Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 76 references

The 3D structure of the Nucleon in momentum space: TMD phenomenology

T0 review · 1 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 argues that unpolarized quark transverse-momentum-dependent distributions have reached a precision comparable to collinear PDFs, while polarized and gluon TMDs remain far less constrained.

desk verdict Solid status review whose 'precision era' headline is slightly ahead of the evidence: perturbative accuracy is high, but fNP uncertainty is not quantified. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08806 v1 pith:FYN2VWUL submitted 2025-01-15 hep-ph

Marco Radici This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords transverse-momentum-dependentdistributionsunpolarizedquarkTMDsTMDfactorizationglobalfitsDrell-YanandSIDISSiverseffecttransversitytensorchargegluon
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 short review argues that transverse-momentum-dependent (TMD) distributions, the functions that map how quarks and gluons move sideways inside a fast-moving nucleon, have reached very different levels of maturity. For unpolarized quarks, the field has entered what the author calls a precision era: the TMD PDF $f_1^q$ for each flavor can now be extracted from global fits of semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering, Drell-Yan, and $Z$-boson data, with resummation accuracies up to N4LL and $\chi^2/N$ values near one, comparable to state-of-the-art collinear PDF extractions. That matters because $f_1^q$ is the denominator of every asymmetry used to extract polarized TMDs and because it feeds flavor-sensitive precision observables such as the $W$-boson mass. The same precision does not yet exist for polarized quark TMDs like the Sivers function and transversity, nor for gluon TMDs, where experimental information is scarce and model calculations carry the discussion. The paper also highlights a persistent 3 to 4$\sigma$ tension between the tensor charge extracted from phenomenology and from lattice QCD, and the still-unconfirmed prediction that the Sivers function changes sign between SIDIS and Drell-Yan processes.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the $b_T$-space factorization formula for the unpolarized TMD PDF, Eq. (3): $\hat f_1(x,b_T^2;Q) = E_{\rm evo}(Q\leftarrow \mu_{b_*})\,[C\otimes f_1](x,\mu_{b_*})\, f_{\rm NP}(x,b_T^2)$. The evolution operator $E_{\rm evo}$ resums large soft-gluon logarithms, the Wilson coefficient $C$ matches the TMD onto the collinear PDF $f_1$ at small $b_T$, and the $b_*$ prescription freezes the scale $\mu_{b_*}$ at large $b_T$ so the perturbative series does not hit the Landau pole. The fitted nonperturbative function $f_{\rm NP}$, constrained by $f_{\rm NP}\to1$ as $b_T\to0$, absorbs the power corrections $(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/q_T)^m$ that the $b_*$ procedure introduces at low $q_T$. The 'Accuracy' column in Fig. 1 is the order to which $E_{\rm evo}$ and $C$ are computed, and the rightmost column is the quality of the $f_{\rm NP}$ fit; the claim of a precision era is exactly the claim that this pair of numbers now means what it appears to mean.

What would settle it

Fit $f_1^q$ to the same data set with two different $b_{\max}$ values or two different functional forms of $f_{\rm NP}$; if the extracted TMDs disagree by more than the quoted uncertainty band, the precision-era claim is overstated. Alternatively, compute the large-$b_T$ TMD on the lattice and compare with the fitted $f_{\rm NP}$; a significant mismatch would show that the nonperturbative term is not absorbing the true power corrections.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that unpolarized quark TMDs have crossed from illustrative to precision phenomenology. The evidence is the table of recent extractions in Fig. 1: reading from the 2017 fits at NLL accuracy over 8059 points with $\chi^2/N=1.5$ down to the 2023 N4LL fit and the 2024 flavor-dependent global fit at N3LL with $\chi^2/N\simeq1.06$, the trajectory mirrors what happened for collinear PDFs over the previous decades. The author states this directly in the summary: 'for unpolarized quark TMDs, we can assert that we entered a precision era.' On the other hand, polarized quark TMDs are based on smaller data sets with lower perturbative accuracy, and gluon TMDs, though completely classified at leading twist with proven factorization for several processes, remain dominated by model predictions rather than extractions.

Load-bearing premise

The precision-era claim rests on the assumption that the $b_*$ prescription and the fitted nonperturbative function $f_{\rm NP}(x,b_T^2)$ capture all power corrections of order $(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/q_T)^m$ near $q_T\simeq\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$; if that function is too rigid or misses genuine large-$b_T$ physics, the quoted N3LL or N4LL accuracy overstates the real precision of the extracted TMDs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Flavor-sensitive LHC measurements such as the $W$-boson mass can now be analyzed with genuine flavor-dependent intrinsic transverse momentum from $f_1^q$, including a quantified nonperturbative uncertainty.
  • Projections with EIC pseudodata show the relative uncertainty on $f_1^q$ shrinking by about a factor 2 at $x=0.001$, and by a factor 3 for $d$ and $\bar d$, making 3D flavor tomography of the proton testable.
  • The predicted sign change of the Sivers function between SIDIS and Drell-Yan remains one of the sharpest unconfirmed predictions of QCD; future data could either confirm it or expose a breakdown of the TMD factorization assumptions.
  • A confirmed small-$x$ Sivers effect with the predicted C-odd behavior would provide indirect evidence for the spin Odderon, tying TMD phenomenology to the high-energy color-glass-condensate picture.
  • If the tensor-charge tension between phenomenology and lattice QCD survives future SoLID and EIC data, it would signal missing theoretical input in one of the two extractions, a key input for searches for new tensor interactions beyond the Standard Model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the precision-era claim is correct, the limiting uncertainty in unpolarized TMD fits has shifted from resummation order to the parametric form of $f_{\rm NP}$ and the choice of $b_{\max}$; a direct check would be to fit the same data with different $b_*$ prescriptions and compare the spread.
  • Editorial inference: the spectator-model gluon TMDs shown in Fig. 5 could be promoted from predictions to tests by feeding them into global fits of quarkonium or dijet production, where factorization has been proven, to see whether the model's T-odd patterns survive.
  • Editorial inference: the tensor-charge tension may not be purely statistical, because a handful of lattice points leave $\chi^2$ almost unchanged yet shift the fitted values strongly; this points to non-Gaussian pulls or parameterization sensitivity rather than simply more data.
  • Editorial inference: a natural testable extension is to use the same EIC pseudodata framework to project uncertainties for the Sivers function at small $x$; the existing impact studies are for $f_1^q$, and the analogous projection for the T-odd sector would show how quickly the sign-change prediction could be confirmed.
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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This is a short proceedings contribution reviewing the current phenomenological status of transverse-momentum-dependent parton distributions (TMD PDFs). The paper summarizes the factorized cross sections for Drell-Yan and SIDIS, the b*-prescription for TMD evolution, and a table of recent global extractions of the unpolarized quark TMD f1. It then discusses selected results: an EIC pseudodata impact study on flavor-dependent f1, the Sivers sign-change prediction and its possible connection to the spin Odderon, the transversity/tensor-charge comparison with lattice QCD, and a spectator-model calculation of gluon TMDs. The central claim, stated in the abstract and in Section 5, is that unpolarized quark TMD extractions have reached a 'precision era' with accuracy comparable to collinear PDF extractions, while polarized quark and gluon TMDs remain much less constrained.

Significance. The paper is a useful, compact status report on TMD phenomenology. Its main value is synthetic: it collects the recent f1 extractions in one table, states the standard factorization equations clearly, and identifies key open questions (Sivers sign change, spin Odderon, transversity-lattice tension, and the scarcity of gluon TMD data). It also makes testable predictions, most notably the SIDIS/DY sign change of the Sivers function and the small-x connection to the spin Odderon. The paper does not present new derivations or new numerical fits, but as a proceedings overview it serves a legitimate purpose. The main risk is that the 'precision era' wording overstates the certainty of the extracted TMDs, since the nonperturbative input fNP is not subjected to the same systematic scrutiny as the perturbative ingredients.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 5 and Abstract] The central claim that unpolarized quark TMD extractions have entered a 'precision era' with accuracy 'comparable to state-of-art extractions of PDFs' is supported only by the perturbative resummation order and by the fit quality chi2/N listed in Fig. 1. However, as Section 2 correctly states after Eq. (3), the b*-prescription introduces power corrections that for qT near Lambda_QCD must be absorbed into the fitted nonperturbative function fNP. The paper gives no test of the sensitivity of the extracted f1 to the functional form of fNP or to the choice of bmax, and no comparison of the spread among the different extractions in Fig. 1 as a proxy for systematic uncertainty. Without such an assessment, the claim of comparability with collinear PDF extractions, which typically include parametrization and scale uncertainties, is not fully established. I recommend either adding a robustness test (e.g., varying the fNP parametrization and bmax, or quantifying the spread among the fits in Fig. 1) or explicitly limiting the claim to the perturbative accuracy of the theoretical framework rather than to the total precision of the extracted TMDs.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Fig. 2] The quantitative statements that EIC pseudodata reduce the f1 uncertainty 'by a factor 2 overall' and 'by a factor 3 for d and dbar' are based on 'L. Rossi, Ph.D. Thesis, in preparation' and are labelled 'Preliminary'. For a published proceedings, these numbers should be backed by a citable preprint or by an appendix describing the pseudodata assumptions; otherwise the claims should be presented as qualitative illustrations.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Fig. 4] Both panels of Fig. 4 are 'adapted from' conference talks by C. Alexandrou and D. Pitonyak (QCD Evolution 24). The figure caption should cite the primary publications [66,67,51,59,58] so that readers can verify the numerical comparison and the claimed 3-4 sigma tension.
  3. [Section 2, after Eq. (3)] The sentence 'In this limit, the function b*(bT) saturates to a fixed bmin value' is unclear. In the standard b* prescription, b*(bT) saturates to bmax at large bT; the role of bmin, if any, should be defined explicitly. Please give the explicit definition of b*(bT) or correct the statement.
  4. [Section 3.2] The typeset version contains a duplicated block of text from the EIC Yellow Report (the paragraph beginning 'ments will also play a key role...' appears twice in the text surrounding Fig. 3). This editing artifact should be removed.
  5. [Equation (1)] The variables xA and xB and the hard factor H_DY are used in Eq. (1) but not defined in the surrounding text. Please define them explicitly for the non-specialist reader.
  6. [General formatting] The 'printed on' page headers and the 'Preliminary' watermarks in the figures should be cleaned before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a conference overview that reports published global fits of TMDs to external data; the fitted nonperturbative term f_NP is explicitly labeled as fitted, and no prediction in the paper reduces by construction to an input fit.

full rationale

The manuscript does not present a new derivation whose output coincides with its input. Equation (3) is the standard TMD factorization ansatz in bT-space, with the nonperturbative function fNP explicitly said to be fitted to experimental data and constrained by fNP -> 1 at small bT; the 'Accuracy' column of Fig. 1 is defined as the perturbative order in H, Evo, and C, while the chi2/N column is described as the quality of the fit fixing fNP parameters. The central claim in Sec. 5 that unpolarized quark TMD extractions have entered a 'precision era' is supported by a table of independent global analyses (PV17, SV17, BSV19, SV19, MAPTMD22, ART23, MAPTMD24) fitting SIDIS, Drell-Yan, and Z-boson data from external experiments; the author's own fits are among these but are not used as a unique load-bearing premise. The EIC impact study in Fig. 2 is explicitly labeled preliminary and is an uncertainty projection from pseudodata, not a prediction masquerading as an independent result. The paper even flags the limitation that the b* prescription introduces power corrections of order (Lambda_QCD/qT)^m that must be absorbed into fNP, honestly separating perturbative accuracy from nonperturbative fitting. Cited self-references, such as MAP papers and Ref. [58], are published extractions with stated assumptions and external data; they do not function as an unverified premise that forces the paper's conclusions. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, uniqueness-imported, or renamed-known-result step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review itself invents no new entities. The central claims rest on fitted nonperturbative parameters from published TMD fits, on the b* prescription, and on the reliability of lattice QCD inputs. The spectator model described in Section 4 has its own fitted spectral parameters. No new particle, force, or conserved quantity is introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • fNP nonperturbative parameters in TMD fits = not quoted in this preprint (varies by fit, e.g., MAPTMD24)
    Eq. (3) introduces fNP(x, b_T^2), which 'can be fitted to experimental data'; the precision-era claim inherits the fitted values from the cited extractions.
  • bmax and bmin cutoffs in the b* prescription = not quoted here (standard hand-chosen values in the cited fits)
    Section 2 states b*(b_T) saturates at a fixed bmax and bmin; these are modeling choices that determine how perturbative and nonperturbative regions are merged.
  • Spectator model spectral function parameters = fixed by reproducing NNPDF3.0 gluon PDFs f1 and g1 at Q0 = 1.64 GeV
    Section 4 presents a spectator model whose gluon TMD predictions depend on these parameters, fitted to collinear PDFs rather than derived.
  • EIC pseudodata assumptions for Fig. 2 = three kinematic settings: 5x41, 10x100, 18x275, with integrated luminosities not fully specified in this preprint
    The projected uncertainty reduction in Fig. 2 depends on simulated EIC pseudodata and detector conditions from a thesis in preparation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption TMD factorization holds for SIDIS and Drell-Yan processes at the relevant kinematics.
    Eqs. (1) and (2) rely on the factorization theorems of Refs. [13,14]; the precision-era conclusion inherits this assumption.
  • domain assumption The b* prescription and the fNP parametrization in Eq. (3) correctly capture nonperturbative power corrections of order (Lambda_QCD/q_T)^m.
    Section 2, paragraph after Eq. (3); if this is incomplete, the quoted N3LL/N4LL accuracy overstates the true precision.
  • domain assumption The cited global fits for unpolarized and polarized TMDs provide unbiased estimates with reliable uncertainties.
    The review summarizes external fits rather than re-deriving them, so the status claims depend on the reliability of those fits.
  • domain assumption Lattice QCD determinations of the isovector tensor charge g_T are reliable at physical pion mass and after continuum extrapolation.
    The 3-4 sigma tension in Section 3.3 and Fig. 4 assumes the lattice values in Refs. [66,67] are trustworthy.
  • standard math The standard operator definitions and evolution equations for TMDs are used unchanged.
    The formalism section cites Refs. [13,14] and does not propose modifications; no nontrivial derivation is made in this review.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The 3D structure of the Nucleon in momentum space: TMD phenomenology." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FYN2VWUL

@misc{pith2026250108806,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The 3D structure of the Nucleon in momentum space: TMD phenomenology},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FYN2VWUL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08806}
}
read the original abstract

I give a brief overview of our current understanding of the internal partonic 3D structure of nucleons in momentum space. I discuss some recent extractions of transverse-momentum-dependent distributions for quarks, whose analyses in the unpolarized case are reaching a theoretical precision comparable to collinear parton distribution functions. On the contrary, gluon transverse-momentum-dependent distributions are poorly known from a phenomenological point of view. I briefly review their general properties and sketch a recent model calculation covering all (un)polarized combinations at leading twist.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08806 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. List of most recent extractions of unpolarized quark TMD PDF in unpolarized nucleon. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Impact on relative uncertainty (f q 1 −⟨f q 1 ⟩)/⟨f q 1 ⟩ for q = u, d, u, ¯ ¯d, and a remaining cumulative sea quark contribution, as a function of kT at x = 0.001 and Q = 2 GeV, from EIC pseudodata at three different kinematics in the conditions of simulation campaign of May 2024. Baseline result from the MAPTMD24 extraction of Ref. [17]. 3.1. Unpolarized quark distribution The bottom line entry in the table of [… view at source ↗
Figure 7.53
Figure 7.53. Expected impact on up and down quark Sivers distributions as a function of the transverse momentum kT for different values of x, obtained from SIDIS pion and kaon EIC pseudodata, at the scale of 2 GeV. The green-shaded areas represent the current uncertainty, while the blue-shaded areas are the uncertainties when including the EIC pseudodata. Sivers function measurements: The determination of the quark Sivers functi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: density xρg = xf g 1 of unpolarized gluon in unpolarized proton, as function of px, py at x = 0.1 [75]. Central panel: density xρ g p→ = xf g 1 + pyxf ⊥ g 1T /M of unpolarized gluon in proton transversely polarized along px at x = 0.1. Right panel: “propell…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. J. Mulders and R. D. Tangerman, The Complete tree level result up to order 1/Q for polarized deep inelastic leptoproduction, Nucl. Phys. B 461 (1996) 197–237, [hep-ph/9510301]

    arXiv 1996

  2. [2]

    Boer and P

    D. Boer and P. J. Mulders, Time reversal odd distribution functions in leptoproduction , Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 5780–5786, [ hep-ph/9711485]

    arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Metz and A

    A. Metz and A. Vossen, Parton Fragmentation Functions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 91 (2016) 136–202, [1607.02521]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Angeles-Martinez et al., Transverse Momentum Dependent (TMD) parton distribution functions: status and prospects , Acta Phys

    R. Angeles-Martinez et al., Transverse Momentum Dependent (TMD) parton distribution functions: status and prospects , Acta Phys. Polon. B 46 (2015) 2501–2534, [ 1507.05267]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Parton fragmentation in the vacuum and in the medium

    S. Albino et al., Parton fragmentation in the vacuum and in the medium , 0804.2021

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Boussarie et al., TMD Handbook, 2304.03302

    R. Boussarie et al., TMD Handbook, 2304.03302

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    X. Wang, Z. Lu and I. Schmidt, Transverse momentum spectrum of dilepton pair in the unpolarized π−N Drell-Yan process within TMD factorization , JHEP 08 (2017) 137, [1707.05207]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Vladimirov, Pion-induced Drell-Yan processes within TMD factorization , JHEP 10 (2019) 090, [ 1907.10356]

    A. Vladimirov, Pion-induced Drell-Yan processes within TMD factorization , JHEP 10 (2019) 090, [ 1907.10356]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Cerutti, L

    MAP (Multi-dimensional Analyses of Partonic distributions)collaboration, M. Cerutti, L. Rossi, S. Venturini, A. Bacchetta, V. Bertone, C. Bissolotti et al., Extraction of pion transverse momentum distributions from Drell-Yan data , Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 014014, [2210.01733]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM)collaboration, P. C. Barry, L. Gamberg, W. Melnitchouk, E. Moffat, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin et al., Tomography of pions and protons via transverse momentum dependent distributions , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) L091504, [2302.01192]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bacchetta, F

    A. Bacchetta, F. Delcarro, C. Pisano, M. Radici and A. Signori, Extraction of partonic transverse momentum distributions from semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering, Drell-Yan and Z-boson production, JHEP 06 (2017) 081, [ 1703.10157]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    N. A. Abdulov et al., TMDlib2 and TMDplotter: a platform for 3D hadron structure studies , Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 752, [ 2103.09741]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Collins, Foundations of perturbative QCD , vol

    J. Collins, Foundations of perturbative QCD , vol. 32. Cambridge University Press, 11, 2013

    2013

  6. [14]

    Bacchetta, V

    MAP (Multi-dimensional Analyses of Partonic distributions)collaboration, A. Bacchetta, V. Bertone, C. Bissolotti, G. Bozzi, M. Cerutti, F. Piacenza et al., Unpolarized transverse momentum distributions from a global fit of Drell-Yan and semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering...

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Boer et al., Gluons and the quark sea at high energies: Distributions, polarization, tomography, 1108.1713

    D. Boer et al., Gluons and the quark sea at high energies: Distributions, polarization, tomography, 1108.1713

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bacchetta, V

    A. Bacchetta, V. Bertone, C. Bissolotti, G. Bozzi, F. Delcarro, F. Piacenza et al., Transverse-momentum-dependent parton distributions up to N 3LL from Drell-Yan data , JHEP 07 (2020) 117, [ 1912.07550]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bacchetta, V

    MAP collaboration, A. Bacchetta, V. Bertone, C. Bissolotti, G. Bozzi, M. Cerutti, F. Delcarro et al., Flavor dependence of unpolarized quark transverse momentum distributions from a global fit , JHEP 08 (2024) 232, [ 2405.13833]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Catani, M

    S. Catani, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason and L. Trentadue, The Resummation of soft gluons in hadronic collisions, Nucl. Phys. B 478 (1996) 273–310, [ hep-ph/9604351]

    1996 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bacchetta, F

    A. Bacchetta, F. Delcarro, C. Pisano and M. Radici, The 3-dimensional distribution of quarks in momentum space , Phys. Lett. B 827 (2022) 136961, [ 2004.14278]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bacchetta, A

    A. Bacchetta, A. Bongallino, M. Cerutti, M. Radici and L. Rossi, Exploring the three-dimensional momentum distribution of longitudinally polarized quarks in the proton , 2409.18078

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    S. J. Brodsky, D. S. Hwang and I. Schmidt, Final state interactions and single spin asymmetries in semiinclusive deep inelastic scattering , Phys. Lett. B 530 (2002) 99–107, [hep-ph/0201296]

    2002 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ji and F

    X.-d. Ji and F. Yuan, Parton distributions in light cone gauge: Where are the final state interactions?, Phys. Lett. B 543 (2002) 66–72, [ hep-ph/0206057]

    2002 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Dong, D.-X

    H. Dong, D.-X. Zheng and J. Zhou, Sea quark Sivers distribution , Phys. Lett. B 788 (2019) 401–408, [1805.09479]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and M. G. Santiago, Quark sivers function at small x: spin-dependent odderon and the sub-eikonal evolution , JHEP 11 (2021) 200, [ 2108.03667]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    R. L. Jaffe, Spin, twist and hadron structure in deep inelastic processes , http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9602236

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    G. L. Kane, J. Pumplin and W. Repko, Transverse quark polarization in large- pt reactions e+e− jets, and leptoproduction: a test of qcd , Phys. Rev. Lett. 41 (1978) 1689

    1978

  19. [27]

    Bacchetta, M

    A. Bacchetta, M. Diehl, K. Goeke, A. Metz, P. J. Mulders and M. Schlegel, Semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering at small transverse momentum , JHEP 02 (2007) 093, [hep-ph/0611265]

    2007 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Radici, Transversity: theory/phenomenology overview, PoS T ransversity2024(2024) 001

    M. Radici, Transversity: theory/phenomenology overview, PoS T ransversity2024(2024) 001

    2024

  21. [29]

    Bhattacharya, V

    T. Bhattacharya, V. Cirigliano, S. D. Cohen, A. Filipuzzi, M. Gonzalez-Alonso et al., Probing Novel Scalar and Tensor Interactions from (Ultra)Cold Neutrons to the LHC , Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 054512, [ 1110.6448]

    2012 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dubbers and M

    D. Dubbers and M. G. Schmidt, The Neutron and Its Role in Cosmology and Particle Physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83 (2011) 1111–1171, [ 1105.3694]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Yamanaka, B

    N. Yamanaka, B. K. Sahoo, N. Yoshinaga, T. Sato, K. Asahi and B. P. Das, Probing exotic phenomena at the interface of nuclear and particle physics with the electric dipole moments of diamagnetic atoms: A unique window to hadronic and semi-leptonic CP violation , Eur. Phys. J. ...

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bacchetta, G

    A. Bacchetta, G. Bozzi, M. Radici, M. Ritzmann and A. Signori, Effect of Flavor-Dependent Partonic Transverse Momentum on the Determination of the W Boson Mass in Hadronic Collisions, Phys. Lett. B 788 (2019) 542–545, [ 1807.02101]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bozzi and A

    G. Bozzi and A. Signori, Nonperturbative Uncertainties on the Transverse Momentum Distribution of Electroweak Bosons and on the Determination of the W Boson Mass at the LHC, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2019 (2019) 2526897, [ 1901.01162]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    D. W. Sivers, Single spin production asymmetries from the hard scattering of pointlike constituents, Phys. Rev. D41 (1990) 83

    1990

  27. [35]

    Cammarota, L

    Jefferson Lab Angular Momentumcollaboration, J. Cammarota, L. Gamberg, Z.-B. Kang, J. A. Miller, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin et al., Origin of single transverse-spin asymmetries in high-energy collisions , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 054002, [ 2002.08384]. 10 radici printed on Januar...

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M. G. Echevarria, Z.-B. Kang and J. Terry, Global analysis of the Sivers functions at NLO+NNLL in QCD , JHEP 01 (2021) 126, [ 2009.10710]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    M. Bury, A. Prokudin and A. Vladimirov, Extraction of the Sivers function from SIDIS, Drell-Yan, and W ±/Z boson production data with TMD evolution , JHEP 05 (2021) 151, [2103.03270]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Boglione, U

    M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, C. Flore, J. O. Gonzalez-Hernandez, F. Murgia and A. Prokudin, Reweighting the Sivers function with jet data from STAR , Phys. Lett. B 815 (2021) 136135, [2101.03955]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bianconi and M

    A. Bianconi and M. Radici, Monte Carlo simulation of the Sivers effect in high-energy proton-proton collisions, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 034018, [ hep-ph/0512091]

    2006 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Bianconi and M

    A. Bianconi and M. Radici, Monte Carlo simulation of single spin asymmetries in pion-proton collisions, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 114002, [ hep-ph/0602103]

    2006 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Aschenauer et al., The RHIC Cold QCD Program , 2302.00605

    RHIC SPINcollaboration, E.-C. Aschenauer et al., The RHIC Cold QCD Program , 2302.00605

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    COMPASS collaboration, 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 (2024) 071902, [ 2312.17379]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Adam et al., ATHENA detector proposal — a totally hermetic electron nucleus apparatus proposed for IP6 at the Electron-Ion Collider , JINST 17 (2022) P10019, [2210.09048]

    ATHENA collaboration, J. Adam et al., ATHENA detector proposal — a totally hermetic electron nucleus apparatus proposed for IP6 at the Electron-Ion Collider , JINST 17 (2022) P10019, [2210.09048]

    2022

  36. [44]

    Abdul Khalek et al., Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report , Nucl

    R. Abdul Khalek et al., Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report , Nucl. Phys. A 1026 (2022) 122447, [ 2103.05419]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    D. P. Anderle et al., Electron-ion collider in China , Front. Phys. (Beijing) 16 (2021) 64701, [2102.09222]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    S. Zhu, D. Zheng, L. Xia and Y. Zhang, Charm Sivers function at EicC , 2409.00653

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. C. Collins, Fragmentation of transversely polarized quarks probed in transverse momentum distributions, Nucl. Phys. B396 (1993) 161–182, [http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9208213]

    1993 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, S. Melis, F. Murgia et al., Simultaneous extraction of transversity and Collins functions from new SIDIS and e+e- data , Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 094019, [1303.3822]

    2013 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, J. O. Gonzalez Hernandez, S. Melis, F. Murgia et al., Collins functions for pions from SIDIS and new e+e− data: a first glance at their transverse momentum dependence, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 114023, [ 1510.05389]

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Z.-B. Kang, A. Prokudin, P. Sun and F. Yuan, Extraction of Quark Transversity Distribution and Collins Fragmentation Functions with QCD Evolution , Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 014009, [ 1505.05589]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Gamberg, M

    Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM), Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum collaboration, L. Gamberg, M. Malda, J. A. Miller, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin and N. Sato, Updated QCD global analysis of single transverse-spin asymmetries: Extracting H˜, and the role of the Soffer bound and ...

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    J. C. Collins and G. A. Ladinsky, On π − π correlations in polarized quark fragmentation using the linear sigma model , http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9411444

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    R. L. Jaffe, X. Jin and J. Tang, Interference fragmentation functions and the nucleon ’s transversity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 1166–1169, [http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9709322]

    1998 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Radici, R

    M. Radici, R. Jakob and A. Bianconi, Accessing transversity with interference fragmentation functions, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 074031, [ http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0110252]

    2002 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Bacchetta, A

    A. Bacchetta, A. Courtoy and M. Radici, First glances at the transversity parton distribution through dihadron fragmentation functions , Phys.Rev.Lett. 107 (2011) 012001, [ 1104.3855]

    2011 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Bacchetta, A

    A. Bacchetta, A. Courtoy and M. Radici, First extraction of valence transversities in a collinear framework, JHEP 1303 (2013) 119, [ 1212.3568]. radici printed on January 16, 2025 11

    2013 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Radici, A

    M. Radici, A. Courtoy, A. Bacchetta and M. Guagnelli, Improved extraction of valence transversity distributions from inclusive dihadron production , JHEP 05 (2015) 123, [1503.03495]

    2015 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Radici and A

    M. Radici and A. Bacchetta, First Extraction of Transversity from a Global Analysis of Electron-Proton and Proton-Proton Data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 192001, [1802.05212]

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Cocuzza, A

    Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM)collaboration, C. Cocuzza, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, N. Sato and R. Seidl, First simultaneous global QCD analysis of dihadron fragmentation functions and transversity parton distribution functions , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 034024, [...

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Radici, A

    M. Radici, A. M. Ricci, A. Bacchetta and A. Mukherjee, Exploring universality of transversity in proton-proton collisions , Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 034012, [ 1604.06585]

    2016 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Pisano and M

    S. Pisano and M. Radici, Di-hadron fragmentation and mapping of the nucleon structure , Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (2016) 155, [ 1511.03220]

    2016 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Gliske, A

    S. Gliske, A. Bacchetta and M. Radici, Production of two hadrons in semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering, Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 114027, [ 1408.5721]

    2014 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Bacchetta, M

    A. Bacchetta, M. Radici and L. Rossi, Analogies between hadron-in-jet and dihadron fragmentation, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 014005, [ 2303.04314]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Z.-B. Kang, A. Prokudin, F. Ringer and F. Yuan, Collins azimuthal asymmetries of hadron production inside jets , Phys. Lett. B774 (2017) 635–642, [ 1707.00913]

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

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

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

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Gupta, Y.-C

    R. Gupta, Y.-C. Jang, B. Yoon, H.-W. Lin, V. Cirigliano and T. Bhattacharya, Isovector Charges of the Nucleon from 2+1+1-flavor Lattice QCD , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 034503, [1806.09006]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, M. Constantinou, J. Finkenrath, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen et al., Nucleon axial, tensor, and scalar charges and σ-terms in lattice QCD , Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 054517, [ 1909.00485]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Gamberg, Z.-B

    L. Gamberg, Z.-B. Kang, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, N. Sato and R. Seidl, Electron-Ion Collider impact study on the tensor charge of the nucleon , Phys. Lett. B 816 (2021) 136255, [2101.06200]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    P. J. Mulders and J. Rodrigues, Transverse momentum dependence in gluon distribution and fragmentation functions, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 094021, [ hep-ph/0009343]

    2001 arXiv

  62. [70]

    M. G. A. Buffing, A. Mukherjee and P. J. Mulders, Generalized Universality of Definite Rank Gluon Transverse Momentum Dependent Correlators , Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 054027, [1306.5897]

    2013 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Dominguez, B.-W

    F. Dominguez, B.-W. Xiao and F. Yuan, kt-factorization for Hard Processes in Nuclei , Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 022301, [ 1009.2141]

    2011 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Dominguez, C

    F. Dominguez, C. Marquet, B.-W. Xiao and F. Yuan, Universality of Unintegrated Gluon Distributions at small x , Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 105005, [ 1101.0715]

    2011 arXiv

  65. [73]

    D. Boer, M. G. Echevarria, P. Mulders and J. Zhou, Single spin asymmetries from a single Wilson loop, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 122001, [ 1511.03485]

    2016 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Boer et al., Physics case for quarkonium studies at the Electron Ion Collider , 2409.03691

    D. Boer et al., Physics case for quarkonium studies at the Electron Ion Collider , 2409.03691

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    Bacchetta, F

    A. Bacchetta, F. G. Celiberto, M. Radici and P. Taels, Transverse-momentum-dependent gluon distribution functions in a spectator model , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 733, [2005.02288]

    2020 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Bacchetta, F

    A. Bacchetta, F. G. Celiberto and M. Radici, T-odd gluon distribution functions in a spectator model, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 576, [ 2402.17556]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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