Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

QCD factorization with multihadron fragmentation functions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Standard fragmentation functions hold for multi-hadron final states.

desk verdict A careful, honest derivation that the standard 1/(4ξ) fragmentation function definition holds for small-mass n-hadron final states at leading power, with the all-orders QCD extension asserted rather than proven; deserves serious peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12282 v1 pith:7UN3PKBT submitted 2024-12-16 hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-th

T. C. Rogers , M. Radici , A. Courtoy , T. Rainaldi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-exnucl-th PACS 12.38.-t
keywords QCDfactorizationfragmentationfunctionsdihadronn-hadronfinalstatessemi-inclusivee+e-annihilationcollinearoperatordefinitionevolutionkernels
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

The paper retraces the collinear-factorization derivation for unpolarized semi-inclusive e+e- annihilation into a small-mass cluster of n hadrons and concludes that the standard operator definition of a fragmentation function, with its usual 1/(4\xi) prefactor, applies unchanged when the single hadron is replaced by an n-hadron state. If correct, this preserves the universality of hard parts and evolution kernels across single- and multi-hadron fragmentation, and it removes a formal objection raised against most past dihadron phenomenology. The paper also argues that alternative definitions with extra momentum-fraction-dependent prefactors are not consistent with factorization, because they would force the hadron-dependent factors into the hard part and change the evolution kernels. The weight of the argument falls on the factorization chain being independent of the observed final state, with the extension to full QCD and higher orders asserted as straightforward.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the light-cone fragmentation function operator, whose collinear form is the standard single-hadron definition with the observed state changed to an n-hadron system, namely d(\xi,\{ph\}) ~ (\xi/4) \int [dk^- $d^{2}$kT/(2\pi)^4] Tr[(\gamma^+/2) J1(\tilde{k},\{ph\})]. The derivation relies on separating the partonic momentum into 'hatted' collinear momenta \hat{k},\hat{k}_2 for the hard part and 'tilde' momenta \tilde{k},\tilde{k}_2 for the collinear subgraphs, and on keeping the distinction between the partonic momentum fractions \xi_i and the external kinematical variables z_i; conflating the two is the identified error in the alternative definition. This machinery shows the 1/(4\xi) prefactor comes from the parton momentum, while the phase-space Jacobians for the observed hadrons belong to the cross section rather than to the universal fragmentation function.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to compute the two-loop virtual correction to the n-hadron fragmentation function in a Yukawa model and see whether the same ultraviolet counterterm that renormalizes the single-hadron function also cancels all collinear poles for n=2; if a hadron-dependent prefactor is required, the standard definition is not universal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for the process l^+l^- -> {h1,...,hn}+X with $M_h^{2}$ << $Q^{2}$, no new physics enters in the fragmentation function: the same light-cone operator that defines single-hadron fragmentation, with prefactor 1/(4\xi), defines the n-hadron fragmentation function after inserting the n-hadron state in the matrix element. The \xi prefactor arises from the fragmenting parton momentum, not from the hadronic phase space, so the factorization formula takes the standard form with the same partonic hard tensor and the same DGLAP kernels. Retracing the steps with a recently proposed nonuniversal prefactor 1/(\xi1...\xi n) shows that it must be accompanied by extra powers of \xi in the hard part, and the paper demonstrates in a Yukawa model that such a modified prefactor changes the renormalization factor and therefore the evolution kernel. Consequences for a multiplicity sum rule are diagnosed as invalid outside the factorization region and in QCD.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simplified, non-gauge, one-flavour derivation extends without change to full QCD with gauge links and to all orders; the paper says this is straightforward and that the trend continues, but does not prove it explicitly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing extractions of dihadron fragmentation functions built on the standard definition remain consistent with collinear QCD factorization, with no correction factor applied to their hard parts.
  • The same DGLAP evolution kernels apply to n-hadron fragmentation functions as to single-hadron ones, because the renormalization factor does not depend on the observed hadron state.
  • Definitions that multiply the fragmentation operator by extra factors of \xi would force those factors into the hard part and would alter the evolution kernels, as shown by the paper's model calculation.
  • When the cross section is written in variables such as M_h, \zeta, or z1,z2,l_T, the accompanying Jacobian factors belong to the phase-space convention, not to the universal fragmentation function.
  • The same reasoning covers polarization-sensitive quantities such as interference fragmentation functions, since the argument does not depend on spin.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct consequence of the paper's logic is that any phenomenological implementation that sets the parton momentum fraction equal to the observed hadron momentum fraction before factorization must be re-examined at higher orders, because that identification is only exact at zeroth order.
  • One testable extension is to compute the two-loop collinear fragmentation function for a two-hadron final state in a simple Yukawa theory under the modified prefactor definition and check whether its evolution kernel departs from the single-hadron DGLAP kernel; the paper only sketches this at one loop.
  • If the standard definition is correct, then extractions that use the same cross-section formula but cite different operator definitions should agree within uncertainties; the paper leaves that comparison as future work.
  • The argument suggests that exact multiplicity sum rules of the type used to motivate the modified prefactors should not be imposed as constraints on fragmentation functions, since such sum rules fail in QCD and outside the factorization region.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper revisits collinear factorization for e+e- annihilation into a small-mass n-hadron system plus unobserved particles. Working in a deliberately simplified non-gauge, single-flavor theory with a zeroth-order hard part, the authors retrace the derivation of the factorized hadronic tensor and show that the resulting fragmentation function is the standard single-hadron operator definition, with the usual 1/(4\xi) prefactor, extended to an n-hadron final state. They verify this for two different choices of dihadron kinematical variables, compare their result in detail with the alternative definition of Ref. [29] (Appendix B), and argue in Appendix C, using a scalar Yukawa model, that introducing n-hadron-dependent prefactors would modify the renormalization factor and hence the evolution kernel. The paper concludes that the standard operator definition remains universal for multihadron states and that previous dihadron phenomenology based on that definition is not compromised.

Significance. If the full-QCD generalization holds, the paper settles an important formal controversy: the standard Bacchetta-Radici-style dihadron fragmentation function, rather than the modified definition advocated by the JAM collaboration in Ref. [29], is the object that follows from collinear factorization with unchanged hard parts and evolution kernels. The paper has genuine strengths: the leading-power derivation in Sec. IV is careful about which momentum components can be approximated; the identification of the factorized coefficient with the operator definition in Sec. V is explicit; Sec. VII provides a thorough treatment of Jacobian factors for two common phase-space variable choices; and Appendix B gives a concrete translation between the competing operator definitions and shows how the alternative prefactors arise from imposing a sum rule rather than from factorization. The cross-section manipulations in the simplified theory are internally coherent.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. II and IV, Eq. (70)] The claim that the standard n-hadron operator definition applies with the same hard parts and evolution kernels is derived only in a non-gauge, single-flavor theory at zeroth order in the hard part. The extension to full QCD is justified by the statements in Sec. II that it is "straightforward, based on existing derivations" and in Sec. IV that "the trend continues to higher orders," but no explicit QCD all-order or one-loop calculation with Wilson lines and final-state cuts is provided. Since this extension is exactly the load-bearing part of the paper's principal conclusion, the manuscript should either supply that check or explicitly narrow the theorem to the simplified theory and present the QCD statement as an expectation rather than a verified result.
  2. [Sec. VIII, Eq. (134), and Appendix C] The h-independence of the renormalization factor Zj'j, which is the basis for the "same evolution kernels" claim, is demonstrated only in a scalar Yukawa toy model with an overall constant prefactor ratio. No QCD one-loop computation of the counterterm for the operator in Eq. (79) with the Wilson line is shown. The argument that a nontrivial prefactor N(\xi) would change Z is convincing in the toy model, but the converse statement for real QCD is not established; if the MS counterterm for Eq. (79) acquired dependence on Mh, \zeta, or n, the evolution kernel would no longer be universal and the hard parts would require compensating factors. This is a missing check rather than a demonstrated error, but it is central to the paper's claim of unchanged DGLAP kernels.
  3. [Sec. IX and Sec. VII A, Eqs. (108)-(112)] The abstract claims that past dihadron phenomenology is reaffirmed with "the same hard parts and evolution kernels," but Sec. IX explicitly acknowledges that reduced fragmentation functions obtained by integrating over Mh can acquire extra evolution terms (citing Ref. [45]). Since most phenomenological applications, including the cited works, use reduced dihadron fragmentation functions rather than the unintegrated operator definition, the paper's conclusion is broader than what the derivation establishes. The manuscript should clearly separate the universal statement for the unintegrated operator definition from the reduced quantities used in fits, for which the evolution equations are not shown to be unchanged.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II] There is a typo in the opening paragraph: "semi-inclusive annhilation" should read "semi-inclusive annihilation."
  2. [Sec. VII] The heading "Variable choice B" is typeset as "V aryable choice B" in the manuscript; this should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (46)-(52)] The distinction between "hatted" approximations (\hat{k}, \hat{k}_2), used for hard partons, and "tilde" approximations (\tilde{k}, \tilde{k}_2), used inside collinear subgraphs, is central to the derivation. A short summary table of frames and approximations would make this section noticeably easier to follow.
  4. [Sec. VIII, Eq. (132)] The prefactor 1/(64\pi^3 \xi_1 \xi_2) is clear after the equality \xi_1\xi_2=\xi^2 x_1 x_2 is written, but for readability it would help to define x_1 and x_2 immediately before Eq. (132) rather than relying on Eq. (97).
  5. [Appendix C, Eqs. (C4)-(C6)] The notation Z^{[O(g^2)]}_{q/s}(\xi) and the use of the dummy index j' in Eq. (C4) is slightly confusing; the authors may wish to clarify that the sum over j' collapses to the quark-in-scalar channel at this order and that no sum over hadron types is implied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the standard prefactor is derived from the factorized cross section, not fitted or imported; self-citations are supporting but not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the standard n-hadron fragmentation operator definition with prefactor 1/(4ξ) is the one consistent with collinear factorization. This is established by a derivation: the factorized hadronic tensor in Eq. (70) is obtained by power-counting and kinematical approximations in Sec. IV, and Eq. (81) shows that the collinear factor exactly equals the operator definition in Eq. (79). The 1/(4ξ) prefactor is not assumed as an input; it is forced by matching to the partonic tensor cW_SI and the parton-frame phase space, as explained after Eq. (69). No parameters are fitted, and no 'prediction' reduces to an input. The rejection of the alternative definition in Sec. VIII follows from the same factorized expression: with the alternative prefactor one must insert an extra ξ into the hard part (Eqs. (137)–(140)), and the evolution-kernel argument in Appendix C is a model demonstration of the general renormalization-structure statement, not a circular reuse of the conclusion. Self-citations such as Refs. [42,43] are used to support the failure of the sum rule in Eq. (133), but that sum-rule argument is peripheral to the derivation of the standard prefactor rather than load-bearing for it. The acknowledged gaps—that the extension from zeroth-order non-gauge theory to full QCD with Wilson lines and all orders is asserted rather than proven, and that reduced fragmentation functions can acquire additional evolution terms (Sec. IX)—are limitations in proof completeness, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new parameters or entities. It relies on standard factorization background, a domain restriction to single-parton fragmentation kinematics, and a physical argument about the invalidity of a sum rule.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The standard single-hadron collinear factorization theorem for SIA is valid and can serve as a template.
    The derivation in Sec. IV follows Ref. [22] and assumes the factorization structure for n=1 is correct.
  • domain assumption At leading power for M_h^2 << Q^2, only the single-parton fragmentation region contributes; two-parton fragmentation is power suppressed.
    Stated in Sec. II as the only channel considered; factorization in this region is what is being reviewed.
  • standard math The forward subgraph J2 sums to unity at leading power.
    Invoked after Eq. (66) via unitarity arguments from Ref. [22]; verified at lowest order in the text.
  • domain assumption The multiplicity sum rule used by the alternative proposal is invalid because partonic states do not overlap with hadronic states and the integral is UV divergent.
    Argued in Sec. VIII using Ref. [43]; this is a physical assertion about QCD, not proven within the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QCD factorization with multihadron fragmentation functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7UN3PKBT

@misc{pith2026241212282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QCD factorization with multihadron fragmentation functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7UN3PKBT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12282}
}
abstract

Important aspects of QCD factorization theorems are the properties of the objects involved that can be identified as universal. One example is that the definitions of parton densities and fragmentation functions for different types of hadrons differ only in the identity of the nonperturbative states that form the matrix elements, but are otherwise the same. This leads to independence of perturbative calculations on nonperturbative details of external states. It also lends support to interpretations of correlation functions as encapsulations of intrinsic nonperturbative properties. These characteristics have usually been presumed to still hold true in fragmentation functions even when the observed nonperturbative state is a small-mass cluster of $n$ hadrons rather than simply a single isolated hadron. However, the multidifferential aspect of cross sections that rely on these latter types of fragmentation functions complicates the treatment of kinematical approximations in factorization derivations. That has led to recent claims that the operator definitions for fragmentation functions need to be modified from the single hadron case with nonuniversal prefactors. With such concerns as our motivation, we retrace the steps for factorizing the unpolarized semi-inclusive $e^+e^-$ annihilation cross section and confirm that they do apply without modification to the case of a small-mass multihadron observed in the final state. In particular, we verify that the standard operator definition from single hadron fragmentation, with its usual prefactor, remains equally valid for the small-mass $n$-hadron case with the same hard parts and evolution kernels, whereas the more recently proposed definitions with nonuniversal prefactors do not. Our results reaffirm the reliability of most past phenomenological applications of dihadron fragmentation functions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12282 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The leading region contributing to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The separation into factors in Eq. (66). The hooks represent the application of the approximations in Eq. (53) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The zeroth order contribution to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Graphs contributing to a single hadron (a) and a dihadron (b) fragmentation function in the Yukawa theory of Eq. (135). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Figure 4 with the large [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Benchmarking the Nearside Energy-Energy Correlators with Mellin Transform

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Mellin-transform framework with one fitted transition scale Λ describes nearside EECs in e+e− annihilation at NNLO+NNLL accuracy across ALEPH and earlier data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [29]

    H. H. Matevosyan, A. Kotzinian, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 96, 074010 (2017), 1707.04999

    arXiv 2017

  2. [45]

    Collins and T

    J. Collins and T. C. Rogers, Phys. Rev. D 109, 016006 (2024), 2309.03346. 22, 30

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Reference [29] conflates parton momentum and hadron momentum, and in particular the parton momentum fractions that we call ξ1, ξ2, and ξ are identified with the external kinematical variables like z1, z2, and z. While these are fixed by a δ-function to be numerically equal in zeroth order hard scattering, they have different roles in factorization and in ...

    work page

  4. [2]

    quark” and ϕ is a scalar “hadron

    The treatment in Ref. [29] infers the form of the dihadron fragmentation function from the requirement that an incorrect sum rule of the type X hadron types Z dξ1 dξ2 d2pph1T d2pph2T . . . d(ξ, pphT, {phn }) = ⟨Nn⟩ (133) must be preserved, where ⟨Nn⟩ is a multiplicity of observed final state n-hadrons. The specific argument of Ref. [29] is that the normal...

    work page 2019

  5. [3]

    Gamberg, M

    L. Gamberg, M. Malda, J. A. Miller, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, and N. Sato (Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM), Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum), Phys. Rev. D 106, 034014 (2022), 2205.00999. 2

    arXiv 2022

  6. [4]

    G. R. Goldstein, J. O. Gonzalez Hernandez, and S. Liuti, Phys. Rev. D 91, 114013 (2015), 1311.0483. 2

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  7. [5]

    D. Boer, R. Jakob, and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D 67, 094003 (2003), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 98, 039902 (2018)], hep- ph/0302232. 2

    work page arXiv 2003

  8. [6]

    Courtoy, A

    A. Courtoy, A. Bacchetta, M. Radici, and A. Bianconi, Phys. Rev. D85, 114023 (2012), 1202.0323. 18, 24, 25 32

    arXiv 2012

Show all 48 references
  1. [7]

    Radici, A

    M. Radici, A. Courtoy, A. Bacchetta, and M. Guagnelli, JHEP 05, 123 (2015), 1503.03495. 2

    2015 arXiv

  2. [8]

    H. H. Matevosyan, A. Bacchetta, D. Boer, A. Courtoy, A. Kotzinian, M. Radici, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 97, 074019 (2018), 1802.01578. 2

    2018 arXiv

  3. [9]

    J. C. Collins, S. F. Heppelmann, and G. A. Ladinsky, Nucl. Phys. B420, 565 (1994), hep-ph/9305309. 2

    1994 arXiv

  4. [10]

    J. C. Collins and G. A. Ladinsky (1994), hep-ph/9411444. 2

    1994 arXiv

  5. [11]

    R. L. Jaffe, X. Jin, and J. Tang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1166 (1998), hep-ph/9709322

    1998 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Bianconi, S

    A. Bianconi, S. Boffi, R. Jakob, and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D 62, 034008 (2000), hep-ph/9907475. 2, 18, 25, 27

    2000 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Radici, R

    M. Radici, R. Jakob, and A. Bianconi, Phys. Rev. D 65, 074031 (2002), hep-ph/0110252

    2002 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Bacchetta and M

    A. Bacchetta and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D 67, 094002 (2003), hep-ph/0212300. 2, 25

    2003 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Bacchetta and M

    A. Bacchetta and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D69, 074026 (2004), hep-ph/0311173. 18, 27, 28, 30

    2004 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Bacchetta and M

    A. Bacchetta and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D70, 094032 (2004), hep-ph/0409174

    2004 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Bacchetta, A

    A. Bacchetta, A. Courtoy, and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 012001 (2011), 1104.3855

    2011 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Bacchetta, A

    A. Bacchetta, A. Courtoy, and M. Radici, JHEP 03, 119 (2013), 1212.3568

    2013 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Bacchetta, F

    A. Bacchetta, F. A. Ceccopieri, A. Mukherjee, and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D79, 034029 (2009), 0812.0611

    2009 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Courtoy, S

    A. Courtoy, S. Baeßler, M. Gonz´ alez-Alonso, and S. Liuti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 162001 (2015), 1503.06814

    2015 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Radici, A

    M. Radici, A. M. Ricci, A. Bacchetta, and A. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D94, 034012 (2016), 1604.06585

    2016 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Radici and A

    M. Radici and A. Bacchetta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 192001 (2018), 1802.05212

    2018 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Benel, A

    J. Benel, A. Courtoy, and R. Ferro-Hernandez, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 465 (2020), 1912.03289. 2

    2020 arXiv

  18. [24]

    J. C. Collins, Foundations of Perturbative QCD (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011). 2, 3, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 23

    2011

  19. [25]

    J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B194, 445 (1982). 2, 12

    1982

  20. [26]

    Bianconi, S

    A. Bianconi, S. Boffi, R. Jakob, and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D62, 034009 (2000), hep-ph/9907488. 2

    2000 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Bacchetta and M

    A. Bacchetta and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D74, 114007 (2006), hep-ph/0608037

    2006 arXiv

  22. [28]

    H. H. Matevosyan, A. W. Thomas, and W. Bentz, Phys. Rev. D 88, 094022 (2013), 1310.1917

    2013 arXiv

  23. [30]

    H. H. Matevosyan, A. Kotzinian, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 97, 014019 (2018), 1709.08643. 2

    2018 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Pitonyak, C

    D. Pitonyak, C. Cocuzza, A. Metz, A. Prokudin, and N. Sato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 011902 (2024), 2305.11995. 2, 5, 15, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Cocuzza, A

    C. Cocuzza, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, N. Sato, and R. Seidl (Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM)), Phys. Rev. D 109, 034024 (2024), 2308.14857. 2, 25, 27

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Cocuzza, A

    C. Cocuzza, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, N. Sato, and R. Seidl (JAM), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 091901 (2024), 2306.12998. 2

    2024 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Bacchetta, M

    A. Bacchetta, M. G. Echevarria, P. J. G. Mulders, M. Radici, and A. Signori, JHEP 11, 076 (2015), 1508.00402. 2

    2015 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Vossen, R

    A. Vossen, R. Seidl, I. Adachi, H. Aihara, T. Aushev, et al. (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 072004 (2011), 1104.2425. 2

    2011 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Seidl et al

    R. Seidl et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 96, 032005 (2017), 1706.08348. 2

    2017 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Qiu and G

    J. Qiu and G. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B353, 105 (1991). 3

    1991

  31. [38]

    Qiu and G

    J.-w. Qiu and G. F. Sterman, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 12, 149 (2003), hep-ph/0111002

    2003 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Qiu (2003), hep-ph/0305161

    J.-w. Qiu (2003), hep-ph/0305161. 3

    2003 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Majumder and X.-N

    A. Majumder and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 72, 034007 (2005), hep-ph/0411174. 5

    2005 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Majumder and X.-N

    A. Majumder and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 70, 014007 (2004), hep-ph/0402245. 19, 20, 21

    2004 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Metz, Nucleon transversity and tensor charge from di-hadron production (2024), URL https://indico.cfnssbu

    A. Metz, Nucleon transversity and tensor charge from di-hadron production (2024), URL https://indico.cfnssbu. physics.sunysb.edu/event/250/contributions/893/. 22

    2024

  36. [43]

    Pitonyak, Transversity from single-hadron tssas and dihadron fragmentation theory developments (2024), URL https: //agenda.infn.it/event/38132/contributions/234378/

    D. Pitonyak, Transversity from single-hadron tssas and dihadron fragmentation theory developments (2024), URL https: //agenda.infn.it/event/38132/contributions/234378/. 22

    2024

  37. [44]

    Rogers and A

    T. Rogers and A. Courtoy (2024), 2404.02281. 22, 30

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    de Florian and L

    D. de Florian and L. Vanni, Phys. Lett. B 578, 139 (2004), hep-ph/0310196. 25

    2004 arXiv

  39. [47]

    F. A. Ceccopieri, M. Radici, and A. Bacchetta, Phys. Lett. B 650, 81 (2007), hep-ph/0703265. 25

    2007 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Zhou and A

    J. Zhou and A. Metz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 172001 (2011), 1101.3273. 25

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

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