Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Measurement of the hard exclusive $\pi^{0}$ muoproduction cross section at COMPASS

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read A new measurement of exclusive neutral-pion muoproduction extracts a large negative transverse–transverse interference term in the virtual-photon–proton cross section, presented as direct evidence for the chiral-odd GPD E_T.

desk verdict A solid, detailed COMPASS measurement with an extended kinematic range, but the E_T interpretation is stated too strongly and the acceptance-reweighting circularity needs a closure test. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19923 v2 pith:5YPSYPOM submitted 2024-12-27 hep-ex hep-ph

G. D. Alexeev , M. G. Alexeev , C. Alice , A. Amoroso , V. Andrieux , V. Anosov , K. Augsten , W. Augustyniak
show 165 more authors
C. D. R. Azevedo B. Badelek J. Barth R. Beck J. Beckers Y. Bedfer J. Bernhard M. Bodlak F. Bradamante A. Bressan W.-C. Chang C. Chatterjee M. Chiosso S.-U. Chung A. Cicuttin P. M. M. Correia M. L. Crespo D. D'Ago S. Dalla Torre S. S. Dasgupta S. Dasgupta F. Delcarro I. Denisenko O. Yu. Denisov M. Dehpour S. V. Donskov N. Doshita Ch. Dreisbach W. Dünnweber R. R. Dusaev D. Ecker D. Eremeev P. Faccioli M. Faessler M. Finger M. Finger Jr. H. Fischer K. J. Flöthner W. Florian J. M. Friedrich V. Frolov L.G. Garcia Ordòñez O. P. Gavrichtchouk S. Gerassimov J. Giarra D. Giordano M. Gorzellik A. Grasso A. Gridin M. Grosse Perdekamp B. Grube M. Grüner A. Guskov P. Haas D. von Harrach M. Hoffmann N. d'Hose C.-Y. Hsieh S. Ishimoto A. Ivanov T. Iwata V. Jary R. Joosten P. Jörg E. Kabuss F. Kaspar A. Kerbizi B. Ketzer G. V. Khaustov F. Klein J. H. Koivuniemi V. N. Kolosov K. Kondo Horikawa I. Konorov A. Yu. Korzenev A. M. Kotzinian O. M. Kouznetsov A. Koval Z. Kral F. Kunne K. Kurek R. P. Kurjata K. Lavickova S. Levorato Y.-S. Lian J. Lichtenstadt P.-J. Lin R. Longo V. E. Lyubovitskij A. Maggiora N. Makke G. K. Mallot A. Maltsev A. Martin J. Marzec J. Matoušek T. Matsuda C. Menezes Pires F. Metzger W. Meyer M. Mikhasenko E. Mitrofanov D. Miura Y. Miyachi R. Molina A. Moretti A. Nagaytsev D. Neyret M. Niemiec J. Nový W.-D. Nowak G. Nukazuka A. G. Olshevsky M. Ostrick D. Panzieri B. Parsamyan S. Paul H. Pekeler J.-C. Peng M. Pešek D. V. Peshekhonov M. Pešková S. Platchkov J. Pochodzalla V. A. Polyakov C. Quintans G. Reicherz C. Riedl D. I. Ryabchikov A. Rychter A. Rymbekova V. D. Samoylenko A. Sandacz S. Sarkar I. A. Savin G. Sbrizzai H. Schmieden A. Selyunin L. Sinha D. Spülbeck A. Srnka M. Stolarski M. Sulc H. Suzuki S. Tessaro F. Tessarotto A. Thiel F. Tosello A. Townsend T. Triloki V. Tskhay B. Valinoti B. M. Veit J.F.C.A. Veloso B. Ventura A. Vidon A. Vijayakumar M. Virius M. Wagner S. Wallner K. Zaremba M. Zavertyaev M. Zemko E. Zemlyanichkina M. Ziembicki
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exhep-ph
keywords exclusiveπ0muoproductiongeneralizedpartondistributionschiral-oddGPDE_TtransversityGPDsvirtual-photon–protoncrosssectiontransverse–transverseinterferenceazimuthaldecomposition
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 measures the spin-independent virtual-photon–proton cross section for exclusive neutral-pion muoproduction and decomposes its azimuthal distribution into photon-polarization contributions. It finds a large negative transverse–transverse interference term, $d\sigma_{TT}/dt = -4.4 \pm 0.5\,(\text{stat}) \pm 0.3\,(\text{syst})$ nb/(GeV/c)$^2$, comparable in size to the combined transverse and longitudinal terms, while the longitudinal–transverse interference is consistent with zero. Because in the relevant factorized description the transverse–transverse term is proportional to $|\langle E_T\rangle|^2$, the result is claimed as direct experimental evidence that the chiral-odd GPD $E_T$ is the dominant hard-scattering ingredient for this process. The paper also reports the $|t|$, $Q^2$, and $\nu$ dependences of these contributions as input for generalized parton distribution models.

What carries the argument

The central object is the azimuthal decomposition of the spin-independent virtual-photon–proton cross section, $d\sigma^{\gamma^* p}/(dt\,d\varphi) = (1/2\pi)\,[\varepsilon\,d\sigma_L/dt + d\sigma_T/dt + \varepsilon\cos(2\varphi)\,d\sigma_{TT}/dt + \sqrt{2\varepsilon(1+\varepsilon)}\,\cos\varphi\,d\sigma_{LT}/dt]$. The $\cos(2\varphi)$ coefficient, $\sigma_{TT}$, is the transverse–transverse interference contribution, and through the model relation $d\sigma_{TT}/dt \propto (t'/(16 m_p^2))\,|\langle E_T\rangle|^2$ it is the direct carrier of information about the chiral-odd GPD $E_T$. The extraction works by averaging the cross sections measured with $\mu^+$ and $\mu^-$ beams of opposite polarization, which cancels the beam-polarization-dependent $\sin\varphi$ term, and by correcting the data with an acceptance computed from a signal Monte Carlo that is iteratively reweighted in $\varphi$, $t$, and $\nu$.

What would settle it

Recompute $d\sigma_{TT}/dt$ from the same data using two signal Monte Carlo variants, one reweighted as in the paper and one generated with a flat $\varphi$ distribution, and vary the non-exclusive background fraction over the full 3–13% range; if the extracted value moves by more than the quoted systematic uncertainty, the negative transverse–transverse interference is an artifact of the correction procedure rather than evidence for $E_T$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that hard exclusive $\pi^0$ muoproduction in the measured range, $1 < Q^2 < 8$ (GeV/c)$^2$ and $0.08 < |t| < 0.64$ (GeV/c)$^2$, is dominated by transversely polarized virtual photons rather than longitudinal ones. The evidence is a strong negative $\cos(2\varphi)$ modulation of the spin-independent cross section, $d\sigma_{TT}/dt = -4.4 \pm 0.5 \pm 0.3$ nb/(GeV/c)$^2$, together with a $d\sigma_{LT}/dt$ value compatible with zero. In the factorized description used for comparison, $d\sigma_{TT}/dt$ is proportional to $t'\,|\langle E_T\rangle|^2$, so the measured modulation is interpreted as direct experimental evidence for the chiral-odd (transversity) GPD $E_T$. The $|t|$ dependence at small $x_{Bj}$ additionally suggests that longitudinally polarized photons contribute non-negligibly, and the measured $Q^2$ and $\nu$ dependences provide constraints for model calculations including higher-twist and next-to-leading-order effects.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that the signal Monte Carlo, after iterative reweighting to the measured $\varphi$ distribution, still provides an unbiased acceptance correction; if the acceptance itself depends on $\varphi$, the reweighting could artificially inflate or suppress the extracted $\cos(2\varphi)$ coefficient.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, collinear leading-twist factorization based on longitudinal photons alone is insufficient for exclusive $\pi^0$ production at these kinematics, and transversity GPDs must be included in the models.
  • The measured $d\sigma_{TT}/dt$ provides a direct numerical constraint on the size and $|t|$-dependence of the chiral-odd GPD $E_T$, which enters other exclusive and semi-inclusive observables.
  • The compatibility of $d\sigma_{LT}/dt$ with zero means the longitudinal–transverse interference term can be dropped in extractions, simplifying the determination of the remaining GPD combinations.
  • The reported $Q^2$ and $\nu$ dependences of the cross-section contributions give concrete targets for next-to-leading-order and higher-twist calculations of pseudoscalar-meson production.
  • A negative $\sigma_{TT}$ of the observed size implies that the $\varphi$-integrated cross section alone under-represents the helicity structure, so future measurements should report the angular moments separately.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An editorial extension: because the acceptance correction is reweighted to the measured $\varphi$ shape, an independent check with a signal Monte Carlo generated with no $\cos(2\varphi)$ input would sharpen the case that the large negative $\sigma_{TT}$ is physical; the paper does not report such a cross-check.
  • If $E_T$ indeed dominates this channel, the same GPD should appear with a comparable role in other exclusive pseudoscalar channels where the pion-pole contribution is absent, predicting a specific pattern of cross-section ratios across $\pi^0$, $\eta$, and $K_L$ production.
  • The negative sign of the extracted $\sigma_{TT}$, combined with the model relation, encodes the relative sign of $E_T$ and $H_T$ contributions and could be used to test model predictions for quark transverse spin–orbit correlations in the proton.
  • The size of the transverse-photon contribution is much larger than the nominal $1/Q$ suppression assumed in early arguments, suggesting that higher-twist effects may be significant already at the measured $Q^2$ scale.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a new COMPASS measurement of the spin-independent virtual-photon–proton cross section for the exclusive reaction µp → µ′p′π⁰, using 160 GeV µ⁺ and µ⁻ beams on a 2.5 m liquid-hydrogen target (2016 data; integrated luminosity 51.4 and 44.5 pb⁻¹ for the two beam charges). From 1490 selected events in the range Q² ∈ [1, 8] (GeV/c)², x_Bj ∈ [0.02, 0.45] and |t| ∈ [0.08, 0.64] (GeV/c)², the authors measure the |t|- and φ-dependence of the cross section (Eqs. (14)–(19)) and, by fitting the φ distribution with Eq. (5), extract the combinations σ_T + εσ_L, σ_TT and σ_LT in the full kinematic domain, in five |t| bins, four Q² bins and three ν bins. The headline results are a large negative transverse–transverse interference term (σ_TT = −4.4 ± 0.5_stat ± 0.3_sys nb/(GeV/c)², Table 4) and a longitudinal–transverse interference term consistent with zero. The data are compared with the Goloskokov–Kroll handbag model and with the earlier COMPASS 2012 result (Ref. [27]), with which they are statistically compatible. The negative σ_TT is interpreted as evidence for a dominant contribution of the chiral-odd GPD E_T.

Significance. The measurement substantively extends the 2012 COMPASS pilot analysis: it is based on much higher beam intensity, covers Q² up to 8 (GeV/c)² with the enlarged ECAL0 acceptance, is binned in four variables (|t|, φ, Q², ν), and benefits from a carefully itemized systematics budget (Table 2) that includes flux, acceptance, ECAL thresholds, kinematic-fit cut variations, the LEPTO background fraction and normalization, ω contamination, and an estimate of radiative corrections. The consistency with the 2012 data in the overlapping domain (Table 6) and the cancellation of the σ_LT′ term by averaging µ⁺ and µ⁻ beams are strengths. Because a large σ_TT of this size would be a discriminating constraint on the chiral-odd GPD E_T and on models of transverse-photon contributions to exclusive pseudoscalar production, the paper would be of clear interest to the GPD community if the central value is robust. The load-bearing weakness is methodological: the acceptance correction relies on a signal Monte Carlo that is iteratively reweighted to the data's own φ modulation, and no closure test is presented; this is the main reason I cannot endorse the claimed precision of σ_TT as it stands.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sections 5–6, Eq. (15), Table 2] The central result σ_TT = −4.4 ± 0.5 ± 0.3 nb/(GeV/c)² (Table 4) is obtained by dividing the data by an acceptance a_{nijk} (Eq. (15)) that is computed from HEPGEN++, after that generator has been iteratively reweighted in φ, t and ν to match the data, 'includ[ing] the extracted φ modulation from the data' (Section 5). For a bin-by-bin acceptance ratio the generated shape cancels only to first order: if the reconstruction efficiency varies inside the Δφ = π/4 bins (e.g., at ECAL0/ECAL1 or CAMERA boundaries) or if the kinematic fit migrates events between φ bins, the data-tuned generator shape changes the within-bin weighting of the efficiency relative to the true cross section, biasing the fitted σ_TT. The 4% acceptance systematic quoted in Table 2 does not obviously cover such a generator-shape-dependent bias, and no closure test is shown. I request (i) a closure test in which a cos(2φ) modulation of known amplitude is injected into the generated sample and recovered through the full reweighting-plus-acceptance-plus-fit chain; (ii) a quantitative statement of the reconstruction-efficiency variation within each φ bin; and (iii) a cross-check of σ_TT obtained with an acceptance computed from a generator that is not reweighted in φ. Without these the headline claim is not supported at the quoted precision.
  2. [Abstract; Section 11] The assertion that the large negative σ_TT 'provides clear experimental evidence for the chiral-odd GPD E_T' is an interpretation made inside the handbag/Goloskokov–Kroll framework of Eqs. (6)–(10), not a direct consequence of the measured angular distribution. The paper itself notes (Section 1) that collinear factorization for transversely polarized photons is not established and that the transverse-photon contribution requires phenomenological regularization (Refs. [18–22]); Ref. [22] advertises higher-twist and NLO effects in the same observable. The measured σ_TT is a valuable model-independent experimental result, but the 'clear evidence' wording overstates the robustness of the E_T attribution. I recommend reformulating the conclusion to state that the data are in quantitative agreement with the dominant-E_T prediction of the GK framework within the measured kinematics, and that the framework dependence be acknowledged wherever the E_T conclusion appears.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] In the grid listing, the second and third rows both give the φ bin '−3π/4 to −π/2'; the third row should read '−π/2 to −π/4'.
  2. [Abstract] Subject–verb agreement: 'the combined contribution of transversely and longitudinally polarised photons are determined' should read '... is determined'.
  3. [Section 2, after Eq. (10)] The sign convention for t′ is ambiguous: 't′ = t − t_min' with '|t_min|' specified suggests t_min < 0, in which case t′ is negative in the measured |t| range and the negative sign of σ_TT predicted by Eq. (8) and the real square root in Eqs. (9)–(10) are consistent; please state this convention explicitly, since a reader adopting t′ > 0 would infer the opposite sign for the E_T contribution.
  4. [Section 7, Table 4] The fit of Eq. (5) extracts ε·dσ_TT/dt, while Table 4 quotes dσ_TT/dt using the average ⟨ε⟩ = 0.997; please state this convention where the fit is described and quantify the effect of the spread of ε (0.989–0.999) on the extracted coefficients.
  5. [Figs. 2 and 3] The y-axis label 'Entries / 0.027 rad / 10¹² µ' is confusingly rendered; it should read, e.g., 'Entries / (0.027 rad) / (10¹² µ)'.
  6. [Section 6, Eq. (15)] The bin indices are used inconsistently (nijk versus njkl) and the acceptance a_{nijk} is not defined in Eq. (15); please define it as the ratio of reconstructed to generated HEPGEN++ events passing all selection cuts within the same four-dimensional bin, and state whether it includes the π⁰→γγ reconstruction efficiency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the COMPASS pi0 cross-section measurement is a data-driven extraction with acceptance corrections that cancel generator shapes to first order, and the GPD interpretation is checked against an independent external model.

full rationale

The paper derives no prediction from first principles; it measures the virtual-photon-proton cross section from data via Eq. (15), subtracting a LEPTO background and dividing by a HEPGEN++-based acceptance a_nijk. Although HEPGEN++ is iteratively reweighted in phi, t, and nu to match the data (Section 5), the acceptance is a bin-by-bin ratio of reconstructed to generated events, so the generated shape cancels to first order; the reweighting improves the Monte Carlo description rather than defining the extracted coefficients. The central quantity dsigma_TT/dt arises from a binned likelihood fit of Eq. (5) to the acceptance-corrected phi distribution, and the identification sigma_TT proportional to |<E_T>|^2 is taken from the external Goloskokov-Kroll model papers [18,19], not from a self-citation. No equation reduces the measured cross section to an input parameter of the Monte Carlo or to a prior COMPASS result; the comparison with the 2012 data [27] is a consistency check rather than an input. The absence of a closure test for the reweighting-plus-acceptance chain is a plausible systematic-uncertainty concern, not a circularity, so the honest finding is no significant circularity.

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

No new entities are postulated; the analysis is an experimental measurement. It relies on two classes of external input: Monte Carlo generators for signal and background, and the handbag twist-3 factorization for the GPD interpretation. The fitted quantities are nuisance parameters (background fraction and MC normalisations) plus the data-driven reweighting shape.

free parameters (3)
  • Non-exclusive background fraction r_L = (8 +/- 5)%
    Determined by adjusting the sum of HEPGEN++ and LEPTO to data in Delta pT and Delta phi; used to subtract background from the cross section. Its uncertainty contributes 6-16% systematic.
  • Monte Carlo normalisation factors c_H and c_L = adjusted to M_gamma_gamma distribution
    Normalise signal and background MC samples separately to data around the pi0 peak; they set the absolute scale of the simulated yields used in the background subtraction.
  • HEPGEN++ reweighting shapes in phi, t, nu = extracted iteratively from the data
    The signal MC is reweighted to match the data's phi, t and nu distributions, including the extracted phi modulation. This shape is then used in the acceptance and background determination, and can feed back into the extracted sigma_TT.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Handbag twist-3 factorization relates the measured partial cross sections to GPDs via Eqs. (6)-(10).
    Needed to interpret d sigma_TT as proportional to |E_T|^2; not derivable from the data.
  • domain assumption The spin-averaged phi distribution has the form A + B cos(2 phi) + C cos(phi) (Eq. 5).
    Assumes perfect cancellation of the sin phi term when averaging opposite-polarization beams; the authors test a residual sin phi term and find a small effect.
  • domain assumption HEPGEN++ and LEPTO generators accurately model exclusive signal and non-exclusive background.
    Background fraction and acceptance both come from these generators; generator uncertainties are only partially covered by systematics.
  • domain assumption Chiral-odd GPD E_T dominates the pi0 cross section over H_T and chiral-even GPDs.
    Flavour-sign argument used in Sections 1 and 7 to infer E_T evidence rather than a mixture of GPDs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measurement of the hard exclusive $\pi^{0}$ muoproduction cross section at COMPASS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5YPSYPOM

@misc{pith2026241219923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measurement of the hard exclusive $\pi^0$ muoproduction cross section at COMPASS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5YPSYPOM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19923}
}
abstract

A new and detailed measurement of the cross section for hard exclusive neutral-pion muoproduction on the proton was performed in a wide kinematic region, with the photon virtuality $Q^2$ ranging from 1 to 8 (GeV/$c$)$^{\rm\, 2}$ and the Bjorken variable $x_{\rm Bj}$ ranging from 0.02 to 0.45. The data were collected at COMPASS at CERN using 160 GeV/$c$ longitudinally polarised $\mu^+$ and $\mu^-$ beams scattering off a 2.5 m long liquid hydrogen target. From the average of the measured $\mu^+$ and $\mu^-$ cross sections, the virtual-photon--proton cross section is determined as a function of the squared four-momentum transfer between the initial and final state proton in the range 0.08 (GeV/$c$)$^{\rm\, 2}$ $< |t| <$ 0.64 (GeV/$c$)$^{\rm\, 2}$. From its angular distribution, the combined contribution of transversely and longitudinally polarised photons are determined, as well as transverse--transverse and longitudinal--transverse interference contributions. They are studied as functions of four-momentum transfer $|t|$, photon virtuality $Q^2$ and virtual-photon energy $\nu$. The longitudinal--transverse interference contribution is found to be compatible with zero. The significant transverse--transverse interference contribution reveals the existence of a dominant contribution by transversely polarized photons. This provides clear experimental evidence for the chiral-odd GPD $\overline{E}_T$. In addition, the existence of a non-negligible contribution of longitudinally polarized photons is suggested by the $|t|$-dependence of the cross section at $x_{\rm Bj} < $ 0.1 . Altogether, these results provide valuable input for future modelling of GPDs and thus of cross sections for exclusive pseudo-scalar meson production. Furthermore, they can be expected to facilitate the study of next-to-leading order corrections and higher-twist contributions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19923 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Leading-twist diagram for hard exclusive π 0 leptoproduction off the proton. Here, k, k ′ , q, q ′ , p, p ′ are the four-momenta of incident and outgoing muon, virtual photon, outgoing π 0 and of incident and outgoing proton. The squared four-momentum transfer between initial and final proton is denoted by t, the average longitudinal momentum fraction of the active quark by x and half of the transferred longitudinal… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Measured and simulated distributions ∆ϕ (top) and ∆pT (bottom), shown for both µ + (left) and µ − (right) beams. All the distributions are normalised to the same muon flux and the simulations are scaled as described in the text. The two dashed vertical lines indicate the constraints applied for the selection of events. Error bars denote statistical uncertainties. The non-exclusive π 0 background is estimated using L… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Measured and simulated distributions of Mγγ for data obtained with µ + (left) and µ − (right) beams. All the distributions are normalised to the same muon flux and the simulations are scaled as described in the text. The two dashed vertical lines indicate the interval applied for event selection and normalisation. The non-exclusive π 0 background is estimated using LEPTO (blue), while the total π 0 distribution is e… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: spin-independent virtual-photon cross section integrated over the full 2π-range in φ, presented as a function of |t|. Right: spin-independent virtual-photon cross section averaged over the measured |t|-range, presented as a function of φ. The inner error bars ind…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: spin-independent virtual-photon cross section integrated over the full 2π-range in φ, presented as a function of |t|. Right: spin-independent virtual-photon cross section averaged over the measured |t|-range, presented as a function of φ. The cross sections obtai…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spin-independent virtual-photon cross section in five |t|-ranges presented as a function of φ. The inner error bars indicate the statistical uncertainty, the outer error bars the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties. The five curves are fits of the…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Extracted contributions to the cross section, dσT dt +ε dσL dt , dσTT dt and dσLT dt , as a function of |t|. Open points correspond to the fit of all three contributions, solid points correspond to the fit of two contributions with the assumption dσLT dt = 0. The trian…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: spin-independent virtual-photon cross section integrated over the full 2π-range in φ, presented as a function of |t|. Right: spin-independent virtual-photon cross section averaged over the measured |t|-range, presented as a function of φ. Both figures show the re…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: spin-independent virtual-photon cross section integrated over the full 2π-range in φ, presented as a function of |t|. Right: spin-independent virtual-photon cross section averaged over the measured |t|-range, presented as a function of φ. Both figures show the re…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Extracted contributions to the cross section, dσT dt +ε dσL dt , dσTT dt and dσLT dt , as a function of Q 2 (left) and ν (right). Open points correspond to the fit of the three contributions, solid points correspond to the fit of two contributions with the assumption …

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. Three-dimensional imaging of hadrons with hard exclusive reactions: advances in experiment, theory, phenomenology, and lattice QCD

    hep-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A community white paper reviewing GPD-based 3D imaging of hadrons — experiment, theory, phenomenology, lattice QCD — and the roadmap toward precision tomography at JLab, COMPASS, J-PARC, and future electron-ion colliders.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [27]

    M. G. Alexeev et al. (COMPASS), Phys. Lett. B 805, 135454 (2020), arXiv:1903.12030 [hep-ex]

  2. [22]

    Twist-3 contribution to deeply virtual electroproduction of pions

    G. Duplan ˇci´c, P. Kroll, K. Passek-K., and L. Szymanowski, Phys. Rev. D 109, 034008 (2024), arXiv:2312.13164 [hep-ph]

  3. [1]

    M ¨uller, D

    D. M ¨uller, D. Robaschik, B. Geyer, F. M. Dittes, and J. Ho ˇrejˇs´ı, Fortsch. Phys. 42, 101 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9812448

  4. [2]

    Ji, Phys

    X.-D. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 610 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9603249

  5. [3]

    Ji, Phys

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

  6. [4]

    A. V . Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B 380, 417 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9604317

  7. [5]

    A. V . Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D56, 5524 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9704207

  8. [6]

    J. C. Collins, L. Frankfurt, and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. D 56, 2982 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9611433

Show all 40 references
  1. [7]

    Airapetian et al

    A. Airapetian et al. (HERMES), Phys. Lett. B 659, 486 (2008), arXiv:0707.0222 [hep-ex]

  2. [8]

    P. E. Bosted et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. C 95, 035207 (2017), arXiv:1611.04987 [nucl-ex]

  3. [9]

    Diehl et al

    S. Diehl et al. (CLAS), Phys. Lett. B 839, 137761 (2023), arXiv:2210.14557 [hep-ex]

  4. [10]

    De Masi et al

    R. De Masi et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. C 77, 042201 (2008), arXiv:0711.4736 [hep-ex]

  5. [11]

    Bedlinskiy et al

    I. Bedlinskiy et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 112001 (2012), arXiv:1206.6355 [hep-ex]

  6. [12]

    Bedlinskiy et al

    I. Bedlinskiy et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. C 90, 025205 (2014), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.C 90, 039901 (2014)], arXiv:1405.0988 [nucl-ex]

  7. [13]

    Kim et al

    A. Kim et al. (CLAS), Phys. Lett. B 849, 138459 (2024), arXiv:2307.07874 [nucl-ex]

  8. [14]

    Fuchey et al., Phys

    E. Fuchey et al., Phys. Rev. C 83, 025201 (2011), arXiv:1003.2938 [nucl-ex]

  9. [15]

    Defurne et al

    M. Defurne et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A), Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 262001 (2016), arXiv:1608.01003 [hep-ex]

  10. [16]

    Mazouz et al

    M. Mazouz et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 222002 (2017), arXiv:1702.00835 [hep-ex]

  11. [17]

    Dlamini et al

    M. Dlamini et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 152301 (2021), arXiv:2011.11125 [hep-ex]

  12. [18]

    S. V . Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C65, 137 (2010), arXiv:0906.0460 [hep-ph]

  13. [19]

    S. V . Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. A47, 112 (2011), arXiv:1106.4897 [hep-ph]

  14. [20]

    Ahmad, G

    S. Ahmad, G. R. Goldstein, and S. Liuti, Phys. Rev. D 79, 054014 (2009), arXiv:0805.3568 [hep- ph]

  15. [21]

    S. V . Goloskokov, Y .-P. Xie, and X. Chen, Chin. Phys. C 46, 123101 (2022), arXiv:2206.06547 [hep-ph]

  16. [23]

    Diehl, Eur

    M. Diehl, Eur. Phys. J. C 19, 485 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0101335

  17. [24]

    Diehl and P

    M. Diehl and P. Hagler, Eur. Phys. J. C 44, 87 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504175 . 22 The COMPASS Collaboration

  18. [25]

    Burkardt, Phys

    M. Burkardt, Phys. Rev. D 72, 094020 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505189

  19. [26]

    Burkardt, Phys

    M. Burkardt, Phys. Lett. B 639, 462 (2006)

  20. [28]

    Gorzellik, Cross-section measurement of exclusive π0 muoproduction and firmware design for an FPGA-based detector readout, Ph.D

    M. Gorzellik, Cross-section measurement of exclusive π0 muoproduction and firmware design for an FPGA-based detector readout, Ph.D. thesis, University of Freiburg (2018)

  21. [29]

    L. N. Hand, Phys. Rev. 129, 1834 (1963)

  22. [30]

    Bacchetta, U

    A. Bacchetta, U. D’Alesio, M. Diehl, and C. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D70, 117504 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0410050

  23. [31]

    Abbon et al

    P. Abbon et al. (COMPASS), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 577, 455 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0703049

  24. [32]

    Abbon et al

    P. Abbon et al. (COMPASS), Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A779, 69 (2015), arXiv:1410.1797 [physics.ins- det]

  25. [33]

    R. P. Mount, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 187, 401 (1981)

  26. [34]

    Adolph et al

    C. Adolph et al. (COMPASS), Phys. Lett. B 718, 922 (2013), arXiv:1202.4064 [hep-ex]

  27. [35]

    Sandacz and P

    A. Sandacz and P. Sznajder, arXiv:1207.0333

  28. [36]

    Regali, Exclusive event generation for the COMPASS-II experiment at CERN and improvements for the Monte-Carlo chain, Ph.D

    C. Regali, Exclusive event generation for the COMPASS-II experiment at CERN and improvements for the Monte-Carlo chain, Ph.D. thesis, University of Freiburg (2016)

  29. [37]

    Szameitat, New Geant4-based Monte Carlo software for the COMPASS-II experiment at CERN, Ph.D

    T. Szameitat, New Geant4-based Monte Carlo software for the COMPASS-II experiment at CERN, Ph.D. thesis, University of Freiburg (2017)

  30. [38]

    Afanasev, Private communications (2023)

    A. Afanasev, Private communications (2023)

  31. [39]

    Afanasev, I

    A. Afanasev, I. Akushevich, V . Burkert, and K. Joo, Phys. Rev. D 66, 074004 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0208183

  32. [40]

    S. V . Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Private communications (2016). Measurement of the hard exclusive π0 muoproduction cross section at COMPASS 23 The COMPASS Collaboration G. D. Alexeev28 , M. G. Alexeev20,19 , C. Alice20,19 , A. Amoroso20,19 , V . Andrieux33 , V . Anosov28 , K. A...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.