 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Karpie, K

    J. Karpie, K. Orginos, A. Rothkopf, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Reconstructing parton distribution functions from Ioffe time data: from Bayesian methods to Neural Networks, JHEP 04, 057, arXiv:1901.05408 [hep-lat]

    1901 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Del Debbio, T

    L. Del Debbio, T. Giani, J. Karpie, K. Orginos, A. Radyushkin, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Neural-network analysis of Parton Distribution Functions from Ioffe-time pseudodistributions, JHEP 02, 138, arXiv:2010.03996 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [19]

    For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC-BY public copyright license to any Au- thor Accepted Manuscript (AAM) version arising from this submission. This work was performed in part using computing facilities at William & Mary which were pro- vided by contrib...

    2020

  14. [21]

    T. Khan, T. Liu, and R. S. Sufian, Gluon helicity in the nucleon from lattice QCD and machine learning, Phys. 13 Rev. D 108, 074502 (2023), arXiv:2211.15587 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Backus and F

    G. Backus and F. Gilbert, The Resolving Power of Gross Earth Data, Geophysical Journal International 16, 169 (1968), https://academic.oup.com/gji/article- pdf/16/2/169/5891044/16-2-169.pdf

    1968

  16. [23]

    Hansen, A

    M. Hansen, A. Lupo, and N. Tantalo, Extraction of spec- tral densities from lattice correlators, Phys. Rev. D 99, 094508 (2019), arXiv:1903.06476 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Asakawa, T

    M. Asakawa, T. Hatsuda, and Y. Nakahara, Maxi- mum entropy analysis of the spectral functions in lattice QCD, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 46, 459 (2001), arXiv:hep- lat/0011040

    2001

  18. [25]

    Karpie, K

    J. Karpie, K. Orginos, A. Radyushkin, and S. Zafeiropou- los (HadStruc), The continuum and leading twist limits of parton distribution functions in lattice QCD, JHEP 11, 024, arXiv:2105.13313 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  19. [26]

    Liang, T

    J. Liang, T. Draper, K.-F. Liu, A. Rothkopf, and Y.- B. Yang (XQCD), Towards the nucleon hadronic ten- sor from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 101, 114503 (2020), arXiv:1906.05312 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Alexandrou, G

    C. Alexandrou, G. Iannelli, K. Jansen, and F. Manigrasso (Extended Twisted Mass), Parton distribution functions from lattice QCD using Bayes-Gauss-Fourier transforms, Phys. Rev. D 102, 094508 (2020), arXiv:2007.13800 [hep- lat]

    2020

  21. [28]

    Candido, L

    A. Candido, L. Del Debbio, T. Giani, and G. Petrillo, Bayesian inference with Gaussian processes for the de- termination of parton distribution functions, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 716 (2024), arXiv:2404.07573 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Del Debbio, T

    L. Del Debbio, T. Giani, and M. Wilson, Bayesian ap- proach to inverse problems: an application to NNPDF closure testing, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 330 (2022), arXiv:2111.05787 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Horak, J

    J. Horak, J. M. Pawlowski, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero, J. Turnwald, J. M. Urban, N. Wink, and S. Zafeiropou- los, Reconstructing QCD spectral functions with Gaus- sian processes, Phys. Rev. D 105, 036014 (2022), arXiv:2107.13464 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Horak, J

    J. Horak, J. M. Pawlowski, J. Turnwald, J. M. Urban, N. Wink, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Nonperturbative strong coupling at timelike momenta, Phys. Rev. D 107, 076019 (2023), arXiv:2301.07785 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. M. Pawlowski, C. S. Schneider, J. Turnwald, J. M. Ur- ban, and N. Wink, Yang-Mills glueball masses from spec- tral reconstruction, Phys. Rev. D 108, 076018 (2023), arXiv:2212.01113 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams, Gaussian Pro- cesses for Machine Learning (The MIT Press, 2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    Osgood, R

    B. Osgood, R. Phillips, and P. Sarnak, Extremals of de- terminants of laplacians, Journal of Functional Analysis 80, 148 (1988)

    1988

  28. [36]

    R. D. Ball, E. R. Nocera, and J. Rojo, The asymptotic behaviour of parton distributions at small and large x, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 383 (2016), arXiv:1604.00024 [hep- ph]

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Braun, P

    V. Braun, P. Gornicki, and L. Mankiewicz, Ioffe - time distributions instead of parton momentum distributions in description of deep inelastic scattering, Phys. Rev. D 51, 6036 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9410318

    1995 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Egerer, R

    C. Egerer, R. G. Edwards, C. Kallidonis, K. Orginos, A. V. Radyushkin, D. G. Richards, E. Romero, and S. Zafeiropoulos (HadStruc), Towards high-precision par- ton distributions from lattice QCD via distillation, JHEP 11, 148, arXiv:2107.05199 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, A. Metz, N. Nurminen, and F. Steffens, Generalized parton distri- butions from the pseudodistribution approach on the lat- tice, Phys. Rev. D 110, 054502 (2024), arXiv:2405.04414 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    X. Ji, Y. Liu, A. Sch¨ afer, W. Wang, Y.-B. Yang, J.-H. Zhang, and Y. Zhao, A Hybrid Renormalization Scheme for Quasi Light-Front Correlations in Large-Momentum Effective Theory, Nucl. Phys. B 964, 115311 (2021), arXiv:2008.03886 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    X. Gao, A. D. Hanlon, J. Holligan, N. Karthik, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, S. Syritsyn, and Y. Zhao, Un- polarized proton PDF at NNLO from lattice QCD with physical quark masses, Phys. Rev. D 107, 074509 (2023), arXiv:2212.12569 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    H.-T. Ding, X. Gao, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, Q. Shi, S. Syritsyn, and Y. Zhao, Three-dimensional Imaging of Pion using Lattice QCD: Generalized Parton Distribu- tions, (2024), arXiv:2407.03516 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    M¨ uller, D

    D. M¨ uller, D. Robaschik, B. Geyer, F. M. Dittes, and J. Hoˇ rejˇ si, Wave functions, evolution equations and evo- lution kernels from light ray operators of QCD, Fortsch. Phys. 42, 101 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9812448

    1994 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ji, Deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys

    X.-D. Ji, Deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys. Rev. D 55, 7114 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9609381

    1997 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Nonforward parton distributions, Phys. Rev. D 56, 5524 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9704207

    1997 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Double distributions and evolution equations, Phys. Rev. D 59, 014030 (1999), arXiv:hep- ph/9805342

    1999

  39. [47]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Double distributions and pseu- dodistributions, Phys. Rev. D 109, 014514 (2024), arXiv:2311.06007 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    R. G. Edwards and B. Joo (SciDAC, LHPC, UKQCD), The Chroma software system for lattice QCD, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 140, 832 (2005), arXiv:hep- lat/0409003

    2005

  41. [49]

    Clark, R

    M. Clark, R. Babich, K. Barros, R. Brower, and C. Rebbi, Solving Lattice QCD systems of equations using mixed precision solvers on GPUs, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 1517 (2010), arXiv:0911.3191 [hep-lat]

    2010 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Babich, M

    R. Babich, M. A. Clark, and B. Joo, Parallelizing the QUDA Library for Multi-GPU Calculations in Lattice Quantum Chromodynamics, in SC 10 (Supercomputing

  43. [52]

    Jo´ o, D

    B. Jo´ o, D. D. Kalamkar, T. Kurth, K. Vaidyanathan, and A. Walden, Optimizing Wilson-Dirac Operator and Lin- ear Solvers for Intel ® KNL, in High Performance Com- puting: ISC High Performance 2016 International Work- shops, ExaComm, E-MuCoCoS, HPC-IODC, IXPUG, IWOPH, P 3MA, V...

    2016

  44. [53]

    J. Chen, R. G. Edwards, and W. Mao, Graph Contrac- tions for Calculating Correlation Functions in Lattice QCD, in Platform for Advanced Scientific Computing 14 (2023)

    2023

  45. [54]

    Stanzione, J

    D. Stanzione, J. West, R. T. Evans, T. Minyard, O. Ghat- tas, and D. K. Panda, Frontera: The evolution of lead- ership computing at the national science foundation, in Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Comput- ing, PEARC ’20 (Association for Computing Machinery, New...

    2020

  46. [2010]

    (2010) arXiv:1011.0024 [hep-lat]

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.