Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 115 references

Gluon skewed generalized parton distributions of proton from a light-front Hamiltonian approach

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 The paper computes all eight leading-twist gluon GPDs of the proton at nonzero skewness from a light-front Hamiltonian model and finds diffraction patterns in boost-invariant longitudinal position space.

desk verdict Useful extension of BLFQ to all eight gluon GPDs at nonzero skewness, but the low-x DGLAP results sit on an unvalidated longitudinal extrapolation that needs to be checked before the numbers are used. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10119 v1 pith:YROYVBHZ submitted 2025-01-17 hep-ph hep-thnucl-th

Pengxiang Zhang , Yiping Liu , Siqi Xu , Chandan Mondal , Xingbo Zhao , James P. Vary This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-thnucl-th
keywords gluonGPDsprotonstructurelight-frontquantizationnonzeroskewnessDGLAPregionlongitudinalimpactparameterdiffractionpatternchiral-odd
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 a light-front Hamiltonian model of the proton---an effective QCD Hamiltonian restricted to the three-quark and three-quark-plus-one-gluon Fock states---yields all eight leading-twist gluon generalized parton distributions at nonzero skewness in the DGLAP region ($\xi < x < 1$). If that is right, a single set of proton light-front wave functions determines not only the known zero-skewness gluon distributions but also their full dependence on longitudinal momentum transfer, connecting gluon PDFs, form factors, and exclusive-scattering observables. The paper further claims that Fourier-transforming these GPDs with respect to skewness into the boost-invariant longitudinal coordinate $\sigma = \frac{1}{2} b^{-} P^{+}$ produces single-slit-like diffraction patterns, with the integration limit $\xi_f$ playing the role of slit width.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the proton's light-front wave function obtained by diagonalizing the light-front Hamiltonian $P^{+}P^{-} - P_{\perp}^{2}$ in a finite basis, truncated to the $|uud\rangle$ and $|uudg\rangle$ Fock sectors with a phenomenological gluon mass, a confining potential, and parameters fitted to the proton mass and flavor form factors. From these wave functions the paper evaluates overlaps of the gluon field-strength operator between initial and final proton states with different longitudinal momenta, interpolating the discretized longitudinal momentum fractions to reach nonzero skewness; this overlap representation turns the Hamiltonian eigenvectors into the eight GPDs. The second mechanism is a Fourier transform over $\xi$ with finite upper limit $\xi_f$, which maps the GPDs into boost-invariant longitudinal position space and produces the optical-style diffraction pattern.

What would settle it

Recompute the eight GPDs in the DGLAP region after adding the $|qqqgg\rangle$ and $|qqq\bar{q}\rangle$ Fock sectors; the truncation assumption fails if the distributions shift by more than the spread among the phenomenological models the paper compares with.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that all four chiral-even gluon GPDs ($H^g$, $E^g$, $\tilde H^g$, $\tilde E^g$) and all four chiral-odd ones ($H_T^g$, $E_T^g$, $\tilde H_T^g$, $\tilde E_T^g$) can be obtained at nonzero skewness from the proton light-front wave functions of an effective Hamiltonian that includes a dynamical gluon. In the DGLAP region the computed distributions peak at small $x$ and at $\xi = 0$ or small $\xi$, decay with increasing momentum transfer and skewness, and become $\xi$-independent at large $x$; the signs and shapes agree qualitatively with light-cone spectator and other phenomenological models, except that $\tilde H_T^g$ is distinctly nonzero and gluon GPDs fall off faster with $\xi$ than quark GPDs. Fourier-transforming each GPD with respect to $\xi$ gives boost-invariant longitudinal-space distributions that show a single-slit-like diffraction pattern, whose central maximum narrows as the upper limit $\xi_f$ grows.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that a proton described by only three quarks, or three quarks plus one gluon, under a model Hamiltonian with a fitted gluon mass is accurate enough that adding extra gluons or quark-antiquark pairs would not change the gluon distributions in the region $x > \xi$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The model now supplies all eight gluon GPDs at nonzero skewness, so exclusive-process amplitudes such as deeply virtual Compton scattering and vector-meson production can be evaluated with one internally consistent wave-function input.
  • Because $H^g$ and $\tilde H^g$ reduce to the unpolarized and helicity gluon PDFs in the forward limit, the computed $\xi$-dependence is tied to a fixed PDF set within the model, giving a parameter-free prediction for how the gluon GPDs evolve with skewness.
  • The diffraction patterns in $\sigma$-space, with principal-maximum width inversely proportional to $\xi_f$, provide a qualitative signature of the proton's longitudinal gluon structure that can be compared with future measurements of the DVCS amplitude.
  • The nonzero $\tilde H_T^g$ and the behavior of $2\tilde H_T^g + E_T^g$ give model predictions for gluon transverse spin and angular momentum contributions that differ from spectator-model expectations.
  • The faster decay of gluon GPDs with $\xi$ compared to quark GPDs, together with longer tails in $\sigma$-space, predicts a clear parton-type dependence in longitudinal spatial imaging.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the calculation deliberately stops at the DGLAP region, the missing ERBL region is the natural next test: extending the same overlap machinery to $x < \xi$ would exercise off-diagonal Fock transitions that the present basis cannot represent, and would reveal how much of the $\sigma$-space diffraction depends on the $\xi < x$ cutoff.
  • The slit-width analogy suggests a quantitative internal check not performed in the paper: for each GPD, the location of the first diffraction minimum in $\sigma$ should scale roughly as $1/\xi_f$, a relation a reader could verify from the paper's own figures and equations by varying $x$ and $t$.
  • Since the same light-front wave functions generate the zero-skewness gluon GPDs and TMDs cited in the paper, the nonzero-skewness results here could be cross-checked by computing Wigner distributions in boost-invariant longitudinal space, which should inherit the same diffraction structure if the wave functions are consistent.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: The paper claims that all four chiral-even gluon GPDs ($H^g$, $E^g$, $\tilde H^g$, $\tilde E^g$) and all four chiral-odd ones ($H_T^g$, $E_T^g$, $\tilde H_T^g$, $\tilde E_T^g$) can be obtained at nonzero skewness from the proton light-front wave functions of an effective Hamiltonian that includes a dynamical gluon. In the DGLAP region the computed distributions peak at small $x$ and at $\xi = 0$ o

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes all eight leading-twist gluon GPDs of the proton at nonzero skewness in the DGLAP region using light-front wave functions obtained from basis light-front quantization (BLFQ). The proton is described by |qqq> and |qqqg> Fock sectors with the Hamiltonian of Ref. [90], truncated at Nmax=9 and K=16.5. The GPDs are obtained from overlap integrals of these LFWFs after a longitudinal interpolation that is not described in detail. Results are presented as functions of x and xi at fixed t, as functions of x and -t at fixed xi, and as Fourier transforms with respect to xi that are interpreted as distributions in boost-invariant longitudinal position sigma. The paper claims qualitative agreement with other models and reports diffraction-like patterns in sigma-space.

Significance. If the results are robust, this is a useful model prediction for an observable class that will be probed at the EIC, and it extends the same collaboration's zero-skewness gluon GPD studies to nonzero skewness. The overlap derivation is standard, and the paper gives explicit formulas for all eight chiral-even and chiral-odd gluon GPDs; no GPD data are fitted, since the LFWFs were fixed by earlier proton-structure work. The main value is therefore as a benchmark model prediction rather than as a determination from QCD. The significance is limited by the absence of basis-convergence checks, by the lack of quantitative comparison with independent calculations, and by an extrapolation step in the longitudinal momentum variable that is not validated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4 and Eqs. (14)-(16)] The statement that the longitudinal component of the LFWFs is 'interpolated' is inaccurate for an important kinematic region. With K=16.5, gluon longitudinal quantum numbers are integers, so the lowest positive gluon momentum fraction on the grid is 1/K ~ 0.0606. In the overlap formulas (14)-(16), the final-state gluon enters with x''_1=(x1-xi)/(1-xi), and the delta function sets x1=x. Thus for every x in xi < x < xi+(1-xi)/K, the final-state LFWF must be evaluated at x''_1<1/K, i.e. in an extrapolated region below the lowest grid point. For xi=0.1 this interval is (0.100,0.155), which contains the sharp negative peak in \tilde H_T shown in Fig. 2 and is also where several GPD amplitudes are largest; for xi=0.4 the interval is (0.400,0.436). The extrapolation scheme is not specified, no error estimate is given, and no convergence check at larger K is reported. Because the sigma-space transform in Eq. (17) integrates the GPD up to xi_f and therefore samples the endpoint near x=xi, the diffraction patterns also inherit this uncontrolled behavior. Please specify the interpolation/extrapolation algorithm, validate it by repeating the calculation at larger K (e.g., K=20.5 or 24.5), and quantify the induced uncertainty.
  2. [Sec. 2 and Sec. 4] All numerical results are presented for a single basis truncation, Nmax=9 and K=16.5, with no variation of these cutoffs and no error bars. Since the central claims concern shapes, peak locations, and qualitative behavior of the eight GPDs, the paper needs to show that these features are stable under basis truncation. I request convergence checks in both K and Nmax, and a quantitative statement of the spread in the plotted observables. This is particularly important in the small-x-xi region where the longitudinal extrapolation discussed above dominates.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 4.1] The abstract states that the qualitative behaviors of the GPDs are 'consistent with those from other theoretical calculations,' but the paper itself identifies substantial differences: H^g and \tilde H^g are positive definite in this calculation whereas the spectator-model results of Refs. [73,78] have negative regions at small x, and \tilde H_T^g is nonzero here while it vanishes in the models of Refs. [73,74,105]. This consistency claim is therefore selective and is not backed by a quantitative comparison. Please either quantify the comparison (e.g., moments, peak positions, or overlap with model bands) or temper the abstract to state which specific qualitative trends are shared.
  4. [Sec. 4.2 and Eq. (17)] The diffraction patterns in sigma-space are obtained from a truncated Fourier integral over xi in [0, xi_f], where the upper limit is set by the DGLAP restriction xi<x and by the kinematic bound xi_max. The integrand therefore has sharp cutoffs at both endpoints, and the 'slit width' xi_f is partly a limitation of the calculation rather than a physical feature of the GPD. The paper acknowledges that the finite range generates the pattern, but it still presents the diffraction as a property of the gluon GPDs. To support this interpretation, please show that the pattern is not merely the Fourier transform of a step function with width xi_f; for example, compare with a flat GPD over the same interval or estimate the effect of the missing ERBL region on the sigma-space distributions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3] The lower panel contains two panels labeled |H_T^g(x,sigma,t)|; one of these appears to be intended as |E_T^g(x,sigma,t)|. Please correct the labeling.
  2. [Eq. (10)] The relation below Eq. (10) is typeset as '\Delta - -t = ...', which is garbled; it should presumably read '\Delta^2 = ...' or similar.
  3. [Reference list] Reference [96], listed as a light-front renormalization reference, is in fact a paper about detector alignment in the DPS-NICA project and appears unrelated. Please verify and correct this citation.
  4. [Sec. 2] The model scale is quoted as mu_0^2 ~ 0.24 +/- 0.01 GeV^2, but the paper does not discuss perturbative evolution of the GPDs from this scale to experimental scales. A short statement on how the model scale affects comparison with data would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gluon GPDs are genuine model outputs from LFWFs previously fitted to proton mass and form factors, not to GPD data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: effective light-front Hamiltonian (Eqs. 2-3, parameters from Ref. [90]) -> LFWFs -> overlap integrals (Eqs. 14-16) -> eight gluon GPDs at nonzero skewness -> sigma-space Fourier transform (Eq. 17). The Hamiltonian parameters were fixed to reproduce the proton mass and fit flavor form factors, independent of the GPDs reported here; no GPD value, x-profile, or xi-behavior is used as a fit input. The overlap formulas are standard light-front expressions, and the sigma-space diffraction pattern is honestly presented as a Fourier transform over a finite xi interval (xi_f), with the 'slit width' interpretation explicitly tied to xi_f. The many self-citations (Refs. [76,77,90-92,100]) supply the model wave functions and prior model comparisons, but the present GPD calculation does not reduce to those citations by construction; the central claim has independent content. The numerical interpolation of LFWFs below the longitudinal basis cutoff noted in Sec. 4 is a potential accuracy issue, not a circularity issue. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The calculation is a model computation: its LFWFs come from an effective Hamiltonian with several fitted parameters (quark masses, gluon mass, coupling, confining strength, oscillator scale) carried over from Ref. [90], plus truncations Nmax=9 and K=16.5. The GPDs themselves are not used to fit anything, so the output is a prediction of the model rather than a fit to GPD data. However, the model dependence is substantial and not quantified.

free parameters (7)
  • Quark mass in leading Fock sector m_q = not stated in this paper; fitted in Ref. [90]
    Mass counterterm adjusts the valence quark mass to its renormalized value; affects all LFWFs and hence all GPDs.
  • Vertex quark mass m_f = not stated; from Refs. [97,98]
    Independent quark mass used in vertex interactions; affects the strength of the quark-gluon coupling.
  • Phenomenological gluon mass m_g = not stated; fitted in Ref. [90]
    Massive gluon introduced to model low-energy effects; enters the gluon kinetic term and directly affects gluon GPDs.
  • QCD coupling g_c = not stated; fitted in Ref. [90]
    Sets the strength of quark-gluon vertex and instantaneous interactions.
  • Confinement strength kappa = not stated; fitted in Ref. [90]
    Determines the confining potential in the |qqq> sector; influences the valence LFWFs.
  • 2D-HO basis scale b = not stated; from Ref. [90]
    Sets the transverse momentum resolution and the IR/UV cutoffs of the basis.
  • Basis cutoffs Nmax and K = Nmax=9, K=16.5
    Truncation choices for the basis; no convergence study is presented in this paper.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Light-front overlap representation of GPDs in terms of LFWFs (Eqs. (14)-(16))
    Standard light-front formalism; the paper follows the definitions in Diehl's review.
  • domain assumption Fock-space truncation to |qqq> and |qqqg> is sufficient for leading-twist gluon GPDs in the DGLAP region
    Only these two sectors are included; higher Fock sectors are deferred to future work.
  • ad hoc to paper Effective Hamiltonian with phenomenological confinement and massive gluon approximates low-energy QCD
    Introduced in Ref. [90]; needed to produce LFWFs, not derived from QCD.
  • ad hoc to paper Interpolation of discretized longitudinal LFWFs yields reliable nonzero-skewness GPDs
    Stated in Section 4 without convergence or validation details.
invented entities (2)
  • Phenomenologically massive gluon
    purpose: Provides effective low-energy gluon propagation in the truncated Hamiltonian
    The gluon mass is not a QCD parameter; it was fitted in Ref. [90] and has no independent observable handle in this paper.
  • Transverse and longitudinal confining potential of Eq. (3)
    purpose: Confines the valence quarks in the |qqq> Fock sector
    Phenomenological potential not derived from QCD; its strength kappa is a fitted parameter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gluon skewed generalized parton distributions of proton from a light-front Hamiltonian approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YROYVBHZ

@misc{pith2026250110119,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gluon skewed generalized parton distributions of proton from a light-front Hamiltonian approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YROYVBHZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10119}
}
abstract

We calculate all leading-twist gluon generalized parton distributions (GPDs) inside the proton at nonzero skewness using the basis light-front quantization framework. The proton's light-front wave functions are derived from a light-front quantized Hamiltonian incorporating Quantum Chromodynamics inputs. Our results show that the qualitative behaviors of the GPDs are consistent with those from other theoretical calculations. Additionally, we analyze the GPDs in the boost-invariant longitudinal coordinate, $\sigma=\frac{1}{2} b^- P^+$, which serves as the Fourier conjugate of the skewness. The GPDs in $\sigma$-space exhibit diffraction patterns, reminiscent of optical wave diffraction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10119 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The gluon GPDs as functions of x and ξ for fixed t = −0.5 GeV2 . The upper (lower) panel is for the chiral-even (odd) GPDs. 4.1. GPDs in momentum space In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The gluon GPDs as functions of x and −t for fixed ξ = 0.1. The upper (lower) panel is for the chiral-even (odd) GPDs. QCD-inspired models [49–52, 55, 101–103] as well as in our BLFQ approach [100]. In the forward limit, GPDs reduce to PDFs, such as the unpolarized and helicity-dependent PDFs, with H(x, 0, 0) = f1(x) and H˜ (x, 0, 0) = g1(x), respectively. Unlike the quark transversity PDF, HT (x, 0, 0) = h1(x), a gl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The gluon GPDs in boost-invariant longitudinal position space as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

115 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [90]

    S. Xu, C. Mondal, X. Zhao, Y. Li, J. P. Vary, Quark and gluon spin and orbital angular momentum in the proton, Phys. Rev. D 108 (9) (2023) 094002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.094002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.094002 2023

  2. [1]

    Diehl, Experimental exploration of the 3D nucleon struc- ture, Prog

    S. Diehl, Experimental exploration of the 3D nucleon struc- ture, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 133 (2023) 104069. doi:10.1016/ j.ppnp.2023.104069

    arXiv 2023

  3. [2]

    Ji, Deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys

    X.-D. Ji, Deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 7114–7125. arXiv:hep-ph/9609381, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.55.7114

    arXiv 1997

  4. [3]

    Goeke, M

    K. Goeke, M. V. Polyakov, M. Vanderhaeghen, Hard ex- clusive reactions and the structure of hadrons, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 47 (2001) 401–515. arXiv:hep-ph/0106012, doi: 10.1016/S0146-6410(01)00158-2

    arXiv 2001

  5. [4]

    S. V. Goloskokov, P. Kroll, The Role of the quark and gluon GPDs in hard vector-meson electroproduction, Eur. Phys. J. C 53 (2008) 367–384. arXiv:0708.3569, doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-007-0466-5

    arXiv 2008

  6. [5]

    J. C. Collins, L. Frankfurt, M. Strikman, Factorization for hard exclusive electroproduction of mesons in QCD, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 2982–3006. arXiv:hep-ph/9611433, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.56.2982

    arXiv 1997

  7. [6]

    S. V. Goloskokov, Y.-P. Xie, X. Chen, Study of gluon GPDs in exclusive J/ψ production in electron-proton scattering, Phys. Rev. D 110 (7) (2024) 076029. arXiv:2408.05800, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.110.076029

    arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    B. Pire, L. Szymanowski, Exclusive neutrino production of a charmed vector meson and transversity gluon generalized parton distributions, Phys. Rev. D 96 (11) (2017) 114008. arXiv:1711.04608, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.114008

    arXiv 2017

Show all 115 references
  1. [8]

    B. Pire, L. Szymanowski, J. Wagner, Charged current elec- troproduction of a charmed meson at an electron-ion col- lider, Phys. Rev. D 104 (9) (2021) 094002. arXiv:2104.04944, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.094002

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    J.-W. Qiu, Z. Yu, Single diffractive hard exclusive processes for the study of generalized parton distributions, Phys. Rev. D 107 (1) (2023) 014007. arXiv:2210.07995, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.107.014007

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Grocholski, B

    O. Grocholski, B. Pire, P. Sznajder, L. Szymanowski, J. Wag- ner, Phenomenology of diphoton photoproduction at next-to- leading order, Phys. Rev. D 105 (9) (2022) 094025. arXiv: 2204.00396, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.094025

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Duplanˇ ci´ c, S

    G. Duplanˇ ci´ c, S. Nabeebaccus, K. Passek-Kumeriˇ cki, B. Pire, L. Szymanowski, S. Wallon, Accessing chiral-even quark gener- alised parton distributions in the exclusive photoproduction of a γπ ± pair with large invariant mass in both fixed-target and collider experiments, ...

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    E. R. Berger, M. Diehl, B. Pire, Time - like Compton scatter- ing: Exclusive photoproduction of lepton pairs, Eur. Phys. J. C 23 (2002) 675–689. arXiv:hep-ph/0110062, doi:10.1007/ s100520200917

    2002 arXiv

  6. [13]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Nonforward parton densities and soft mech- anism for form-factors and wide angle Compton scattering in QCD, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 114008. arXiv:hep-ph/9803316, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.114008

    1998 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Diehl, T

    M. Diehl, T. Feldmann, R. Jakob, P. Kroll, Linking parton distributions to form-factors and Compton scattering, Eur. Phys. J. C 8 (1999) 409–434. arXiv:hep-ph/9811253, doi: 10.1007/s100529901100

    1999 arXiv

  8. [15]

    K. Deja, V. Martinez-Fernandez, B. Pire, P. Sznajder, J. Wag- ner, Phenomenology of double deeply virtual Compton scat- tering in the era of new experiments, Phys. Rev. D 107 (9) (2023) 094035. arXiv:2303.13668, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 107.094035

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Mu˜ noz Camacho, et al., Scaling tests of the cross-section for deeply virtual compton scattering, Phys

    C. Mu˜ noz Camacho, et al., Scaling tests of the cross-section for deeply virtual compton scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 262002. arXiv:nucl-ex/0607029, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 97.262002

    2006 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Mazouz, et al., Deeply virtual compton scattering off the neutron, Phys

    M. Mazouz, et al., Deeply virtual compton scattering off the neutron, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 242501. arXiv:0709.0450, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.242501

    2007 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Stepanyan, et al., Observation of exclusive deeply virtual Compton scattering in polarized electron beam asymmetry measurements, Phys

    S. Stepanyan, et al., Observation of exclusive deeply virtual Compton scattering in polarized electron beam asymmetry measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 182002. arXiv: hep-ex/0107043, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.182002

    2001 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Chen, et al., Measurement of deeply virtual compton scattering with a polarized proton target, Phys

    S. Chen, et al., Measurement of deeply virtual compton scattering with a polarized proton target, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 072002. arXiv:hep-ex/0605012, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.97.072002

    2006 arXiv

  13. [20]

    F. X. Girod, et al., Measurement of Deeply virtual Comp- ton scattering beam-spin asymmetries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 162002. arXiv:0711.4805, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 100.162002

    2008 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Breitweg, et al., Exclusive electroproduction of ρ0 and J/ψ mesons at HERA, Eur

    J. Breitweg, et al., Exclusive electroproduction of ρ0 and J/ψ mesons at HERA, Eur. Phys. J. C 6 (1999) 603–627. arXiv: hep-ex/9808020, doi:10.1007/s100529901051

    1999 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Chekanov, et al., Measurement of deeply virtual Compton scattering at HERA, Phys

    S. Chekanov, et al., Measurement of deeply virtual Compton scattering at HERA, Phys. Lett. B 573 (2003) 46–62. arXiv: hep-ex/0305028, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.08.048

    2003 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Adloff, et al., Measurement of deeply virtual Compton scat- tering at HERA, Phys

    C. Adloff, et al., Measurement of deeply virtual Compton scat- tering at HERA, Phys. Lett. B 517 (2001) 47–58. arXiv: hep-ex/0107005, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)00939-X

    2001 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Aktas, et al., Measurement of deeply virtual compton scat- tering at HERA, Eur

    A. Aktas, et al., Measurement of deeply virtual compton scat- tering at HERA, Eur. Phys. J. C 44 (2005) 1–11. arXiv: hep-ex/0505061, doi:10.1140/epjc/s2005-02345-3

    2005 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Airapetian, et al., Measurement of the beam spin azimuthal asymmetry associated with deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys

    A. Airapetian, et al., Measurement of the beam spin azimuthal asymmetry associated with deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 182001. arXiv:hep-ex/0106068, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.182001

    2001 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Airapetian, et al., The Beam-charge azimuthal asymmetry and deeply virtual compton scattering, Phys

    A. Airapetian, et al., The Beam-charge azimuthal asymmetry and deeply virtual compton scattering, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 011103. arXiv:hep-ex/0605108, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75. 011103

    2007 arXiv

  20. [27]

    A. Airapetian, et al., Measurement of Azimuthal Asymme- tries With Respect To Both Beam Charge and Transverse Tar- get Polarization in Exclusive Electroproduction of Real Pho- tons, JHEP 06 (2008) 066. arXiv:0802.2499, doi:10.1088/ 1126-6708/2008/06/066

    2008 arXiv

  21. [28]

    d’Hose, E

    N. d’Hose, E. Burtin, P. A. M. Guichon, J. Marroncle, Feasi- bility study of deeply virtual Compton scattering using COM- PASS at CERN, Eur. Phys. J. A 19S1 (2004) 47–53. doi: 10.1140/epjad/s2004-03-008-x

    2004 doi

  22. [29]

    Accardi, et al., Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Fron- tier: Understanding the glue that binds us all, Eur

    A. Accardi, et al., Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Fron- tier: Understanding the glue that binds us all, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (9) (2016) 268. arXiv:1212.1701, doi:10.1140/epja/ i2016-16268-9

    2016 arXiv

  23. [30]

    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. arXiv:2103.05419, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2022.122447

    2022 arXiv

  24. [31]

    D. P. Anderle, et al., Electron-ion collider in China, Front. Phys. (Beijing) 16 (6) (2021) 64701. arXiv:2102.09222, doi: 10.1007/s11467-021-1062-0

    2021 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Abdul Khalek, et al., Snowmass 2021 White Paper: Elec- tron Ion Collider for High Energy Physics arXiv:2203.13199

    R. Abdul Khalek, et al., Snowmass 2021 White Paper: Elec- tron Ion Collider for High Energy Physics arXiv:2203.13199

    2021 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Abir, et al., The case for an EIC Theory Alliance: Theo- retical Challenges of the EIC arXiv:2305.14572

    R. Abir, et al., The case for an EIC Theory Alliance: Theo- retical Challenges of the EIC arXiv:2305.14572

  27. [34]

    Amoroso, et al., Snowmass 2021 Whitepaper: Proton Struc- ture at the Precision Frontier, Acta Phys

    S. Amoroso, et al., Snowmass 2021 Whitepaper: Proton Struc- ture at the Precision Frontier, Acta Phys. Polon. B 53 (12) (2022) 12–A1. arXiv:2203.13923, doi:10.5506/APhysPolB. 53.12-A1

    2022 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Hentschinski, et al., White Paper on Forward Physics, BFKL, Saturation Physics and Diffraction, Acta Phys

    M. Hentschinski, et al., White Paper on Forward Physics, BFKL, Saturation Physics and Diffraction, Acta Phys. Polon. B 54 (3) (2023) 3–A2. arXiv:2203.08129, doi:10.5506/ APhysPolB.54.3-A2. 8

    2023 arXiv

  29. [36]

    J. L. Abelleira Fernandez, et al., A Large Hadron Electron Collider at CERN: Report on the Physics and Design Concepts for Machine and Detector, J. Phys. G 39 (2012) 075001.arXiv: 1206.2913, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/39/7/075001

    2012 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Agostini, et al., The Large Hadron–Electron Collider at the HL-LHC, J

    P. Agostini, et al., The Large Hadron–Electron Collider at the HL-LHC, J. Phys. G 48 (11) (2021) 110501.arXiv:2007.14491, doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abf3ba

    2021

  31. [38]

    Dudek, et al., Physics Opportunities with the 12 GeV Upgrade at Jefferson Lab, Eur

    J. Dudek, et al., Physics Opportunities with the 12 GeV Upgrade at Jefferson Lab, Eur. Phys. J. A 48 (2012) 187. arXiv:1208.1244, doi:10.1140/epja/i2012-12187-1

    2012 arXiv

  32. [39]

    V. D. Burkert, Jefferson Lab at 12 GeV: The Science Program, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68 (2018) 405–428. doi:10.1146/ annurev-nucl-101917-021129

    2018

  33. [40]

    Accardi, et al., Strong interaction physics at the luminosity frontier with 22 GeV electrons at Jefferson Lab, Eur

    A. Accardi, et al., Strong interaction physics at the luminosity frontier with 22 GeV electrons at Jefferson Lab, Eur. Phys. J. A 60 (9) (2024) 173. arXiv:2306.09360, doi:10.1140/epja/ s10050-024-01282-x

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Burkardt, Impact parameter dependent parton distribu- tions and off forward parton distributions for zeta —> 0, Phys

    M. Burkardt, Impact parameter dependent parton distribu- tions and off forward parton distributions for zeta —> 0, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 071503, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 66, 119903 (2002)]. arXiv:hep-ph/0005108, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62. 071503

    2000 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Burkardt, Impact parameter space interpretation for generalized parton distributions, Int

    M. Burkardt, Impact parameter space interpretation for generalized parton distributions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 18 (2003) 173–208. arXiv:hep-ph/0207047, doi:10.1142/ S0217751X03012370

    2003 arXiv

  36. [43]

    J. P. Ralston, B. Pire, Femtophotography of protons to nuclei with deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 111501. arXiv:hep-ph/0110075, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.66.111501

    2002 arXiv

  37. [44]

    S. J. Brodsky, D. Chakrabarti, A. Harindranath, A. Mukher- jee, J. P. Vary, Hadron optics: Diffraction patterns in deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006) 440–

    2006

  38. [45]

    S. J. Brodsky, D. Chakrabarti, A. Harindranath, A. Mukher- jee, J. P. Vary, Hadron optics in three-dimensional invari- ant coordinate space from deeply virtual compton scatter- ing, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 014003. arXiv:hep-ph/0611159, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.014003

    2007 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Chakrabarti, R

    D. Chakrabarti, R. Manohar, A. Mukherjee, Chiral odd GPDs in transverse and longitudinal impact parameter spaces, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 034006. arXiv:0811.0521, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.79.034006

    2009 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Manohar, A

    R. Manohar, A. Mukherjee, D. Chakrabarti, Generalized Par- ton Distributions for the Proton in Position Space : Non-Zero Skewness, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 014004. arXiv:1012.2627, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.014004

    2011 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Kumar, H

    N. Kumar, H. Dahiya, Generalized Parton Distributions of pro- ton for nonzero skewness in transverse and longitudinal po- sition spaces, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30 (02) (2015) 1550010. arXiv:1501.04745, doi:10.1142/S0217751X15500104

    2015 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Mondal, D

    C. Mondal, D. Chakrabarti, Generalized parton distributions and transverse densities in a light-front quark–diquark model for the nucleons, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (6) (2015) 261. arXiv: 1501.05489, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3486-6

    2015 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Chakrabarti, C

    D. Chakrabarti, C. Mondal, Chiral-odd generalized parton distributions for proton in a light-front quark-diquark model, Phys. Rev. D 92 (7) (2015) 074012. arXiv:1509.00598, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.074012

    2015 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Mondal, Helicity-dependent generalized parton distribu- tions for nonzero skewness, Eur

    C. Mondal, Helicity-dependent generalized parton distribu- tions for nonzero skewness, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (9) (2017) 640. arXiv:1709.06877, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5203-0

    2017 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Pasquini, M

    B. Pasquini, M. Pincetti, S. Boffi, Chiral-odd generalized par- ton distributions in constituent quark models, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 094029. arXiv:hep-ph/0510376, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.72.094029

    2005 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Pasquini, S

    B. Pasquini, S. Boffi, Virtual meson cloud of the nucleon and generalized parton distributions, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 094001. arXiv:hep-ph/0601177, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73. 094001

    2006 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Meissner, A

    S. Meissner, A. Metz, M. Schlegel, Generalized parton corre- lation functions for a spin-1/2 hadron, JHEP 08 (2009) 056. arXiv:0906.5323, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/08/056

    2009 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Boffi, B

    S. Boffi, B. Pasquini, M. Traini, Linking generalized par- ton distributions to constituent quark models, Nucl. Phys. B 649 (2003) 243–262. arXiv:hep-ph/0207340, doi:10.1016/ S0550-3213(02)01016-7

    2003 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Scopetta, V

    S. Scopetta, V. Vento, Generalized parton distributions and composite constituent quarks, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 094004. arXiv:hep-ph/0307150, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.094004

    2004 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Choi, C.-R

    H.-M. Choi, C.-R. Ji, L. S. Kisslinger, Skewed quark distri- bution of the pion in the light front quark model, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 093006. arXiv:hep-ph/0104117, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.64.093006

    2001 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Choi, C.-R

    H.-M. Choi, C.-R. Ji, L. S. Kisslinger, Continuity of skewed parton distributions for the pion virtual Compton scattering, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 053011. arXiv:hep-ph/0204321, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.053011

    2002 arXiv

  52. [59]

    S. Kaur, S. Xu, C. Mondal, X. Zhao, J. P. Vary, Spatial imag- ing of proton via leading-twist nonskewed GPDs with basis light-front quantization, Phys. Rev. D 109 (1) (2024) 014015. arXiv:2307.09869, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.014015

    2024 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Ji, Parton Physics on a Euclidean Lattice, Phys

    X. Ji, Parton Physics on a Euclidean Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 262002. arXiv:1305.1539, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.110.262002

    2013 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Ji, Y.-S

    X. Ji, Y.-S. Liu, Y. Liu, J.-H. Zhang, Y. Zhao, Large- momentum effective theory, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93 (3) (2021) 035005. arXiv:2004.03543, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93. 035005

    2021 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Lin, Nucleon helicity generalized parton distribution at physical pion mass from lattice QCD, Phys

    H.-W. Lin, Nucleon helicity generalized parton distribution at physical pion mass from lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B 824 (2022) 136821. arXiv:2112.07519, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021. 136821

    2022 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Lin, Nucleon Tomography and Generalized Parton Dis- tribution at Physical Pion Mass from Lattice QCD, Phys

    H.-W. Lin, Nucleon Tomography and Generalized Parton Dis- tribution at Physical Pion Mass from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (18) (2021) 182001. arXiv:2008.12474, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.182001

    2021 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, J. Dodson, X. Gao, A. Metz, S. Mukherjee, A. Scapellato, F. Steffens, Y. Zhao, Generalized parton distributions from lattice QCD with asymmetric momentum transfer: Unpolarized quarks, Phys. Rev. D 106 (11) (2022) 114512. arXiv:2209.0...

    2022 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Alexandrou, K

    C. Alexandrou, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyian- nakou, K. Jansen, A. Scapellato, F. Steffens, Transversity GPDs of the proton from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 105 (3) (2022) 034501. arXiv:2108.10789, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 105.034501

    2022 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Alexandrou, et al., Moments of the nucleon transverse quark spin densities using lattice QCD, Phys

    C. Alexandrou, et al., Moments of the nucleon transverse quark spin densities using lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 107 (5) (2023) 054504. arXiv:2202.09871, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 107.054504

    2023 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Y. Guo, X. Ji, K. Shiells, Generalized parton distributions through universal moment parameterization: zero skewness case, JHEP 09 (2022) 215. arXiv:2207.05768, doi:10.1007/ JHEP09(2022)215

    2022 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Alexandrou, K

    C. Alexandrou, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyian- nakou, K. Jansen, A. Scapellato, F. Steffens, Unpolarized and helicity generalized parton distributions of the proton within lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (26) (2020) 262001. arXiv:2008.10573, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett....

    2020 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Gockeler, P

    M. Gockeler, P. Hagler, R. Horsley, D. Pleiter, P. E. L. Rakow, A. Schafer, G. Schierholz, J. M. Zanotti, Quark helicity flip generalized parton distributions from two-flavor lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B 627 (2005) 113–123. arXiv:hep-lat/0507001, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.09.002

    2005 arXiv

  63. [70]

    G¨ ockeler, P

    M. G¨ ockeler, P. H¨ agler, R. Horsley, Y. Nakamura, D. Pleiter, P. E. L. Rakow, A. Sch¨ afer, G. Schierholz, H. St¨ uben, J. M. Zanotti, Transverse spin structure of the nucleon from lattice QCD simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 222001. arXiv: hep-lat/0612032, doi:10.11...

    2007 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Alexandrou, et al., Moments of nucleon generalized parton distributions from lattice QCD simulations at physical pion mass, Phys

    C. Alexandrou, et al., Moments of nucleon generalized parton distributions from lattice QCD simulations at physical pion mass, Phys. Rev. D 101 (3) (2020) 034519. arXiv:1908.10706, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.034519

    2020 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Hannaford-Gunn, K

    A. Hannaford-Gunn, K. U. Can, J. A. Crawford, R. Hors- ley, P. E. L. Rakow, G. Schierholz, H. St¨ uben, R. D. Young, J. M. Zanotti, Reconstructing generalized parton distributions from the lattice off-forward Compton amplitude, Phys. Rev. D 110 (1) (2024) 014509. arXiv:2405.06...

    2024 arXiv

  66. [73]

    C. Tan, Z. Lu, Gluon generalized parton distributions and an- gular momentum in a light-cone spectator model, Phys. Rev. D 108 (5) (2023) 054038. arXiv:2301.09081, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.108.054038

    2023 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Chakrabarti, P

    D. Chakrabarti, P. Choudhary, B. Gurjar, T. Maji, C. Mon- dal, A. Mukherjee, Gluon generalized parton distributions of the proton at nonzero skewness, Phys. Rev. D 109 (11) (2024) 114040. arXiv:2402.16503, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 109.114040

    2024 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Chakrabarti, P

    D. Chakrabarti, P. Choudhary, B. Gurjar, R. Kishore, T. Maji, C. Mondal, A. Mukherjee, Gluon distributions in the pro- ton in a light-front spectator model, Phys. Rev. D 108 (1) (2023) 014009. arXiv:2304.09908, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 108.014009

    2023 arXiv

  69. [76]

    B. Lin, S. Nair, S. Xu, Z. Hu, C. Mondal, X. Zhao, J. P. Vary, Generalized parton distributions of gluon in proton: A light- front quantization approach, Phys. Lett. B 847 (2023) 138305. arXiv:2308.08275, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138305

    2023 arXiv

  70. [77]

    B. Lin, S. Nair, C. Mondal, S. Xu, Z. Hu, P. Zhang, X. Zhao, J. P. Vary, Chiral-odd gluon generalized parton distributions in the proton: A light-front quantization approach, Phys. Lett. B 860 (2025) 139153. arXiv:2408.09988, doi:10.1016/ j.physletb.2024.139153

    2025 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Gurjar, C

    B. Gurjar, C. Mondal, D. Chakrabarti, Polarized gluon dis- tribution in the proton from holographic light-front QCD, Phys. Rev. D 107 (5) (2023) 054013. arXiv:2209.14285, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.054013

    2023 arXiv

  72. [79]

    G. F. de T´ eramond, H. G. Dosch, T. Liu, R. S. Sufian, S. J. Brodsky, A. Deur, Gluon matter distribution in the proton and pion from extended holographic light-front QCD, Phys. Rev. D 104 (11) (2021) 114005. arXiv:2107.01231, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.104.114005

    2021 arXiv

  73. [80]

    K. A. Mamo, I. Zahed, Parametrization of Generalized Parton Distributions from t-Channel String Exchange in AdS Spaces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (24) (2024) 241901. arXiv:2411.04162, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.241901

    2024 arXiv

  74. [81]

    K. A. Mamo, I. Zahed, String-based parametrization of nu- cleon GPDs at any skewness: A comparison to lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 110 (11) (2024) 114016. arXiv:2404.13245, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.114016

    2024 arXiv

  75. [82]

    J. P. Vary, H. Honkanen, J. Li, P. Maris, S. J. Brodsky, A. Harindranath, G. F. de Teramond, P. Sternberg, E. G. Ng, C. Yang, Hamiltonian light-front field theory in a basis function approach, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 035205. arXiv: 0905.1411, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.81.035205

    2010 arXiv

  76. [83]

    X. Zhao, H. Honkanen, P. Maris, J. P. Vary, S. J. Brodsky, Electron g-2 in Light-Front Quantization, Phys. Lett. B 737 (2014) 65–69. arXiv:1402.4195, doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2014.08.020

    2014 arXiv

  77. [84]

    Y. Li, P. Maris, X. Zhao, J. P. Vary, Heavy Quarkonium in a Holographic Basis, Phys. Lett. B 758 (2016) 118–124. arXiv: 1509.07212, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.065

    2016 arXiv

  78. [85]

    S. Nair, C. Mondal, X. Zhao, A. Mukherjee, J. P. Vary, Basis light-front quantization approach to photon, Phys. Lett. B 827 (2022) 137005. arXiv:2201.12770, doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2022.137005

    2022 arXiv

  79. [86]

    J. Lan, C. Mondal, S. Jia, X. Zhao, J. P. Vary, Parton Dis- tribution Functions from a Light Front Hamiltonian and QCD Evolution for Light Mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (17) (2019) 172001. arXiv:1901.11430, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122. 172001

    2019 arXiv

  80. [87]

    Mondal, S

    C. Mondal, S. Xu, J. Lan, X. Zhao, Y. Li, D. Chakrabarti, J. P. Vary, Proton structure from a light-front Hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. D 102 (1) (2020) 016008. arXiv:1911.10913, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.016008

    2020 arXiv

  81. [88]

    S. Xu, C. Mondal, J. Lan, X. Zhao, Y. Li, J. P. Vary, Nu- cleon structure from basis light-front quantization, Phys. Rev. D 104 (9) (2021) 094036. arXiv:2108.03909, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.104.094036

    2021 arXiv

  82. [89]

    J. Lan, K. Fu, C. Mondal, X. Zhao, j. P. Vary, Light mesons with one dynamical gluon on the light front, Phys. Lett. B 825 (2022) 136890. arXiv:2106.04954, doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2022.136890

    2022 arXiv

  83. [91]

    H. Yu, Z. Hu, S. Xu, C. Mondal, X. Zhao, J. P. Vary, Transverse-momentum-dependent gluon distributions of pro- ton within basis light-front quantization, Phys. Lett. B 855 (2024) 138831. arXiv:2403.06125, doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2024.138831

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Z. Zhu, S. Xu, J. Wu, H. Yu, Z. Hu, J. Lan, C. Mon- dal, X. Zhao, J. P. Vary, Transverse structure of the proton beyond leading twist: A light-front Hamiltonian approach, Phys. Lett. B 855 (2024) 138829. arXiv:2404.13720, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138829

    2024 arXiv

  85. [93]

    S. J. Brodsky, H.-C. Pauli, S. S. Pinsky, Quantum chromo- dynamics and other field theories on the light cone, Phys. Rept. 301 (1998) 299–486. arXiv:hep-ph/9705477, doi:10. 1016/S0370-1573(97)00089-6

    1998 arXiv

  86. [94]

    R. J. Perry, A. Harindranath, K. G. Wilson, Light front Tamm- Dancoff field theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 2959–2962. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.2959

    1990 doi

  87. [95]

    V. A. Karmanov, J. F. Mathiot, A. V. Smirnov, System- atic renormalization scheme in light-front dynamics with Fock space truncation, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 085028. arXiv: 0801.4507, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.085028

    2008 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Kurganov, et al., Method of Experimental Alignment of Detectors in the DPS-NICA Project, Phys

    A. Kurganov, et al., Method of Experimental Alignment of Detectors in the DPS-NICA Project, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 21 (2) (2024) 178–185. doi:10.1134/S1547477124020080

    2024 doi

  89. [97]

    S. D. Glazek, R. J. Perry, Special example of relativistic Hamiltonian field theory, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 3740–3754. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.3740

    1992 doi

  90. [98]

    Burkardt, Dynamical vertex mass generation and chiral symmetry breaking on the light front, Phys

    M. Burkardt, Dynamical vertex mass generation and chiral symmetry breaking on the light front, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 096015. arXiv:hep-th/9805088, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58. 096015

    1998 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Diehl, Generalized parton distributions, Phys

    M. Diehl, Generalized parton distributions, Phys. Rept. 388 (2003) 41–277. arXiv:hep-ph/0307382, doi:10.1016/j. physrep.2003.08.002

    2003 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Y. Liu, S. Xu, C. Mondal, Z. Hu, X. Zhao, J. P. Vary, Skewed generalized parton distributions of proton from ba- sis light-front quantization, Phys. Lett. B 855 (2024) 138809. arXiv:2403.05922, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138809

    2024 arXiv

  93. [101]

    X.-D. Ji, W. Melnitchouk, X. Song, A Study of off forward par- ton distributions, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 5511–5523. arXiv: hep-ph/9702379, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.5511

    1997 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Boffi, B

    S. Boffi, B. Pasquini, M. Traini, Helicity dependent generalized parton distributions in constituent quark models, Nucl. Phys. B 680 (2004) 147–163. arXiv:hep-ph/0311016, doi:10.1016/ j.nuclphysb.2003.12.037

    2004 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Freese, I

    A. Freese, I. C. Clo¨ et, Quark spin and orbital angular momen- tum from proton generalized parton distributions, Phys. Rev. C 103 (4) (2021) 045204. arXiv:2005.10286, doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.103.045204

    2021 arXiv

  96. [104]

    N. Kaur, N. Kumar, C. Mondal, H. Dahiya, Generalized Par- ton Distributions of Pion for Non-Zero Skewness in AdS/QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 934 (2018) 80–95. arXiv:1807.01076, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2018.07.003

    2018 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Meissner, A

    S. Meissner, A. Metz, K. Goeke, Relations between gener- alized and transverse momentum dependent parton distribu- tions, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 034002. arXiv:hep-ph/0703176, 10 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.034002

    2007 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Diehl, P

    M. Diehl, P. Hagler, Spin densities in the transverse plane and generalized transversity distributions, Eur. Phys. J. C 44 (2005) 87–101. arXiv:hep-ph/0504175, doi:10.1140/epjc/ s2005-02342-6

    2005 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Burkardt, Transverse deformation of parton distributions and transversity decomposition of angular momentum, Phys

    M. Burkardt, Transverse deformation of parton distributions and transversity decomposition of angular momentum, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 094020. arXiv:hep-ph/0505189, doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.72.094020

    2005 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Diehl, Generalized parton distributions in impact param- eter space, Eur

    M. Diehl, Generalized parton distributions in impact param- eter space, Eur. Phys. J. C 25 (2002) 223–232, [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 31, 277–278 (2003)]. arXiv:hep-ph/0205208, doi:10.1007/s10052-002-1016-9

    2002 arXiv

  101. [109]

    S. J. Brodsky, M. Diehl, D. S. Hwang, Light cone wave function representation of deeply virtual Compton scattering, Nucl. Phys. B 596 (2001) 99–124. arXiv:hep-ph/0009254, doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(00)00695-7

    2001 arXiv

  102. [110]

    G. A. Miller, S. J. Brodsky, Frame-independent spatial coordi- nate ˜z: Implications for light-front wave functions, deep inelas- tic scattering, light-front holography, and lattice QCD calcula- tions, Phys. Rev. C 102 (2) (2020) 022201. arXiv:1912.08911, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC....

    2020 arXiv

  103. [111]

    T. Maji, C. Mondal, D. Kang, Leading twist GTMDs at nonzero skewness and Wigner distributions in boost- invariant longitudinal position space, Phys. Rev. D 105 (7) (2022) 074024. arXiv:2202.08635, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 105.074024

    2022 arXiv

  104. [112]

    V. K. Ojha, S. Jana, T. Maji, Quark generalized TMDs at skewness and Wigner distributions in boost invariant longi- tudinal space, Phys. Rev. D 107 (7) (2023) 074040. arXiv: 2211.02959, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.074040

    2023 arXiv

  105. [113]

    C. M. Weller, G. A. Miller, Confinement in two-dimensional QCD and the infinitely long pion, Phys. Rev. D 105 (3) (2022) 036009. arXiv:2111.03194, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 105.036009

    2022 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Zhang, Z

    Z. Zhang, Z. Hu, S. Xu, C. Mondal, X. Zhao, J. P. Vary, Twist- 3 generalized parton distribution for the proton from basis light-front quantization, Phys. Rev. D 109 (3) (2024) 034031. arXiv:2312.00667, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.034031. 11

    2024

  107. [446]

    arXiv:hep-ph/0604262, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006. 08.061

    2006 arXiv

Pith tools

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