Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

Systematic uncertainties from higher-twist corrections in DIS at large x

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that in global QCD fits the choice of how higher-twist corrections enter proton and neutron structure functions — additive versus multiplicative, and isospin-independent versus isospin-dependent — shifts the extracted…

desk verdict A careful systematic study showing that isospin-independent higher-twist corrections bias the large-x n/p ratio and off-shell function in global fits; the recommendation to allow isospin-dependent HT is sound, though reproducibility and a mock-data test would firm it up. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06849 v2 pith:BDID7VOP submitted 2025-01-12 hep-ph hep-exnucl-th

Matteo Cerutti , Alberto Accardi , Ishara P. Fernando , Shujie Li , Joseph F. Owens , Sanghwa Park This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-th
keywords higher-twistcorrectionsdeepinelasticscatteringneutron-to-protonstructurefunctionratiopartondistributionfunctionsoff-shellnucleondeformationdeuteronglobalQCDanalysislarge-xphysics
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 sets out to show that one of the silent choices in global QCD analyses — how the $1/Q^2$ "higher-twist" corrections to deep-inelastic structure functions are parametrized — is not neutral at large Bjorken $x$. Working in the CJ22 global-fit framework used and developed by the authors, it demonstrates that an isospin-independent additive correction inflates the neutron-to-proton structure function ratio by about 25% at $x = 0.8$ compared with an isospin-independent multiplicative correction, purely as an artefact of the functional form. The fits then disguise the discrepancy by deforming a second fitted ingredient, the off-shell function describing nucleons bound inside the deuteron, so that both implementations reproduce the data equally well. When the proton and neutron higher-twist corrections are fitted independently, the additive and multiplicative choices converge to compatible $n/p$ ratios and off-shell functions, and the residual spread provides a usable systematic uncertainty. The result matters because the large-$x$ $n/p$ ratio is a window onto quark confinement and the $d/u$ ratio, and because deuteron data are the main route to the neutron structure function.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on three pieces. First, the $x \to 1$ asymptotics of the $n/p$ ratio: an isospin-independent multiplicative higher-twist term $C(x)$ cancels in the ratio, while an isospin-independent additive term $H(x)$ leaves a $1/Q^2$ tail proportional to $H/(u Q^2)$, which is what inflates the ratio. Second, the equivalence formula $\tilde H(x,Q^2) = F_2(x,Q^2)\,C(x)$: an isospin-independent multiplicative correction becomes isospin-dependent when recast additively, and vice versa, so the common "isospin-independent" implementation is not self-consistent. Third, the off-shell expansion $\delta_f(x)$ of nucleons bound in the deuteron, fitted to data through the weak-binding-approximation smearing formula: because the off-shell function is constrained in practice only for $x \lesssim 0.7$, it has the freedom to compensate the higher-twist implementation bias in the deuteron and hide the discrepancy from the data.

What would settle it

Re-run the isospin-independent additive and multiplicative fits on deuteron data with substantially wider $Q^2$ coverage at large $x$ — the paper identifies such data as the experimental route forward. Since the higher-twist terms fall as $1/Q^2$ while the off-shell deformation is assumed constant, a dataset in which $1/Q^2$ changes by a factor of two or more within the same $x$ bins should either make the fitted off-shell function visibly $Q^2$-dependent, or force the additive and multiplicative fits to disagree with the data; either outcome would refute the compensation mechanism as described.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Stated as the authors would state it: the large-$x$ behavior of the neutron-to-proton structure function ratio is partly an artefact of how higher-twist corrections are implemented, not a pure measurement. For an isospin-independent multiplicative correction, the factor $(1 + C/Q^2)$ cancels in the ratio and $n/p$ approaches the leading-twist value $1/4$ as $x \to 1$. For an isospin-independent additive correction, the ratio picks up a term proportional to $H/(u Q^2)$, and the fitted $n/p$ rises noticeably — about 25% higher at $x = 0.8$. Because the neutron structure function reaches global fits almost entirely through deuteron data, the fit compensates for this artificial rise by shifting the fitted off-shell deformation $\delta_f$: positive in the additive case, negative in the multiplicative case, with both fits describing the deuteron-to-proton ratio equally well. Relaxing the isospin-independence constraint lets the proton and neutron higher-twist functions absorb the isospin-dependent $1/Q^2$ effects; the additive and multiplicative fits then yield compatible $n/p$ ratios and compatible off-shell functions, and the difference between them becomes a bounded, quantifiable systematic uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the off-shell deformation $\delta_f$ of nucleons bound in the deuteron is independent of $Q^2$, even though the higher-twist corrections it is found to compensate fall as $1/Q^2$; the paper states this in Section II.B.2 and flags it as "somewhat peculiar" in Section III.C, so if $\delta_f$ actually varies with $Q^2$, the compensation pattern and the inferred bias magnitude could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Extracting the neutron-to-proton ratio without reporting the higher-twist implementation is incomplete: isospin-independent fits can shift the ratio by about 25% at $x = 0.8$ depending on the additive or multiplicative form.
  • Fitting proton and neutron higher-twist functions separately removes the compensation mechanism, and the residual additive-versus-multiplicative spread becomes the systematic uncertainty to quote.
  • The fitted off-shell deformation of deuteron-bound nucleons is currently correlated with the higher-twist implementation, so its large-$x$ values should not be read as a physical nucleon deformation until the isospin-dependent treatment is standard.
  • The $d/u$ PDF ratio stays protected from the bias only when free-proton data such as the $W$-boson rapidity asymmetry from proton-antiproton collisions pin it down; without them the bias migrates into $d/u$.
  • Deuteron data with wider $Q^2$ reach or higher statistical power at large $x$ are required to separate the $Q^2$-independent off-shell effect from the $1/Q^2$ higher-twist terms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The bias mechanism is generic rather than framework-specific: any fit that forces proton and neutron $1/Q^2$ corrections to be identical and chooses the additive form inherits the same artificial $n/p$ tail, because the argument turns only on the structure-function ratio.
  • If the off-shell deformation carries intrinsic $Q^2$ dependence — which the paper itself notes is peculiar to exclude — then both the extracted $\delta_f$ and the higher-twist functions would need revisiting; a joint fit with $Q^2$-dependent off-shell terms is a direct testable extension.
  • The paper's effective off-shell function for the deuteron structure function, defined in its Appendix C, is a portable quantity that other fitting groups could compute, making it a natural cross-framework benchmark for nuclear corrections.
  • The same isospin-blind treatment could bias flavor-dependent off-shell extractions from tritium and helium-3 data, so future analyses of those targets should adopt isospin-dependent higher-twist terms from the outset.
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. This paper investigates how the phenomenological implementation of higher-twist (HT) corrections in global QCD analyses of deep-inelastic scattering affects extracted large-x quantities. Working in the CTEQ-JLab (CJ22) framework, the authors compare multiplicative (F2[1+C(x)/Q2]) and additive (F2+H(x)/Q2) HT forms, each with the HT function either constrained to be identical for proton and neutron (isospin-independent) or fitted separately (isospin-dependent). They find that the isospin-independent additive and multiplicative implementations describe the deuteron data with comparable quality but imply substantially different n/p structure function ratios at large x (about 25% at x=0.8, Fig. 1) and oppositely signed off-shell deformation functions δf; the near-identical D/p predictions (Fig. 2) are interpreted as the fitted off-shell function compensating for the HT implementation choice. When isospin dependence is allowed (Fig. 4), the additive and multiplicative fits agree in n/p, d/u and δf, the n/p tail is closer to the multiplicative result as anticipated by the analytic argument of Sec. IID (Eqs. 13-15), and the neutron HT function is found to be roughly half the proton one. The paper further shows (Sec. IV) that without Tevatron W-asymmetry data the compensation can partly shift into the d/u ratio, but the isospin-dependent conclusion persists.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper has immediate practical consequences for large-x PDF analyses: global fits that silently assume isospin-independent higher-twist corrections carry a large, previously underestimated systematic uncertainty in the n/p ratio and in the extracted deuteron off-shell deformation. The paper's strengths are substantial: a transparent analytic demonstration of the implementation ambiguity (Eqs. 13-15), a controlled comparison in which only the HT implementation is varied within the same framework, explicit treatment of the WBA smearing and off-shell formalism, a concrete recommendation (isospin-dependent HT with the additive/multiplicative spread quoted as uncertainty), and unusually candid statements of the model limitations (Q2-independence of δf, the catch-all nature of the fitted HT term, and the WBA validity range). Inclusion of the full CJ22 data set and the BONuS cross-checks (Figs. 3 and 6) lends weight to the numerical results.

major comments (3)
  1. [Secs. II.D, III, and V] The central claim — that isospin-independent HT implementations are biased and that separate proton and neutron HT functions remove the bias — is inferred from refitting the same experimental data with different ansatze, not from recovery of a known input. The analytic argument in Sec. IID (Eqs. 13-15) fixes the asymptotic n/p behavior for fixed coefficients H and C, and Eqs. (11)-(12) correctly show that an isospin-independent multiplicative term is isospin-dependent when rewritten additively. In the fits, however, C(x) and H(x) are free parameters, so the roughly 25% difference at x=0.8 (Sec. IIIA, Fig. 1) is a property of the fitted ansatze under the data constraints; it does not by itself establish which scenario is closer to the truth. A mock-data closure test — generating pseudodata from a known model with specified input HT functions and δf, then refitting under all four scenarios — would directly establish whether the isospin-dependent fits recover the input n/p, d/u, and δf, and whether the isospin-independent additive and multiplicative fits deviate in the claimed direction. I recommend adding such a test, or explicitly reframing the conclusions as demonstrating a systematic ambiguity with a well-motivated preferred resolution rather than a demonstrated bias.
  2. [Sec. II.B.2 and Sec. III.C] The compensation mechanism underlying the paper assumes δf is independent of Q2 while the HT terms fall as 1/Q2. The assumption is stated in Sec. II.B.2, and Sec. III.C correctly flags it as 'somewhat peculiar' given that a Q2-independent term is used to absorb a power-suppressed bias. Over the limited Q2 range of the SLAC deuteron data, a constant shift is partially degenerate with a 1/Q2 term, so the partition of the correction between δf and the HT functions is ansatz-dependent. If δf were allowed a mild Q2 dependence (e.g., a logarithmic or 1/Q2 term), the additive and multiplicative isospin-independent fits might be reconciled differently, which could weaken the conclusion that isospin-dependent HT is required. The concluding paragraph of Sec. V anticipates this caveat qualitatively, but the central message depends on the point; I would like to see a robustness test in which a Q2-dependent parameter is added to δf and the four scenarios of Secs. IIIA-IIIB are rerun, to determine whether the main conclusions survive.
  3. [Sec. IV, Figs. 7-9] Section IV demonstrates that the compensation channel is not unique. With W-asymmetry data excluded and b fixed to 0.06 (Fig. 8), the multiplicative fit agrees with the additive fit in n/p and δf, but the implementation difference reappears in d/u, at a cost of Δχ2=10 and χ2_W/npt=6; the text further states that a similar reconciliation can be obtained by increasing the multiplicative off-shell function, again pushing the difference into d/u. This shows that the allocation of the HT implementation difference among n/p, δf, and d/u depends on the data set and on the parametrization rather than being determined uniquely by the physics. The paper draws the right conclusion regarding the value of the W-asymmetry data, but the non-uniqueness should be acknowledged when the 'artificial compensation by the off-shell function' is stated in Secs. IIIA and V, and ideally the effect should be quantified as a range over the allowed compensation channels.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] 'in teh global fit' is a typo for 'in the global fit'.
  2. [Acknowledgments] 'aknowledge' is a typo for 'acknowledge'.
  3. [Appendix C] The clause defining δF2D is garbled ('dwefined as i.e.'); it should read 'is defined as'.
  4. [Sec. III.B] 'there there is no need' contains a duplicated word.
  5. [Secs. III.A-III.B] For the four main scenarios, the paper quotes no total or per-dataset χ2 values; reporting them (as it does for the Δχ2=10 and χ2_W/npt values in Sec. IV) would let the reader see whether the isospin-dependent fits are preferred by the data or merely equally acceptable.
  6. [Eq. (14)] The appearance of the factor 9 in the numerator and denominator would be clearer if the text noted that the charge factors (4/9, 1/9) have been cleared by a common factor 9; without this remark, the reader may wonder about the normalization convention for H(x).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction: the additive-vs-multiplicative difference is analytic, and the numerical comparison is a model-uncertainty study rather than a disguised prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is not circular. Equations (13)-(15) explicitly derive the different x->1 limits of the n/p ratio from the definitions of isospin-independent multiplicative and additive higher-twist terms, so the difference is a mathematical consequence of the ansatze rather than a hidden reuse of the conclusion. The numerical fits in Secs. III-IV then test whether the expected difference survives in a full global fit; the observation that the off-shell function compensates in one case and not the other is read off from the fitted functions, which is a model-dependence or validation concern (the skeptic's mock-data closure test would strengthen the inference), but it is not a circular reduction: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation is used as the load-bearing argument. The reliance on the CJ22 framework [20] is a normal use of the authors' own established fitting setup and is not what drives the additive/multiplicative comparison. The paper also explicitly flags the fragility of its interpretation in Sec. III.C, calling it 'somewhat peculiar' that a Q2-independent off-shell term compensates a 1/Q2 higher-twist term, and in Sec. IV it shows the compensation can shift to the d/u ratio when W-asymmetry data are excluded. These admissions indicate the authors are exposing assumptions rather than smuggling in the conclusion. The result is thus a legitimate systematic-uncertainty study with an independent analytic anchor; the main weakness is the absence of a closure test, which belongs to validation risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the WBA, the Q2-independent off-shell assumption, the catch-all HT assumption, and the ability to include both Tevatron W data sets. These are standard assumptions in the field but are not independently verified in this paper. The only clearly ad hoc element is the separately fitted proton and neutron HT functions, which are introduced as a remedy without a theoretical model for their isospin difference. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • d-quark PDF mixing parameter b = not quoted (varied; fixed to 0.06 in one illustrative fit)
    Controls the x to 1 limit of d/u in Eq. (1); central to the d-quark extraction but not tabulated in the paper.
  • off-shell function polynomial coefficients a_off^(0), a_off^(1), a_off^(2) = not quoted
    Second-degree polynomial delta_f(x) in Eq. (7), fitted to deuteron DIS data; these three coefficients absorb the HT implementation bias in the isospin-independent fits.
  • proton higher-twist function C_p(x) or H_p(x) = not quoted; shown only as bands in Figs. 1 and 4
    Fitted x-dependent 1/Q2 power correction for proton DIS (Eq. (9) or (10)); the parametrization form is not specified.
  • neutron higher-twist function C_n(x) or H_n(x) = not quoted; shown as bands
    Fitted separately in the isospin-dependent scenarios; central to the recommended remedy.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Non-relativistic Weak Binding Approximation with AV18 deuteron wave function is valid for deuteron DIS at x up to about 0.8.
    Used in Eq. (2) and Appendix A to compute the smearing function; the paper notes a relativistic treatment is needed at higher x (Sec. II.B.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Off-shell nucleon deformation delta_f(x) is independent of Q2.
    Stated in Sec. II.B.2 and discussed in Sec. III.C; the claimed compensation mechanism and the interpretation of the bias rely on the different Q2 dependence of off-shell and 1/Q2 HT terms.
  • domain assumption The fitted higher-twist term collects all residual 1/Q2 power corrections and can be cleanly separated from leading-twist PDF dynamics.
    Sec. II.C states the HT term is a catch-all and that leading-twist dynamics can be reliably extracted as long as a suitable power correction is included; this is a standard phenomenological assumption.
  • domain assumption Final-state interactions in deuteron DIS are negligible and the spectator nucleon is on-shell.
    Explicit assumption in Eq. (2) and Appendix A; standard in the impulse approximation.
  • domain assumption Tevatron decay-lepton and reconstructed W-boson asymmetry data from the same events can be included together without harmful double counting.
    Appendix D argues their sensitivity ranges are complementary; this underpins the free-nucleon d/u constraint that the fits use as a baseline.
  • domain assumption First-order expansion in the bound-nucleon virtuality v = (p^2 - M^2)/M^2 is sufficient for off-shell corrections.
    Eqs. (3)-(4) in Sec. II.B.2; higher-order terms in virtuality are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper Proton and neutron higher-twist functions can be fitted independently without a theoretical prior relating their x-dependence.
    This is the paper's proposed remedy (Sec. II.D, Sec. III.B); it is a phenomenological choice, and the paper cautions against overinterpreting the fitted HT functions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Systematic uncertainties from higher-twist corrections in DIS at large x." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BDID7VOP

@misc{pith2026250106849,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Systematic uncertainties from higher-twist corrections in DIS at large x},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BDID7VOP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06849}
}
abstract

We investigate the systematic uncertainties and potential biases arising from the inclusion of large-$x$ corrections to proton and deuteron deep inelastic scattering (DIS) data in global quantum chromodynamics (QCD) analyses. Using the CTEQ-JLab framework, we examine various approaches to implementing higher-twist corrections in nucleon structure functions and off-shell PDF modifications in deuteron targets. We analyze how these components interact and influence the determination of the $d$-quark PDF and the neutron structure function at large $x$. We find that it is very important to consider isospin-dependent higher-twist corrections in order to minimize implementation biases in the extracted quantities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06849 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Comparison of the results when implementing isospin-independent (HT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Comparison between a selection of experimental measurements of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Comparison between a selection of experimental measurements of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Comparison of the results when implementing isospin-dependent (HT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Comparison between a selection of experimental data on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison between a selection of experimental data on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Comparison of the results of the CJ analyses when excluding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Same conventions and notation as in previous figure but imposing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Fit excluding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Comparison of the extracted off-shell function with polynomial parametrization of 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Same as Figure 10 but isospin-dependent (HT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Comparison of the calculated “effective” off-shell function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Comparison between a standard CJ22 fit (black dashed band) and fit excluding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Isospin dependence of nuclear EMC effect from global QCD analysis

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Nucleon parton distributions must include off-shell (binding) corrections to describe A=2,3 DIS data, with evidence for an isovector component that changes the extracted nuclear EMC ratios.

  2. Pionic gluons from global QCD analysis of experimental and lattice data

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A global fit of pion parton distributions including lattice gluon data reduces uncertainties on the high-x gluon PDF and indicates a gluon enhancement in the pion over the proton.

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

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

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

  4. NNLO Determination of Polarized Parton Distribution Functions with Higher-Twist and Target-Mass Corrections

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    KLS26 is an NNLO polarized PDF set from inclusive DIS that includes TMC, additive and multiplicative higher-twist terms, and positivity, with the largest NNLO shifts in the strange-quark helicity distribution.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Its full expression is reported in Appendix A

    Deuteron Smearing The smearing function fN/D can be calculated in the Weak Binding Approximation (WBA) [44–48] as a product of the non-relativistic wave function of a nucleon inside the nucleus and kinematic factors that depend on the structure function under consideration. Its full expression is reported in Appendix A. For our analysis we use a wave func...

  2. [2]

    residual

    Off-shell corrections 7 C. 1/Q2 power corrections 9 D. Systematic bias in the implementation of higher-twist corrections 11 III. Interplay of higher-twist and off-shell corrections 13 A. Isospin-independent HT implementation 14 B. Isospin-dependent HT implementation 18 C. Results from other studies 21 IV. Fits excludingW-boson asymmetry data 22 V. Conclus...

  3. [3]

    = adv 0 dv(x, Q2 0) adv 0 + bxcuv(x, Q2 0) . (1) The normalization adv 0 is determined by the valence sum rule,b is a free parameter, and c = 2 is fixed due to the lack of strong constraints from the currently available experimental data. The theoretical setup is also the same as in the CJ22 fit. More specifically, we calculate observables at next-to-lead...

  4. [4]

    off-shell functions

    Off-shell corrections Deformations of the bound nucleon structure that can affect DIS at largex are assumed to depend on the nucleon’s (off-shell) four-momentum squared. In the deuteron,p2 does not differ much from the free-nucleon massM 2 and one can Taylor-expand the off-shell nucleon structure around its on-shell limitp2 ≃ M 2 using the nucleon’s virtu...

  5. [5]

    S. J. Brodsky, M. Burkardt, and I. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. B441, 197 (1995)

    1995

  6. [6]

    Melnitchouk and A

    W. Melnitchouk and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B377, 11 (1996)

    1996

  7. [7]

    Isgur, Phys

    N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D59, 034013 (1999)

    1999

  8. [8]

    R. J. Holt and C. D. Roberts, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2991 (2010)

    2010

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    C. D. Roberts, R. J. Holt, and S. M. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B727, 249 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Accardi, PoSDIS2015, 001 (2015)

    A. Accardi, PoSDIS2015, 001 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Accardi et al., Eur

    A. Accardi et al., Eur. Phys. J. C76, 471 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Accardi, T

    A. Accardi, T. J. Hobbs, X. Jing, and P. M. Nadolsky, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 603 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    R. D. Ball, A. Candido, S. Forte, F. Hekhorn, E. R. Nocera, J. Rojo, and C. Schwan, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 1160 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Hammou, Z

    E. Hammou, Z. Kassabov, M. Madigan, M. L. Mangano, L. Mantani, J. Moore, M. M. Al- varado, and M. Ubiali, JHEP11, 090 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Hammou and M

    E. Hammou and M. Ubiali (2024), arXiv:2410.00963 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ubiali (2024), arXiv:2404.08508 [hep-ph]

    M. Ubiali (2024), arXiv:2404.08508 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Wang et al

    D. Wang et al. (PVDIS), Nature506, 67 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Arrington et al

    J. Arrington et al. (Jefferson Lab SoLID), J. Phys. G50, 110501 (2023). 27

    2023

  11. [19]

    Boughezal, F

    R. Boughezal, F. Petriello, and D. Wiegand, Phys. Rev. D104, 016005 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Bacchetta, M

    A. Bacchetta, M. Cerutti, L. Manna, M. Radici, and X. Zheng, Phys. Lett. B849, 138455 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Accardi, M

    A. Accardi, M. E. Christy, C. E. Keppel, W. Melnitchouk, P. Monaghan, J. G. Morfín, and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D81, 034016 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    J. F. Owens, A. Accardi, and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. D87, 094012 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    Accardi, L

    A. Accardi, L. T. Brady, W. Melnitchouk, J. F. Owens, and N. Sato, Phys. Rev. D93, 114017 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Accardi, X

    A. Accardi, X. Jing, J. F. Owens, and S. Park, Phys. Rev. D107, 113005 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Jimenez-Delgado, W

    P. Jimenez-Delgado, W. Melnitchouk, and J. F. Owens, J. Phys. G40, 093102 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Kovařík, P

    K. Kovařík, P. M. Nadolsky, and D. E. Soper, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 045003 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Blumlein, H

    J. Blumlein, H. Bottcher, and A. Guffanti, Nucl. Phys. B774, 182 (2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    Blumlein and H

    J. Blumlein and H. Bottcher, Phys. Lett. B662, 336 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Blumlein and H

    J. Blumlein and H. Bottcher, in 20th International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects (2012), pp. 237–241, arXiv:1207.3170 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Georgi and H

    H. Georgi and H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. D14, 1829 (1976)

    1976

  23. [31]

    De Rujula, H

    A. De Rujula, H. Georgi, and H. D. Politzer, Annals Phys.103, 315 (1977)

    1977

  24. [32]

    M. A. G. Aivazis, F. I. Olness, and W.-K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D50, 3085 (1994)

    1994

  25. [33]

    Kretzer and M

    S. Kretzer and M. H. Reno, Phys. Rev. D66, 113007 (2002)

    2002

  26. [34]

    Accardi and J.-W

    A. Accardi and J.-W. Qiu, JHEP07, 090 (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    F. M. Steffens, M. D. Brown, W. Melnitchouk, and S. Sanches, Phys. Rev. C86, 065208 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Schienbein et al., J

    I. Schienbein et al., J. Phys. G35, 053101 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    L. T. Brady, A. Accardi, T. J. Hobbs, and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. D84, 074008 (2011), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 85, 039902 (2012)]

    2011

  30. [38]

    Ruiz et al., Prog

    R. Ruiz et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.136, 104096 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Virchaux and A

    M. Virchaux and A. Milsztajn, Phys. Lett. B274, 221 (1992)

    1992

  32. [40]

    S. I. Alekhin, S. A. Kulagin, and S. Liuti, Phys. Rev. D69, 114009 (2004)

    2004

  33. [41]

    Alekhin, S

    S. Alekhin, S. A. Kulagin, and R. Petti, in 16th International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects (2008), p. 43, arXiv:0810.4893 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Alekhin, J

    S. Alekhin, J. Blumlein, and S. Moch, Phys. Rev. D86, 054009 (2012). 28

    2012

  35. [43]

    Cocuzza, C

    C. Cocuzza, C. E. Keppel, H. Liu, W. Melnitchouk, A. Metz, N. Sato, and A. W. Thomas (Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM)), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 242001 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Alekhin, J

    S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein, S. Moch, and R. Placakyte, Phys. Rev. D96, 014011 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Alekhin, S

    S. Alekhin, S. Kulagin, and R. Petti, Phys. Rev. D96, 054005 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    S. I. Alekhin, S. A. Kulagin, and R. Petti, Phys. Rev. D105, 114037 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    S. I. Alekhin, S. A. Kulagin, and R. Petti, Phys. Rev. D107, L051506 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    S. A. Kulagin, Nucl. Phys. A500, 653 (1989)

    1989

  41. [49]

    S. A. Kulagin, G. Piller, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C50, 1154 (1994)

    1994

  42. [50]

    S. A. Kulagin and R. Petti, Nucl. Phys. A765, 126 (2006)

    2006

  43. [51]

    S. A. Kulagin and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. C77, 015210 (2008)

    2008

  44. [52]

    Y. Kahn, W. Melnitchouk, and S. A. Kulagin, Phys. Rev. C79, 035205 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    Del Dotto, E

    A. Del Dotto, E. Pace, G. Salmè, and S. Scopetta, Phys. Rev. C95, 014001 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Fornetti, E

    F. Fornetti, E. Pace, M. Rinaldi, G. Salmè, S. Scopetta, and M. Viviani, Phys. Lett. B851, 138587 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Accardi et al., Eur

    A. Accardi et al., Eur. Phys. J. A60, 173 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Krämer, F

    M. Krämer, F. I. Olness, and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D62, 096007 (2000)

    2000

  49. [57]

    Carli, D

    T. Carli, D. Clements, A. Cooper-Sarkar, C. Gwenlan, G. P. Salam, F. Siegert, P. Starovoitov, and M. Sutton, Eur. Phys. J. C66, 503 (2010)

    2010

  50. [58]

    R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C51, 38 (1995)

    1995

  51. [59]

    Gross and A

    F. Gross and A. Stadler, Phys. Rev. C82, 034004 (2010)

    2010

  52. [60]

    Machleidt, Phys

    R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C63, 024001 (2001)

    2001

  53. [61]

    S. Li, A. Accardi, M. Cerutti, I. P. Fernando, C. E. Keppel, W. Melnitchouk, P. Monaghan, G. Niculescu, M. I. Niculescu, and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D109, 074036 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    P. J. Ehlers, A. Accardi, L. T. Brady, and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. D90, 014010 (2014)

    2014

  55. [63]

    S. A. Kulagin and R. Petti, Phys. Rev. C90, 045204 (2014)

    2014

  56. [64]

    Melnitchouk, A

    W. Melnitchouk, A. W. Schreiber, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B335, 11 (1994)

    1994

  57. [65]

    Melnitchouk, A

    W. Melnitchouk, A. W. Schreiber, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D49, 1183 (1994)

    1994

  58. [66]

    S. A. Kulagin, W. Melnitchouk, G. Piller, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C52, 932 (1995)

    1995

  59. [67]

    Corcella and L

    G. Corcella and L. Magnea, Phys. Rev. D72, 074017 (2005)

    2005

  60. [68]

    Accardi, D

    A. Accardi, D. P. Anderle, and F. Ringer, Phys. Rev. D91, 034008 (2015)

    2015

  61. [69]

    Bonvini, S

    M. Bonvini, S. Marzani, J. Rojo, L. Rottoli, M. Ubiali, R. D. Ball, V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, 29 and N. P. Hartland, JHEP09, 191 (2015)

    2015

  62. [70]

    Simonelli, A

    A. Simonelli, A. Accardi, M. Cerutti, C. S. R. Costa, and A. Signori (2025), arXiv:2502.15033 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [71]

    A. D. Martin, R. G. Roberts, W. J. Stirling, and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C35, 325 (2004)

    2004

  64. [72]

    Krause, Validation of hadron mass correction schemes in deep inelastic scattering at low energy transfer (2023), M.Sc

    A. Krause, Validation of hadron mass correction schemes in deep inelastic scattering at low energy transfer (2023), M.Sc. thesis, URLhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2899570295

    2023

  65. [73]

    Cerutti, A

    M. Cerutti, A. Accardi, I. P. Fernando, and S. Li, PoSDIS2024, 031 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    V. M. Abazov et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 151803 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 114, 049901 (2015)]

    2014

  67. [75]

    Acosta et al

    D. Acosta et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. D71, 051104 (2005)

    2005

  68. [76]

    Baillie et al

    N. Baillie et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 142001 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 108, 199902 (2012)]

    2012

  69. [77]

    Tkachenko et al

    S. Tkachenko et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. C89, 045206 (2014), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.C 90, 059901 (2014)]

    2014

  70. [78]

    Whitlow, E

    L. Whitlow, E. Riordan, S. Dasu, S. Rock, and A. Bodek, Phys. Lett. B282, 475 (1992), ISSN 03702693

    1992

  71. [79]

    V. M. Abazov et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. D91, 032007 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 91, 079901 (2015)]

    2015

  72. [80]

    V. M. Abazov et al. (D0), Phys. Rev. D88, 091102 (2013)

    2013

  73. [81]

    Aaltonen et al

    T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 181801 (2009)

    2009

  74. [82]

    Arneodo et al

    M. Arneodo et al. (New Muon), Nucl. Phys. B483, 3 (1997)

    1997

  75. [83]

    Arneodo et al

    M. Arneodo et al. (New Muon), Nucl. Phys. B487, 3 (1997)

    1997

  76. [84]

    Airapetian et al

    A. Airapetian et al. (HERMES), JHEP05, 126 (2011)

    2011

  77. [85]

    The Structure of the Free Neutron at Largex-Bjorken

    S. Bültmann, S. E. Kuhn, H. Fenker, W. Melnitchouk, M. E. Christy, C. Keppel, et al., “The Structure of the Free Neutron at Largex-Bjorken” (2024), JLab experiment E12-06-113 proposal, URL https://www.jlab.org/exp_prog/proposals/10/PR12-06-113-pac36.pdf

    2024

  78. [86]

    Update on BONUS12 Analysis

    M. Hattawy, “Update on BONUS12 Analysis” (2024), Talk presented at the 2024 CLAS Collaboration Meeting, Jefferson Lab, URL https://indico.jlab.org/event/910/ contributions/15547/attachments/11957/18766/CLAS_meeting_Nov2024.pdf

    2024

  79. [87]

    Abrams et al., Phys

    D. Abrams et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 132003 (2022)

    2022

  80. [88]

    Biswas et al

    D. Biswas et al. (2024), arXiv:2409.15236 [hep-ex]. 30

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Dudek et al., Eur

    J. Dudek et al., Eur. Phys. J. A48, 187 (2012)

    2012

  82. [90]

    Impact of JLab 22 on unpolarized PDFs at largex

    M. Cerutti, A. Accardi, and S. Li, “Impact of JLab 22 on unpolarized PDFs at largex” (2024), Talk presented at “Science at the Luminosity Frontier: Jefferson Lab at 22 GeV”, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, URLhttps://agenda.infn.it/event/39742/contributions/247847

    2024

  83. [91]

    Abdul Khalek et al., Nucl

    R. Abdul Khalek et al., Nucl. Phys. A1026, 122447 (2022)

    2022

  84. [92]

    Physics opportunities with the fixed- target program of the LHCb experiment using an unpolarized gas target

    A. Bursche1, H. Dembinski, P. D. Nezza, M. Ferro-Luzzi, F. Fleuret, G. Graziani, E. M. G. Manca, N. Neri, L. Pappalardo, P. Robbe, et al., “Physics opportunities with the fixed- target program of the LHCb experiment using an unpolarized gas target” (2019), LHCb-PUB- 2018-015, ...

    2019

Pith tools

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