Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Global analysis of Sivers and Collins asymmetries within the TMD factorization

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 A global TMD fit including the 2022 COMPASS deuteron data narrows the d and dbar quark Sivers and transversity distributions and tightens the nucleon tensor charge.

desk verdict A useful update of a TMD global fit with new COMPASS deuteron data, but the replica generation understates correlated scale uncertainties, so the headline precision gain may be overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18324 v1 pith:AR2O2B2W submitted 2024-12-24 hep-ph

Chunhua Zeng , Hongxin Dong , Tianbo Liue , Peng Sun , Yuxiang Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords SiversfunctiontransversityCollinsfragmentationTMDfactorizationtransversesingle-spinasymmetrytensorchargesemi-inclusivedeepinelasticscatteringDrell-Yan
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 tries to establish that the newest COMPASS measurements of transverse single-spin asymmetries on a polarized deuteron target, combined with existing world data, sharply improve what we know about the transverse spin structure of sea quarks. The analysis works inside transverse-momentum-dependent (TMD) factorization, where the Sivers function, the transversity distribution, and the Collins fragmentation function encode how a quark's transverse motion and spin are correlated with the nucleon spin. Fitting these functions to semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering, Drell-Yan, and W/Z production data, the authors report that adding the 2022 COMPASS deuteron data notably reduces the uncertainty on the d and dbar Sivers and transversity distributions. The same data tighten the tensor charge, the integral of the isovector combination of transversity, which matters for searches for new physics beyond the Standard Model. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a concrete step toward a three-dimensional picture of the nucleon's spin structure and a sharper handle on sea-quark spin.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the ζ-prescription for TMD evolution, combined with a fixed $b$-space parametrization of the three nonperturbative functions: the Sivers function $f_{1T}^{\perp}(x,b)$, the transversity $h_1(x,b)$, and the Collins fragmentation function $H_1^{\perp}(z,b)$. This parametrization, carried over from the authors' previous study [43], is inserted into the TMD factorization formulas for SIDIS, Drell-Yan, and W/Z production. A $\chi^2$ with correlated scale uncertainties is minimized, and 1000 replicas of the world data are generated to propagate uncertainties into the extracted functions. The first transverse moments are integrated up to a cutoff $k_T^{\rm cut} = Q \times \delta_{\rm cut}$ with $\delta_{\rm cut} = 1$, and the tensor charge is obtained from the $x$-integrals of the valence combinations of transversity.

What would settle it

A refit of the same datasets with a more flexible x-dependence for the d and dbar Sivers and transversity distributions (for example, a neural-network or multi-parameter form): if the 68% uncertainty bands return to their pre-COMPASS width, the reported precision gain is an artifact of the chosen parametrization. A direct experimental check would be a future independent high-statistics measurement of the deuteron Collins and Sivers asymmetries at comparable Q2; if its data fall systematically outside the red error bands of this fit, the extraction is inconsistent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single global TMD fit, including the high-statistics COMPASS 2022 data [44], yields markedly better-determined Sivers, transversity, and Collins functions for up, down, and sea-quark flavors, with the largest gain in the down and anti-down sectors. The paper reports the isovector tensor charge as $g_T = 0.80^{+1.69}_{-0.31}$ with the new COMPASS data, compared with $1.73^{+6.38}_{-1.23}$ without them. It also states that the fit supports a nonzero sea-quark transversity distribution, a conclusion reached in the authors' earlier work [43]. The Drell-Yan and W/Z data, while included, give only a marginal improvement over what SIDIS already provides.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the functional form chosen for the Sivers, transversity, and Collins functions, together with the ζ-prescription evolution, is flexible enough that the improved precision on d and dbar comes from the new COMPASS data rather than from the model's fixed shape.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The d and dbar quark Sivers and transversity distributions can now be quoted with substantially smaller uncertainties, which directly improves predictions for future SIDIS and Drell-Yan experiments.
  • The tensor charge $g_T = 0.80^{+1.69}_{-0.31}$ becomes a sharper benchmark for lattice QCD calculations and for beyond-the-Standard-Model searches that depend on the tensor current.
  • Because SIDIS data dominate the fit, the marginal impact of current Drell-Yan and W/Z data means that upcoming high-statistics Drell-Yan measurements are the next lever for testing the Sivers sign-change prediction.
  • The nonzero sea-quark transversity implied by the fit, if confirmed, would show that the proton's transverse spin is carried not only by valence quarks but also by the sea.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the improvement is driven by a single high-statistics deuteron dataset, a re-analysis with a less rigid functional form for the x-dependence would tell whether the quoted compression of the error bands is physical or an artifact of the parametrization.
  • If the sharper isovector tensor charge survives, it narrows the allowed parameter space for tensor-type interactions in precision low-energy probes of the nucleon.
  • The observed marginal role of W/Z and Drell-Yan data suggests that testing the predicted sign change of the Sivers function between SIDIS and Drell-Yan will need substantially more DY statistics than exist today.
  • One could extend the same framework to test flavor dependence by separately fitting the new COMPASS deuteron data and the proton-target data, checking that the combined improvement in d and dbar comes from the deuteron kinematics rather than from a global rescaling.
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 manuscript presents a global Monte Carlo fit of TMD Sivers functions, transversity distributions, and Collins fragmentation functions using the ζ-prescription TMD evolution. It combines SIDIS data from HERMES, COMPASS (including the 2022 deuteron run), and JLab, Drell-Yan and W/Z data from COMPASS and STAR, and e+e− Collins data from BELLE, BABAR, and BESIII. The central claim is that the new COMPASS deuteron data markedly reduce the uncertainty on the d and anti-d quark Sivers and transversity distributions and on the tensor charge, with g_T changing from 1.73(+6.38/-1.23) without these data to 0.80(+1.69/-0.31) with them. The paper reports χ²/N values near one for most data sets, and the fit and uncertainty estimates follow the parametrization introduced in the authors' previous work [43].

Significance. If the error estimates are reliable, the result is significant: the 2022 COMPASS deuteron data are high-statistics and provide a strong direct handle on sea-quark transverse spin, so a demonstrated improvement in d/anti-d and tensor-charge precision would be a useful step for the TMD program. The global data set is broad, the fitting procedure is standard, and the reported χ²/N values suggest reasonable overall consistency. The paper's quantitative contribution, however, is essentially contained in the error bars: the claimed improvement is the shrinkage of the replica bands in Figs. 2-6 and the g_T interval. Consequently, the reliability of the replica-generation scheme is not a technical detail but the central load-bearing ingredient of the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.4); §3, Eq. (2)] The replica generation is inconsistent with the stated covariance matrix. Equation (2) contains an off-diagonal term (σ_cor)^2 m_i m_j, which represents a common scale shift applied to all points of a data set. In Eq. (A.4), however, each point receives its own independent draw c_rep^i = Random(0,σ_cor), so the replicas have no common shift and the off-diagonal correlation is lost. For the 38 new COMPASS points, this makes the effective scale uncertainty cancel in the aggregate roughly as σ_cor/sqrt(38), artificially narrowing the red bands in Figs. 2-6 and the reported tensor-charge interval. Since the paper's central claim is precisely this narrowing, the uncertainty estimates as presented are not established. Please regenerate the replicas with a single common c_rep per correlated data set, or sample directly from the covariance matrix in Eq. (2), and re-evaluate all reported error bands and g_T.
  2. [§3, Tables 1-3 and Appendix A] The numerical values of the correlated scale uncertainties σ_cor are not reported, and the text does not state whether one common value is used for all SIDIS data sets or whether each experiment has its own value. Because the different data sets have different normalization and dilution-factor uncertainties, and because the central improvement claim depends on how the 2022 COMPASS points are correlated, these inputs must be listed explicitly. Without them, the covariance matrix in Eq. (2) and the replica recipe cannot be reproduced or checked.
  3. [§3] The text says that the functional forms for f_1T^perp, h_1, and H_1^perp are provided in [43] but does not restate them. This matters because the claim of improved precision is conditional on the flexibility of that specific parametrization; a reader cannot tell whether the uncertainty reduction comes from the new data or from model rigidity. Please include the explicit functional forms, the allowed parameter ranges, and the number of free parameters in an appendix, or state more precisely which parameters were re-fitted in the present analysis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] In the COMPASS 2022 row, clarify whether N=38 refers to the h+ and h- samples combined or to each charge separately; the two reaction lines currently share one N entry.
  2. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption reads 'compared with with Zeng et al.' and should be corrected to 'compared with Zeng et al.'.
  3. [§3] The phrase 'the studies are slighted different' should read 'the studies are slightly different'.
  4. [Table 1] The Sivers χ²/N of 2.26 for the COMPASS proton data [39] is noticeably higher than the other data sets; a brief comment on whether this indicates tension or a model limitation would help the reader assess the fit quality.
  5. [Eq. (2) and Appendix A] The notation is inconsistent: Eq. (2) uses σ_cor. and σ_uncor., while Appendix A uses σ_cor. and σ_uncor. without the same periods; please unify.
  6. [Abstract] The wording 'as recently reported by COMPASS and STAR' is imprecise because the STAR W± data [46] are from 2016, while the STAR Z measurement [47] is from 2024; please specify the measurement years.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis is a global fit to external data, with the inherited parametrization serving as a modeling input rather than as a derived result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that adding the 2024 COMPASS deuteron data improves the precision of the extracted d and d-bar Sivers/transversity distributions and of the tensor charge. These quantities are outputs of a chi-square fit to independent experimental asymmetries (Eq. (1) with covariance Eq. (2)), and the tensor charge (Eqs. (6)-(8)) is a moment of the fitted transversity, so it is an extraction, not a prediction forced by construction. The only self-referential element is the adoption in Sec. 3 of the zeta-prescription and the parametrization detailed in the authors' previous work [43]; that prior work is a fit to different data and is used as a functional ansatz, which is normal methodological continuity rather than a circular use of the target result. The replica-generation scheme in Appendix A, Eq. (A.4), treats the correlated scale uncertainty as independent point-to-point shifts, which is inconsistent with the covariance structure of Eq. (2); this is a statistical reliability concern that could affect the quoted error bands, but it does not make any extracted quantity equivalent to its inputs by definition. No circularity is therefore identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result is a fit, so the 'free parameters' are the functional-form parameters of the TMDs, which are not enumerated in the paper. The paper adds no new physical entities. The main assumptions are standard TMD factorization and evolution, plus the specific phenomenological parametrization carried over from the authors' earlier work.

free parameters (3)
  • Sivers function normalization and width parameters (u, d, ubar, dbar) = not reported in paper
    The functional forms are taken from [43] and fitted to SIDIS, DY, and W/Z data; actual values are not given in this letter.
  • Transversity distribution parameters (u, d, ubar, dbar) = not reported in paper
    Fitted to SIDIS Collins asymmetries together with Collins FFs; values are in [43] but not repeated here.
  • Collins fragmentation function parameters (pi, K) = not reported in paper
    Fitted to SIDIS and e+e- SIA data; see [43].
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption TMD factorization applies with delta < 1 for SIDIS, DY, and W/Z production
    The analysis selects data with delta = P_h_perp/(zQ) < 1 or q_T/Q < 1, asserting the TMD formalism is valid in this region.
  • standard math The zeta-prescription TMD evolution from [52]
    The energy evolution of TMDs is described using the zeta-prescription, a standard framework in the field.
  • ad hoc to paper Parametrization of f_1T_perp, h1, H_1_perp from [43]
    The functional forms are the authors' own phenomenological choices from a prior paper; they are not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Flavor decomposition via proton and deuteron targets with neglect of nuclear effects
    Deuteron data are treated as the sum of proton and neutron contributions, and the separation of d and dbar relies on this assumption and on the fitted fragmentation functions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Global analysis of Sivers and Collins asymmetries within the TMD factorization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AR2O2B2W

@misc{pith2026241218324,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Global analysis of Sivers and Collins asymmetries within the TMD factorization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AR2O2B2W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18324}
}
read the original abstract

We present a global analysis of Sivers functions, transversity distribution functions, and Collins fragmentation functions within the transverse momentum dependent factorization. This analysis encompasses the latest data from semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering, Drell-Yan, and W/Z-boson production processes as recently reported by the COMPASS and STAR Collaborations. Upon integrating the new data into our fitting, the precision of the extracted d and dbar quark Sivers and transversity distributions, as well as the tensor charge, is notably improved.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18324 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The kinematic distributions of the data for SIDIS, Drell-Yan, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The transverse momentum distribution of the Sivers functions at di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The transverse momentum distribution of the transversity functions at di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The transverse momentum distribution of the Collins functions at di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The first transverse moment of Sivers functions as defined in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Transverse momentum integrated transversity functions as defined in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The first transverse moment of Collins fragmentation functions as defined in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The extracted first transverse moment of the Sivers functions ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The extracted transverse momentum integrated transversity functions ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The extracted first transverse moment of the Collins fragmentation function ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Tensor charge for δu and δd from this analysis with the error bars representing 68% C.L., along with the results from lattice QCD calcu￾lations [55–60], and phenomenological extractions [28, 30–32, 43, 61–66]. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Comparison with HERMES Collins SSA data [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison with HERMES Sivers SSA data [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison with COMPASS Collins (left) and Sivers (right) SSA data [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison with COMPASS Collins (left) and Sivers (right) SSA data [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison with COMPASS Collins (left) and Sivers (right) SSA data [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison with JLab Collins (left) and Sivers (right) SSA data [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison with COMPASS DY data [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison with STAR Sivers SSA data [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison of BELLE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Comparison of BABAR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Comparison of BABAR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Comparison of BESIII [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.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. Probing Gluon Linear Polarization with Dihadron Fragmentation in $\chi_b$ Decays

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The two gluons from chi_b0 decay carry correlated linear polarizations, so the angular correlation between two pion pairs can directly probe the previously unmeasured linearly polarized gluon dihadron fragmentation function.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [43]

    C. Zeng, H. Dong, T. Liu, P. Sun, Y . Zhao, Role of sea quarks in the nucleon transverse spin, Phys.Rev.D109(5)(2024)056002

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, G. F. Sterman, Transverse Momentum Distri- bution in Drell-Yan Pair and W and Z Boson Production, Nucl.Phys. B250(1985)199--224

    work page 1985

  3. [2]

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, G. F. Sterman, Factorization of Hard Processes in QCD, Adv.Ser.Direct.HighEnergyPhys.5(1989)1--91

    work page 1989

  4. [3]

    E. D. Bloom, et al., High-Energy Inelastic e p Scattering at 6-Degrees and 10-Degrees, Phys.Rev.Lett.23(1969)930--934

    work page 1969

  5. [4]

    Artru, M

    X. Artru, M. Mekhfi, Transversely Polarized Parton Densities, their Evolu- tion and their Measurement, Z.Phys.C45(1990)669

    work page 1990

  6. [5]

    R. L. Ja ffe, X.-D. Ji, Chiral odd parton distributions and polarized Drell- Yan, Phys.Rev.Lett.67(1991)552--555

    work page 1991

  7. [6]

    J. C. Collins, Fragmentation of transversely polarized quarks probed in transverse momentum distributions, Nucl.Phys.B396(1993)161--182

    work page 1993

  8. [7]

    Bacchetta, F

    A. Bacchetta, F. A. Ceccopieri, A. Mukherjee, M. Radici, Asymmetries involving dihadron fragmentation functions: from DIS to e+e− annihilation, Phys.Rev.D79(2009)034029

    work page 2009

Show all 77 references
  1. [8]

    J. L. Cortes, B. Pire, J. P. Ralston, Measuring the transverse polarization of quarks in the proton, Z.Phys.C55(1992)409--416

    1992

  2. [9]

    Anselmino, V

    M. Anselmino, V . Barone, A. Drago, N. N. Nikolaev, Accessing transver- sity via J/ψ production in polarized p vector anti-p vector interactions, Phys.Lett.B594(2004)97--104

    2004

  3. [10]

    A. V . Efremov, K. Goeke, P. Schweitzer, Transversity distribution func- tion in hard scattering of polarized protons and antiprotons in the PAX ex- periment, Eur.Phys.J.C35(2004)207--210

    2004

  4. [11]

    Pasquini, M

    B. Pasquini, M. Pincetti, S. Bo ffi, Drell-Yan processes, transversity and light-cone wavefunctions, Phys.Rev.D76(2007)034020

    2007

  5. [12]

    S. J. Brodsky, D. S. Hwang, I. Schmidt, Final state interactions and single spin asymmetries in semiinclusive deep inelastic scattering, Phys.Lett. B530(2002)99--107

    2002

  6. [13]

    J. C. Collins, Leading twist single transverse-spin asymmetries: Drell- Yan and deep inelastic scattering, Phys.Lett.B536(2002)43--48

    2002

  7. [14]

    X.-d. Ji, F. Yuan, Parton distributions in light cone gauge: Where are the final state interactions?, Phys.Lett.B543(2002)66--72

    2002

  8. [15]

    A. V . Belitsky, X. Ji, F. Yuan, Final state interactions and gauge invariant parton distributions, Nucl.Phys.B656(2003)165--198

    2003

  9. [16]

    Burkardt, Quark correlations and single spin asymmetries, Phys

    M. Burkardt, Quark correlations and single spin asymmetries, Phys. Rev.D69(2004)057501

    2004

  10. [17]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, A. Kotzinian, F. Murgia, A. Prokudin, Extracting the Sivers function from polarized SIDIS data and making predictions, Phys.Rev.D72(2005)094007

    2005

  11. [18]

    J. C. Collins, A. V . Efremov, K. Goeke, S. Menzel, A. Metz, P. Schweitzer, Sivers e ffect in semi-inclusive deeply inelastic scattering, Phys.Rev.D73(2006)014021

    2006

  12. [19]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, A. Kotzinian, S. Melis, F. Mur- gia, A. Prokudin, C. Turk, Sivers E ffect for Pion and Kaon Production in Semi-Inclusive Deep Inelastic Scattering, Eur.Phys.J.A39(2009) 89--100

    2009

  13. [20]

    Bacchetta, M

    A. Bacchetta, M. Radici, Constraining quark angular momentum through semi-inclusive measurements, Phys.Rev.Lett.107(2011)212001

    2011

  14. [21]

    P. Sun, F. Yuan, Transverse momentum dependent evolution: Matching semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering processes to Drell-Yan andW/Z bo- son production, Phys.Rev.D88(11)(2013)114012

    2013

  15. [22]

    M. G. Echevarria, A. Idilbi, Z.-B. Kang, I. Vitev, QCD Evolution of the Sivers Asymmetry, Phys.Rev.D89(2014)074013

    2014

  16. [23]

    Boglione, U

    M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, C. Flore, J. O. Gonzalez-Hernandez, Assess- ing signals of TMD physics in SIDIS azimuthal asymmetries and in the extraction of the Sivers function, JHEP07(2018)148

    2018

  17. [24]

    M. G. Echevarria, Z.-B. Kang, J. Terry, Global analysis of the Sivers func- tions at NLO+NNLL in QCD, JHEP01(2021)126

    2021

  18. [25]

    M. Bury, A. Prokudin, A. Vladimirov, Extraction of the Sivers Function from SIDIS, Drell-Yan, andW±/Z Data at Next-to-Next-to-Next-to Leading Order, Phys.Rev.Lett.126(11)(2021)112002

    2021

  19. [26]

    Bacchetta, F

    A. Bacchetta, F. Delcarro, C. Pisano, M. Radici, The 3-dimensional dis- tribution of quarks in momentum space, Phys.Lett.B827(2022)136961

    2022

  20. [27]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, A. Kotzinian, F. Murgia, A. Prokudin, C. Turk, Transversity and Collins functions from SIDIS and e+e− data, Phys.Rev.D75(2007)054032

    2007

  21. [28]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, S. Melis, F. Murgia, A. Prokudin, Simultaneous extraction of transversity and Collins functions from new SIDIS and e+e− data, Phys.Rev.D87(2013)094019

    2013

  22. [29]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, J. O. Gonzalez Hernandez, S. Melis, F. Murgia, A. Prokudin, Collins functions for pions from SIDIS and new e+e− data: a first glance at their transverse momentum dependence, Phys.Rev.D92(11)(2015)114023. 9

    2015

  23. [30]

    Z.-B. Kang, A. Prokudin, P. Sun, F. Yuan, Extraction of Quark Transver- sity Distribution and Collins Fragmentation Functions with QCD Evolution, Phys.Rev.D93(1)(2016)014009

    2016

  24. [31]

    H.-W. Lin, W. Melnitchouk, A. Prokudin, N. Sato, H. Shows, First Monte Carlo Global Analysis of Nucleon Transversity with Lattice QCD Con- straints, Phys.Rev.Lett.120(15)(2018)152502

    2018

  25. [32]

    D’Alesio, C

    U. D’Alesio, C. Flore, A. Prokudin, Role of the So ffer bound in deter- mination of transversity and the tensor charge, Phys.Lett.B803(2020) 135347

    2020

  26. [33]

    Cammarota, L

    J. Cammarota, L. Gamberg, Z.-B. Kang, J. A. Miller, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, T. C. Rogers, N. Sato, Origin of single transverse-spin asym- metries in high-energy collisions, Phys.Rev.D102(5)(2020)054002

    2020

  27. [34]

    Gamberg, M

    L. Gamberg, M. Malda, J. A. Miller, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, N. Sato, Updated QCD global analysis of single transverse-spin asymmetries: Ex- tracting H˜, and the role of the So ffer bound and lattice QCD, Phys.Rev. D106(3)(2022)034014

    2022

  28. [35]

    Boglione, U

    M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, C. Flore, J. O. Gonzalez-Hernandez, F. Mur- gia, A. Prokudin, Simultaneous reweighting of Transverse Momentum De- pendent distributions, Phys.Lett.B854(2024)138712

    2024

  29. [36]

    Collins, Foundations of Perturbative QCD, Camb.Monogr.Part

    J. Collins, Foundations of Perturbative QCD, Camb.Monogr.Part. Phys.Nucl.Phys.Cosmol.32(2011)1-624

    2011

  30. [38]

    Alekseev, et al., Collins and Sivers asymmetries for pions and kaons in muon-deuteron DIS, Phys.Lett.B673(2009)127--135

    M. Alekseev, et al., Collins and Sivers asymmetries for pions and kaons in muon-deuteron DIS, Phys.Lett.B673(2009)127--135

    2009

  31. [39]

    Adolph, et al., Collins and Sivers asymmetries in muonproduc- tion of pions and kaons o ff transversely polarised protons, Phys.Lett

    C. Adolph, et al., Collins and Sivers asymmetries in muonproduc- tion of pions and kaons o ff transversely polarised protons, Phys.Lett. B744(2015)250--259

    2015

  32. [41]

    Y . X. Zhao, et al., Single spin asymmetries in charged kaon production from semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering on a transversely polarized3He target, Phys.Rev.C90(5)(2014)055201

    2014

  33. [42]

    C. Zeng, T. Liu, P. Sun, Y . Zhao, Toward three-dimensional nucleon struc- tures at the Electron-Ion Collider in China: A study of the Sivers function, Phys.Rev.D106(9)(2022)094039

    2022

  34. [44]

    G. D. Alexeev, et al., High-Statistics Measurement of Collins and Sivers Asymmetries for Transversely Polarized Deuterons, Phys.Rev.Lett. 133(10)(2024)101903

    2024

  35. [45]

    G. D. Alexeev, et al., Final COMPASS Results on the Transverse-Spin- Dependent Azimuthal Asymmetries in the Pion-Induced Drell-Yan Process, Phys.Rev.Lett.133(7)(2024)071902

    2024

  36. [46]

    Adamczyk, et al., Measurement of the transverse single-spin asym- metry in p↑ + p→ W±/Z0 at RHIC, Phys.Rev.Lett.116(13)(2016) 132301

    L. Adamczyk, et al., Measurement of the transverse single-spin asym- metry in p↑ + p→ W±/Z0 at RHIC, Phys.Rev.Lett.116(13)(2016) 132301

    2016

  37. [47]

    Collaboration, Measurements of the Z0/γ∗ cross section and trans- verse single spin asymmetry in 510 GeV p + p collisions, Phys.Lett

    S. Collaboration, Measurements of the Z0/γ∗ cross section and trans- verse single spin asymmetry in 510 GeV p + p collisions, Phys.Lett. B854(2024)138715

    2024

  38. [48]

    Seidl, et al., Measurement of Azimuthal Asymmetries in Inclusive Pro- duction of Hadron Pairs in e+e− Annihilation at √s = 10.58 GeV, Phys

    R. Seidl, et al., Measurement of Azimuthal Asymmetries in Inclusive Pro- duction of Hadron Pairs in e+e− Annihilation at √s = 10.58 GeV, Phys. Rev.D78(2008)032011. [Erratum:Phys.Rev.D86,039905(2012)]

    2008

  39. [49]

    J. P. Lees, et al., Measurement of Collins asymmetries in inclusive pro- duction of charged pion pairs in e+e− annihilation at BABAR, Phys.Rev. D90(5)(2014)052003

    2014

  40. [50]

    J. P. Lees, et al., Collins asymmetries in inclusive charged KK and Kπ pairs produced in e+e− annihilation, Phys.Rev.D92(11)(2015)111101

    2015

  41. [51]

    Ablikim, et al., Measurement of azimuthal asymmetries in inclusive charged dipion production in e+e− annihilations at√s = 3.65 GeV, Phys

    M. Ablikim, et al., Measurement of azimuthal asymmetries in inclusive charged dipion production in e+e− annihilations at√s = 3.65 GeV, Phys. Rev.Lett.116(4)(2016)042001

    2016

  42. [52]

    M. Bury, A. Prokudin, A. Vladimirov, Extraction of the Sivers function from SIDIS, Drell-Yan, and W±/Z boson production data with TMD evolu- tion, JHEP05(2021)151

    2021

  43. [53]

    Supplemental Material

  44. [54]

    Quintans, The New AMBER Experiment at the CERN SPS, FewBodySyst.63(4)(2022)72

    C. Quintans, The New AMBER Experiment at the CERN SPS, FewBodySyst.63(4)(2022)72

    2022

  45. [55]

    R. E. Smail, et al., Constraining beyond the standard model nucleon isovector charges, Phys.Rev.D108(9)(2023)094511

    2023

  46. [56]

    Alexandrou, M

    C. Alexandrou, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, F. Man- igrasso, Flavor decomposition of the nucleon unpolarized, helicity, and transversity parton distribution functions from lattice QCD simulations, Phys.Rev.D104(5)(2021)054503

    2021

  47. [57]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, M. Constantinou, J. Finkenrath, K. Hadjiyian- nakou, K. Jansen, G. Koutsou, A. Vaquero Aviles-Casco, Nucleon axial, ten- sor, and scalar charges and σ-terms in lattice QCD, Phys.Rev.D102(5) (2020)054517

    2020

  48. [58]

    Gupta, Y .-C

    R. Gupta, Y .-C. Jang, B. Yoon, H.-W. Lin, V . Cirigliano, T. Bhattacharya, Isovector Charges of the Nucleon from 2+1+1-flavor Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev.D98(2018)034503

    2018

  49. [59]

    Bhattacharya, V

    T. Bhattacharya, V . Cirigliano, S. Cohen, R. Gupta, H.-W. Lin, B. Yoon, Axial, Scalar and Tensor Charges of the Nucleon from 2+1+1-flavor Lattice QCD, Phys.Rev.D94(5)(2016)054508

    2016

  50. [60]

    Abdel-Rehim, et al., Nucleon and pion structure with lattice QCD sim- ulations at physical value of the pion mass, Phys.Rev.D92(11)(2015) 114513

    A. Abdel-Rehim, et al., Nucleon and pion structure with lattice QCD sim- ulations at physical value of the pion mass, Phys.Rev.D92(11)(2015) 114513

    2015

  51. [61]

    Cocuzza, A

    C. Cocuzza, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, N. Sato, R. Seidl, First simultaneous global QCD analysis of dihadron fragmentation func- tions and transversity parton distribution functions, Phys.Rev.D109(3) (2024)034024

    2024

  52. [62]

    Z. Ye, N. Sato, K. Allada, T. Liu, J.-P. Chen, H. Gao, Z.-B. Kang, A. Prokudin, P. Sun, F. Yuan, Unveiling the nucleon tensor charge at Jef- ferson Lab: A study of the SoLID case, Phys.Lett.B767(2017)91--98

    2017

  53. [63]

    Radici, A

    M. Radici, A. Courtoy, A. Bacchetta, M. Guagnelli, Improved extraction of valence transversity distributions from inclusive dihadron production, J. HighEnergyPhys.05(2015)123

    2015

  54. [64]

    G. R. Goldstein, J. O. Gonzalez Hernandez, S. Liuti, Flavor dependence of chiral odd generalized parton distributions and the tensor charge from the analysis of combined π0 and η exclusive electroproduction data, arXiv: 1401.0438

    arXiv

  55. [65]

    Radici, A

    M. Radici, A. Bacchetta, First Extraction of Transversity from a Global Analysis of Electron-Proton and Proton-Proton Data, Phys.Rev.Lett. 120(19)(2018)192001

    2018

  56. [66]

    Benel, A

    J. Benel, A. Courtoy, R. Ferro-Hernandez, A constrained fit of the valence transversity distributions from dihadron production, Eur.Phys.J.C80(5) (2020)465. 10 Supplemental Material: comparisons with experimental data The comparisons between experimental data and the calculati...

    2020

  57. [67]

    Airapetian, et al., Azimuthal single- and double-spin asymmetries in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic lepton scattering by transversely polarized protons, J.HighEnergyPhys.12(2020)010

    A. Airapetian, et al., Azimuthal single- and double-spin asymmetries in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic lepton scattering by transversely polarized protons, J.HighEnergyPhys.12(2020)010

    2020

  58. [68]

    Alekseev, et al., Collins and Sivers asymmetries for pions and kaons in muon-deuteron DIS, Phys.Lett.B673(2009) 127--135

    M. Alekseev, et al., Collins and Sivers asymmetries for pions and kaons in muon-deuteron DIS, Phys.Lett.B673(2009) 127--135

    2009

  59. [69]

    Adolph, et al., Collins and Sivers asymmetries in muonproduction of pions and kaons off transversely polarised protons, Phys.Lett.B744(2015)250--259

    C. Adolph, et al., Collins and Sivers asymmetries in muonproduction of pions and kaons off transversely polarised protons, Phys.Lett.B744(2015)250--259

    2015

  60. [70]

    G. D. Alexeev, et al., High-Statistics Measurement of Collins and Sivers Asymmetries for Transversely Polarized Deuterons, Phys.Rev.Lett.133(10)(2024)101903. arXiv:2412.18324v1 [hep-ph] 24 Dec 2024 2 0.1 0.2 □0.1 0.0 0.1 □0.1 0.0 0.1 □0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 □0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0...

    2024 arXiv

  61. [71]

    Qian, et al., Single Spin Asymmetries in Charged Pion Production from Semi-Inclusive Deep Inelastic Scattering on a Transversely Polarized 3He Target, Phys.Rev.Lett.107(2011)072003

    X. Qian, et al., Single Spin Asymmetries in Charged Pion Production from Semi-Inclusive Deep Inelastic Scattering on a Transversely Polarized 3He Target, Phys.Rev.Lett.107(2011)072003

    2011

  62. [72]

    Y. X. Zhao, et al., Single spin asymmetries in charged kaon production from semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering on a transversely polarized 3He target, Phys.Rev.C90(5)(2014)055201

    2014

  63. [73]

    G. D. Alexeev, et al., Final COMPASS Results on the Transverse-Spin-Dependent Azimuthal Asymmetries in the Pion- Induced Drell-Yan Process, Phys.Rev.Lett.133(7)(2024)071902

    2024

  64. [74]

    Adamczyk, et al., Measurement of the transverse single-spin asymmetry in p↑ +p →W±/Z0 at RHIC, Phys.Rev.Lett

    L. Adamczyk, et al., Measurement of the transverse single-spin asymmetry in p↑ +p →W±/Z0 at RHIC, Phys.Rev.Lett. 116(13)(2016)132301

    2016

  65. [75]

    Collaboration, Measurements of theZ 0/γ∗ cross section and transverse single spin asymmetry in 510 GeVp+p collisions

    S. Collaboration, Measurements of theZ 0/γ∗ cross section and transverse single spin asymmetry in 510 GeVp+p collisions. Phys.Lett.B854(2024)138715

    2024

  66. [76]

    R. Seidl, et al., Measurement of Azimuthal Asymmetries in Inclusive Production of Hadron Pairs in e+e− Annihilation at√s = 10.58 GeV, Phys.Rev.D78(2008)032011, [Erratum:Phys.Rev.D86,039905(2012)]

    2008

  67. [77]

    J. P. Lees, et al., Measurement of Collins asymmetries in inclusive production of charged pion pairs in e+e− annihilation at BABAR, Phys.Rev.D90(5)(2014)052003

    2014

  68. [78]

    J. P. Lees, et al., Collins asymmetries in inclusive charged KK and Kπ pairs produced in e+e− annihilation, Phys.Rev. D92(11)(2015)111101

    2015

  69. [79]

    Ablikim, et al., Measurement of azimuthal asymmetries in inclusive charged dipion production in e+e− annihilations at √s = 3.65 GeV, Phys.Rev.Lett.116(4)(2016)042001

    M. Ablikim, et al., Measurement of azimuthal asymmetries in inclusive charged dipion production in e+e− annihilations at √s = 3.65 GeV, Phys.Rev.Lett.116(4)(2016)042001. 3 10□2 10□1 □0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.5 1.0 1.5 10□2 10□1 □0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.5 1.0 1.5 10□...

    2016

Pith tools

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