Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Resummation for Lattice QCD Calculation of Generalized Parton Distributions at Nonzero Skewness

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the large logarithms in quasi-GPD matching at nonzero skewness become important only in the threshold limit, so the matching kernel can be factorized into two Sudakov factors and a jet function and resummed, giving a…

desk verdict A genuinely useful SCET derivation and resummation scheme for quasi-GPD matching, with a load-bearing all-orders suppression claim that needs a sharper proof before the method is trusted as standard. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.19225 v2 pith:WEDKDSCR submitted 2025-01-31 hep-ph hep-lat

Jack Holligan , Huey-Wen Lin , Rui Zhang , Yong Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-lat
keywords generalizedpartondistributionslarge-momentumeffectivetheorythresholdresummationSudakovfactorsjetfunctionlatticeQCDskewnessmatchingkernel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tackles a bottleneck in extracting generalized parton distributions from lattice QCD: at nonzero skewness, the perturbative kernel that converts a Euclidean quasi-GPD into the physical lightcone GPD contains logarithms of three different momenta, which cannot be resummed by a single evolution equation. The paper argues and demonstrates that, after choosing the renormalization scale $\mu_h = 2|x|P_z$ in the DGLAP region, all of these large logarithms are important only in the threshold limit $x \to y$, where the parton's emitted gluon is soft. There the kernel factorizes into a product of two Sudakov factors and a jet function, each obeying its own renormalization-group equation, and the paper constructs a fully resummed matching kernel. Numerically, a resummed inverse matching applied to a GPD model reproduces the model in the region $X = [-1+x_0, -\xi-x_0] \cup [-\xi+x_0, \xi-x_0] \cup [\xi+x_0, 1-x_0]$, showing that nonperturbative effects outside $X$ do not leak in. If this holds for real lattice data, it would give lattice QCD a controlled prediction for the $x$-dependence of GPDs, a key input for imaging the proton at the Electron-Ion Collider.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the threshold factorization formula for the quasi-GPD, in which the matching kernel in the $x \to y$ limit factorizes as a product of two Sudakov factors and a jet function. The Sudakov factors absorb the logarithms of the outgoing and incoming parton momenta and evolve with the cusp anomalous dimension; the jet function, defined through Wilson lines, absorbs the soft-gluon logarithms and is the same as in the PDF case. Each factor obeys its own renormalization-group equation, so the three physical scales $2|\xi \pm x|P_z$ and $2|x-y|P_z$ can be resummed separately. The argument that the quark-momentum logarithms are suppressed by $|x \pm \xi|$ to all orders is what restricts the resummation task to the threshold limit, and the choice $\mu_h = 2|x|P_z$ in the DGLAP region is what makes the remaining logarithms threshold-only.

What would settle it

Compute the next-to-next-to-leading-order matching kernel for the quasi-GPD and test whether the coefficient of $\ln[4(\xi+x)^2P_z^2/\mu^2]$ vanishes as $x \to -\xi$ without a factor of $|x+\xi|$; if any such unsuppressed logarithm appears, the threshold-only resummation misses a class of large logarithms and the predicted region $X$ would need revision. A complementary test is to apply the resummed inverse matching to lattice quasi-GPD data at two different values of $P_z$ and check that the extracted lightcone GPD agrees within scale-variation uncertainty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the troublesome multi-scale logarithms in quasi-GPD matching do not all need resummation: the logarithms tied to the quark and antiquark momenta are multiplied by factors of $|\xi \pm x|$ in momentum space and therefore vanish at the soft-parton limits $x \to \mp\xi$, while the logarithm tied to the emitted gluon momentum is large only in the threshold limit $x \to y$. The paper then derives an SCET threshold factorization in which the matching coefficient becomes a convolution of two Sudakov factors $H((x \pm \xi)P_z, \mu)$ with a jet function $J(|x-y|P_z, \mu)$, with the phase of the Sudakov factors fixed by the Wilson-line orientation. Solving the independent renormalization-group equations for the three factors with the initial scales $\mu_{h1} = 2|x+\xi|P_z$, $\mu_{h2} = 2|x-\xi|P_z$ and a profile scale $\mu_i = 2\min(|x\pm\xi|, |1\pm x|)P_z$ yields the resummed kernel of Eq. (3.34); including leading-renormalon regularization removes the linear power corrections that would otherwise spoil leading-power accuracy. The numerical tests on a double-distribution GPD model show that the resummed matching is self-consistent: quasi-GPDs produced by the forward matching, interpolated through the regions where perturbation theory breaks down, and then inversely matched reproduce the original GPD within the reliable region $X$, with a cutoff $x_0 \approx 0.1$ at $P_z = 4$ GeV controlled by $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/P_z$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the claim that the quark- and antiquark-momentum logarithms always come multiplied by a power of $|x \pm \xi|$, so they vanish at $x \to \mp\xi$; this is shown from the one-loop fermion propagator but no all-orders proof is given.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For lattice QCD, the resummed kernel should reduce the perturbative uncertainty in quasi-GPD matching at hadron momenta around 2 GeV and extend the usable $x$ range to $X = [-1+x_0, -\xi-x_0] \cup [-\xi+x_0, \xi-x_0] \cup [\xi+x_0, 1-x_0]$.
  • For skewness below the cutoff, $\xi < x_0$, the ERBL region $|x| < \xi$ cannot be predicted reliably by LaMET, so calculations must quote $x_0$ explicitly.
  • The inverse matching procedure does not spread uncertainties from the nonperturbative regions $x \to \pm\xi$ and $x \to \pm 1$ into the perturbative region $X$, as shown by the model test.
  • The same threshold factorization reduces to the quasi-PDF and quasi-DA formulas in the appropriate limits, so the resummation strategy transfers to those observables.
  • Because the cutoff satisfies $x_0 \sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}/P_z$, higher lattice momenta shrink the unreliable intervals and enlarge $X$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the threshold-only dominance of the logarithms survives at higher orders, the same profile-scale construction, setting $\mu_i$ by the distance to the nearest non-smooth point of the distribution, should apply to other off-forward lattice observables, including gluon GPDs and transverse-momentum distributions.
  • A natural next test is to apply the resummed kernel to real lattice quasi-GPD data at several values of $P_z$ and check that the resulting lightcone GPD is independent of $P_z$ within the quoted uncertainty; the model test suggests this should hold.
  • The paper leaves the all-orders suppression of quark-momentum logarithms as an assumption; computing the next-to-next-to-leading-order matching coefficient and verifying that no $|x\pm\xi|$-independent logarithm appears at $x = \mp\xi$ would settle that assumption.
  • If confirmed with data, the finding that the unknown nonperturbative interpolation largely cancels in the inverse matching would simplify the extraction of GPDs from future lattice ensembles, since only the region $X$ would need accurate quasi-GPD input.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper addresses the resummation of large logarithms in the LaMET matching of quasi-GPDs at nonzero skewness. The authors first argue that quark-momentum logarithms ln(4(ξ±x)^2 P_z^2/µ^2) are suppressed by powers of |x±ξ| to all orders, so only threshold logarithms need resummation. They then derive a threshold factorization formula (Eq. 2.25) using SCET, factorizing the matching kernel into two Sudakov factors and a jet function, and propose a resummed kernel C_TR (Eq. 3.34) with scale choices µ_h=2 max[|x|,ξ]P_z, µ_h1=2|x+ξ|P_z, µ_h2=2|x−ξ|P_z, and µ_i=2 min[|x±ξ|,|1±x|]P_z. They test the method on a double-distribution GPD model with ξ=0.5 and 1/3, performing forward matching and inverse matching after interpolation, and find that the original model is reproduced in the reliable region X with a cutoff x0≈0.1 at P_z=4 GeV. They also discuss the extension to leading-power accuracy through leading-renormalon resummation.

Significance. If the central claim about all-orders suppression of quark-momentum logarithms is correct, this paper provides the first systematic threshold resummation for quasi-GPD matching at nonzero skewness, extending the reliable LaMET range in x and controlling perturbative uncertainties in a multi-scale problem. The SCET derivation is detailed and correctly reduces to known PDF and DA limits, and the closed-loop forward/inverse matching test on a GPD model is a useful self-consistency check. The paper also outlines how to incorporate leading-renormalon resummation. However, the two most load-bearing steps — the all-orders suppression and the sail-diagram identification — are asserted rather than demonstrated, and the numerical tests are model-based and cannot validate the all-orders claim. The approach is promising and likely to be of interest to the lattice QCD and LaMET communities, but the central proof needs to be supplied.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2, paragraph after Eq. (2.2)] The central claim that quark-momentum logarithms are suppressed by a power of |x±ξ| 'to all orders' is asserted rather than proven. The argument given is a one-loop power-counting observation about the fermion propagator /k/(k^2+iϵ) attached to the Wilson line; it does not exclude higher-order diagrams in which the soft-quark momentum appears in a numerator or in a different kinematic invariant, potentially generating ln^n(|x±ξ|) without a suppression factor. This claim is load-bearing: the threshold factorization in Eq. (2.25), the scale choices in Eq. (3.35), and the reliable region X in Eq. (4.3) all rest on the completeness of this suppression. Please provide either a diagrammatic all-orders argument or an explicit two-loop check in the off-forward kernel. Without such a demonstration, the resummed kernel C_TR in Eq. (3.34) may be missing logarithms, and the conclusion that the large logarithms are important only in the threshold limit is not established.
  2. [Sec. 2, around Eq. (2.25) (sail diagram paragraph)] The identification of the overlap segment of the straight Wilson line with the product of Sudakov phase factors is asserted without derivation. The text states that the contribution is 'exactly the so called sail diagram [63] in the threshold limit x→y, which is identical to the product of the phase factors in Eq. (2.24) and independent of the choice of Wz orientation,' but no argument is given for why the overlap of two same-orientation Wilson lines at distance |z|∼1/(√ϵP⁺) reproduces the phase product, nor why this holds beyond one loop. Since this step determines the phase structure in the factorization formula Eq. (2.25) and thus the momentum-space threshold kernel, it should be either proven within SCET or derived explicitly at least at one loop. If the statement is proven in Ref. [63], please cite the specific equation; otherwise it remains an ad hoc assumption.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.28)] The profile function µ_i = 2 min[|x±ξ|,|1±x|]P_z rests on the claim that only the nearest non-smooth point of the lightcone GPD generates the dominant threshold logarithm. The analysis in Eqs. (3.22)–(3.27) shows that the long-tail virtual contributions produce logarithms from each non-smooth point, and the statement that the integrand 'will filter out the nearest |x−x_i| contribution' is qualitative; it assumes a Taylor-expandable distribution and does not quantify when subleading non-smooth points become relevant. Since the numerical results in Sec. 4 depend on this profile, please either provide a quantitative bound on the ratio of subleading to leading contributions or enlarge the scale-variation systematics to cover the sensitivity to the profile choice.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4, paragraph after 'Once we resum the matching kernel'] The text says 'we get three pieces of quasi-GPD from the calculation', but Fig. 2 shows four curves (LO, NLO, NNLL-J⊗H, NNLL-H⊗J); please correct the count.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] 'The bands represents scale variation' should be 'The bands represent scale variation'.
  3. [Sec. 2, after Eq. (2.2)] The shorthand 'x→∓ξ' for the two quark-momentum logarithms could be made more explicit by writing 'x→−ξ for ln(4(ξ+x)^2P_z^2/µ^2) and x→ξ for ln(4(ξ−x)^2P_z^2/µ^2)', to avoid possible misreading.
  4. [Sec. 4 and Conclusion] The phrase 'we demonstrate that the LaMET prediction is reliable for X' is stronger than what is shown; the demonstration is on a specific GPD model with interpolation. Suggest adding 'on the GPD model used here' or similar qualifier in the abstract and conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the threshold factorization is derived from SCET and standard RG inputs, and the model tests are self-consistency checks rather than fits of the central claim.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The paper derives the quasi-GPD threshold factorization (Eq. 2.25) from a SCET matching of the quark bilinear operator, with the jet function defined as a vacuum matrix element of soft Wilson lines (Eqs. 2.20-2.21); the Sudakov factors and jet function are then resummed by solving their standard RGEs (Eqs. 3.3-3.14) with anomalous dimensions taken from the literature. No parameter is fitted to data, and no 'prediction' is equal by construction to an input: the µh, µh1, µh2, and µi choices are scale-setting prescriptions motivated by the log structure of the NLO kernel, and the reliable region X is read off from where the physical scales become non-perturbative, not imposed. The numerical test is explicitly a self-consistency check: a model GPD is matched forward with the resummed kernel and then inverted, and the paper notes the forward and inverse kernels are not exact inverses because the scales depend on different variables (Eq. 4.4); the agreement is therefore a nontrivial closure test of the implementation, not a circular reproduction. The main fragility is the assertion that quark-momentum logarithms are suppressed by a power of |x±ξ| to all orders (Sec. 2 after Eq. 2.2) with only a power-counting argument; if that premise fails, the threshold-only resummation would be incomplete. That is a correctness risk, not a circular step, because the premise is not derived from the conclusion it supports. Self-citations to [68,69,71-73,89] supply standard resummation and renormalization methods, but the GPD factorization and resummation formula are derived in this paper rather than imported as a black box.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on standard SCET backgrounds plus several paper-specific assumptions (all-orders suppression, sail diagram, profile scale), and the numerical demonstration depends on the chosen model and scale prescriptions. No genuinely new entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • µh = 2 max[|x|, ξ] P_z = prescription, not fitted
    Initial scale for the full matching kernel; chosen to suppress logarithms before threshold resummation. Fixed-order results depend on this choice, tested by scale variation.
  • µh1 = 2|x+ξ|P_z = prescription, not fitted
    Hard scale for the Sudakov factor of quark momentum (x+ξ)P_z.
  • µh2 = 2|x-ξ|P_z = prescription, not fitted
    Hard scale for the Sudakov factor of antiquark momentum (x-ξ)P_z.
  • µi = 2 min[|x±ξ|,|1±x|]P_z = prescription, not fitted
    Semi-hard scale profile for the jet function, chosen by the nearest non-smooth point of the GPD.
  • x0 cutoff = ~0.1 for P_z=4 GeV (≈Λ_QCD/P_z)
    Defines the reliable region X; estimated from α_s(2x0P_z)~1 rather than computed.
  • zs (hybrid scheme parameter) = 0.2 fm
    Separates short and long distance in hybrid renormalization; enters the threshold correction Eq. (2.34)-(2.35).
  • model parameters ξ, λ = ξ=0.5, λ=1.5
    Inputs for the numerical model test only; do not enter the central derivation.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard QCD/SCET factorization machinery, including power counting and the four-loop cusp anomalous dimension.
    Assumed background from Refs. [90-95,113-115]; used throughout Secs. 2-3.
  • domain assumption The emitted gluon in the threshold limit is still perturbative: √ϵ P+ ≫ Λ_QCD.
    Stated in Sec. 2 before Eq. (2.26); if violated, the jet function is nonperturbative and the factorization changes.
  • ad hoc to paper Quark-momentum logarithms are suppressed by |x±ξ| to all orders in the off-forward kernel.
    Argued in Sec. 2 from the fermion propagator form; not proven to all orders, load-bearing for threshold-only resummation.
  • ad hoc to paper The overlap segment of the straight Wilson line equals the product of Sudakov phase factors (sail diagram).
    Asserted in the paragraph after Eq. (2.24) to resolve the Wilson-line orientation ambiguity; no explicit calculation is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Only the nearest non-smooth point of the GPD generates the dominant threshold logarithm.
    Heuristic argument in Sec. 3.2 leading to the profile function µi.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resummation for Lattice QCD Calculation of Generalized Parton Distributions at Nonzero Skewness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WEDKDSCR

@misc{pith2026250119225,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resummation for Lattice QCD Calculation of Generalized Parton Distributions at Nonzero Skewness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WEDKDSCR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.19225}
}
abstract

Large-momentum effective theory (LaMET) provides an approach to directly calculate the $x$-dependence of generalized parton distributions (GPDs) on a Euclidean lattice through power expansion and a perturbative matching. When a parton's momentum becomes soft, the corresponding logarithms in the matching kernel become non-negligible at higher orders of perturbation theory, which requires a resummation. But the resummation for the off-forward matrix elements at nonzero skewness $\xi$ is difficult due to their multi-scale nature. In this work, we demonstrate that these logarithms are important only in the threshold limit, and derive the threshold factorization formula for the quasi-GPDs in LaMET. We then propose an approach to resum all the large logarithms based on the threshold factorization, which is implemented on a GPD model. We demonstrate that the LaMET prediction is reliable for $[-1+x_0,-\xi-x_0]\cup[-\xi+x_0,\xi-x_0]\cup[\xi+x_0,1-x_0]$, where $x_0$ is a cutoff depending on hard parton momenta. Through our numerical tests with the GPD model, we demonstrate that our method is self-consistent and that the inverse matching does not spread the nonperturbative effects or power corrections to the perturbatively calculable regions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. GUMP1.0 -- First global extraction of generalized parton distributions from experiment and lattice data with NLO accuracy

    hep-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new global extraction, GUMP1.0, fits generalized parton distributions to 2,646 experimental and lattice data points at NLO accuracy and uses them to image the proton and decompose its spin.

  2. Generalized parton distributions from lattice QCD

    hep-lat 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review of lattice QCD extractions of GPDs via quasi- and pseudo-distributions, surveying results and advocating combined LaMET+SDF analyses and experiment-lattice synergies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [63]

    Izubuchi, X

    T. Izubuchi, X. Ji, L. Jin, I. W. Stewart, and Y. Zhao,Factorization Theorem Relating Euclidean and Light-Cone Parton Distributions, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018), no. 5 056004, [arXiv:1801.03917]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

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

    S. Amoroso et al.,Snowmass 2021 Whitepaper: Proton Structure at the Precision Frontier, Acta Phys. Polon. B 53 (2022), no. 12 12–A1, [arXiv:2203.13923]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [2]

    Müller, D

    D. Müller, D. Robaschik, B. Geyer, F. M. Dittes, and J. Hořejši,Wave functions, evolution equations and evolution kernels from light ray operators of QCD, Fortsch.Phys. 42 (1994) 101–141, [hep-ph/9812448]

    arXiv 1994

  4. [3]

    Ji,Gauge-Invariant Decomposition of Nucleon Spin, Phys

    X.-D. Ji,Gauge-Invariant Decomposition of Nucleon Spin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 610–613, [hep-ph/9603249]

    arXiv 1997

  5. [4]

    Ji,Deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys

    X.-D. Ji,Deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 7114–7125, [hep-ph/9609381]

    arXiv 1997

  6. [5]

    A. V. Radyushkin,Scaling limit of deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys. Lett. B 380 (1996) 417–425, [hep-ph/9604317]

    arXiv 1996

  7. [6]

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

    M. Burkardt,Impact parameter dependent parton distributions and off forward parton distributions for zeta —> 0, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 071503, [hep-ph/0005108]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 66, 119903 (2002)]. – 27 –

    arXiv 2000

  8. [7]

    J. P. Ralston and B. Pire,Femtophotography of protons to nuclei with deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 111501, [hep-ph/0110075]

    arXiv 2002

Show all 139 references
  1. [8]

    Diehl,Generalized parton distributions in impact parameter space, Eur

    M. Diehl,Generalized parton distributions in impact parameter space, Eur. Phys. J. C 25 (2002) 223–232, [hep-ph/0205208]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 31, 277–278 (2003)]

    2002 arXiv

  2. [9]

    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, [hep-ph/0207047]

    2003 arXiv

  3. [10]

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

    A. Accardi et al.,Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (2016), no. 9 268, [arXiv:1212.1701]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [11]

    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]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

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

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

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    V. D. Burkert et al.,Precision studies of QCD in the low energy domain of the EIC, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 131 (2023) 104032, [arXiv:2211.15746]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Achenbach et al.,The present and future of QCD, Nucl

    P. Achenbach et al.,The present and future of QCD, Nucl. Phys. A 1047 (2024) 122874, [arXiv:2303.02579]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

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

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

  9. [16]

    A. V. Radyushkin,Asymmetric gluon distributions and hard diffractive electroproduction, Phys. Lett. B 385 (1996) 333–342, [hep-ph/9605431]

    1996 arXiv

  10. [17]

    J. C. Collins, L. Frankfurt, and M. Strikman,Factorization for hard exclusive electroproduction of mesons in QCD, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 2982–3006, [hep-ph/9611433]

    1997 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Mathur, S

    N. Mathur, S. J. Dong, K. F. Liu, L. Mankiewicz, and N. C. Mukhopadhyay,Quark orbital angular momentum from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 114504, [hep-ph/9912289]

    2000 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Gadiyak, X.-d

    V. Gadiyak, X.-d. Ji, and C.-w. Jung,A Lattice study of the magnetic moment and the spin structure of the nucleon, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 094510, [hep-lat/0112040]

    2002 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Gockeler, R

    QCDSF Collaboration, M. Gockeler, R. Horsley, D. Pleiter, P. E. L. Rakow, A. Schafer, G. Schierholz, and W. Schroers,Generalized parton distributions from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 042002, [hep-ph/0304249]

    2004 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Hagler, J

    LHPC, SESAM Collaboration, P. Hagler, J. W. Negele, D. B. Renner, W. Schroers, T. Lippert, and K. Schilling,Moments of nucleon generalized parton distributions in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 034505, [hep-lat/0304018]

    2003 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Hagler, J

    LHPC, SESAM Collaboration, LHPC, P. Hagler, J. W. Negele, D. B. Renner, W. Schroers, T. Lippert, and K. Schilling,Transverse structure of nucleon parton distributions from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 112001, [hep-lat/0312014]

    2004 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Gockeler, P

    QCDSF, UKQCD Collaboration, M. Gockeler, P. Hagler, R. Horsley, D. Pleiter, P. E. L. Rakow, A. Schafer, G. Schierholz, and J. M. Zanotti,Quark helicity flip generalized parton distributions from two-flavor lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B 627 (2005) 113–123, [hep-lat/0507001]

    2005 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Göckeler, P

    QCDSF, UKQCD Collaboration, M. Göckeler, P. Hägler, R. Horsley, Y. Nakamura, D. Pleiter, P. E. L. Rakow, A. Schäfer, G. Schierholz, H. Stüben, and J. M. Zanotti, – 28 – Transverse spin structure of the nucleon from lattice QCD simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 222001, [h...

    2007 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Hagler et al.,Nucleon Generalized Parton Distributions from Full Lattice QCD, Phys

    LHPC Collaboration, P. Hagler et al.,Nucleon Generalized Parton Distributions from Full Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 094502, [arXiv:0705.4295]

    2008 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Brömmel et al.,The Spin structure of the pion, Phys

    QCDSF, UKQCD Collaboration, D. Brömmel et al.,The Spin structure of the pion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 122001, [arXiv:0708.2249]

    2008 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Deka et al.,Lattice study of quark and glue momenta and angular momenta in the nucleon, Phys

    M. Deka et al.,Lattice study of quark and glue momenta and angular momenta in the nucleon, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015), no. 1 014505, [arXiv:1312.4816]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [28]

    P. E. Shanahan and W. Detmold,Gluon gravitational form factors of the nucleon and the pion from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), no. 1 014511, [arXiv:1810.04626]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [29]

    P. E. Shanahan and W. Detmold,Pressure Distribution and Shear Forces inside the Proton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019), no. 7 072003, [arXiv:1810.07589]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, M. Constantinou, J. Finkenrath, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, G. Koutsou, H. Panagopoulos, and G. Spanoudes,Complete flavor decomposition of the spin and momentum fraction of the proton using lattice QCD simulations at physical pion mass, Phys. Rev. ...

    2020 arXiv

  24. [31]

    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]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Ji,Parton Physics from Large-Momentum Effective Field Theory, Sci

    X. Ji,Parton Physics from Large-Momentum Effective Field Theory, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 57 (2014) 1407–1412, [arXiv:1404.6680]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Ji, Y.-S

    X. Ji, Y.-S. Liu, Y. Liu, J.-H. Zhang, and Y. Zhao,Large-momentum effective theory, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93 (2021), no. 3 035005, [arXiv:2004.03543]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Liu and S.-J

    K.-F. Liu and S.-J. Dong,Origin of difference between anti-d and anti-u partons in the nucleon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 (1994) 1790–1793, [hep-ph/9306299]

    1994 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Detmold and C

    W. Detmold and C. J. D. Lin,Deep-inelastic scattering and the operator product expansion in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 014501, [hep-lat/0507007]

    2006 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Detmold, A

    HOPE Collaboration, W. Detmold, A. V. Grebe, I. Kanamori, C. J. D. Lin, R. J. Perry, and Y. Zhao,Parton physics from a heavy-quark operator product expansion: Formalism and Wilson coefficients, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 7 074511, [arXiv:2103.09529]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Braun and D

    V. Braun and D. Müller,Exclusive processes in position space and the pion distribution amplitude, Eur. Phys. J. C 55 (2008) 349–361, [arXiv:0709.1348]

    2008 arXiv

  31. [38]

    A. J. Chambers, R. Horsley, Y. Nakamura, H. Perlt, P. E. L. Rakow, G. Schierholz, A. Schiller, K. Somfleth, R. D. Young, and J. M. Zanotti,Nucleon Structure Functions from Operator Product Expansion on the Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017), no. 24 242001, [arXiv:1703.01153]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [39]

    A. V. Radyushkin,Quasi-parton distribution functions, momentum distributions, and pseudo-parton distribution functions, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017), no. 3 034025, [arXiv:1705.01488]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Ma and J.-W

    Y.-Q. Ma and J.-W. Qiu,Exploring Partonic Structure of Hadrons Using ab initio Lattice QCD Calculations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018), no. 2 022003, [arXiv:1709.03018]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Hannaford-Gunn, K

    CSSM/QCDSF/UKQCD Collaboration, A. Hannaford-Gunn, K. U. Can, R. Horsley, Y. Nakamura, H. Perlt, P. E. L. Rakow, H. Stüben, G. Schierholz, R. D. Young, and J. M. – 29 – Zanotti, Generalized parton distributions from the off-forward Compton amplitude in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. ...

    2022 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, A. Metz, N. Nurminen, and F. Steffens, Generalized parton distributions from the pseudodistribution approach on the lattice, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024), no. 5 054502, [arXiv:2405.04414]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Dutrieux, R

    HadStruc Collaboration, H. Dutrieux, R. G. Edwards, C. Egerer, J. Karpie, C. Monahan, K. Orginos, A. Radyushkin, D. Richards, E. Romero, and S. Zafeiropoulos,Towards unpolarized GPDs from pseudo-distributions, JHEP 08 (2024) 162, [arXiv:2405.10304]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Hannaford-Gunn, K

    CSSM/QCDSF/UKQCD Collaboration, A. Hannaford-Gunn, K. U. Can, J. A. Crawford, R. Horsley, P. E. L. Rakow, G. Schierholz, H. Stüben, R. D. Young, and J. M. Zanotti, Reconstructing generalized parton distributions from the lattice off-forward Compton amplitude, Phys. Rev. D 110 ...

    2024 arXiv

  38. [45]

    X. Ji, A. Schäfer, X. Xiong, and J.-H. Zhang,One-Loop Matching for Generalized Parton Distributions, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 014039, [arXiv:1506.00248]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Xiong and J.-H

    X. Xiong and J.-H. Zhang,One-loop matching for transversity generalized parton distribution, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015), no. 5 054037, [arXiv:1509.08016]

    2015 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Y.-S. Liu, W. Wang, J. Xu, Q.-A. Zhang, J.-H. Zhang, S. Zhao, and Y. Zhao,Matching generalized parton quasidistributions in the RI/MOM scheme, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019), no. 3 034006, [arXiv:1902.00307]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [48]

    J. P. Ma, Z. Y. Pang, and G. P. Zhang,QCD factorization of quasi generalized quark distributions, JHEP 08 (2022) 130, [arXiv:2202.07116]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [49]

    J. P. Ma, Z. Y. Pang, C. P. Zhang, and G. P. Zhang,QCD factorization of quasi generalized gluon distributions, JHEP 04 (2023) 001, [arXiv:2212.08238]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [50]

    F. Yao, Y. Ji, and J.-H. Zhang,Connecting Euclidean to light-cone correlations: from flavor nonsinglet in forward kinematics to flavor singlet in non-forward kinematics, JHEP 11 (2023) 021, [arXiv:2212.14415]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Chen, H.-W

    J.-W. Chen, H.-W. Lin, and J.-H. Zhang,Pion generalized parton distribution from lattice QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 952 (2020) 114940, [arXiv:1904.12376]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Lin,Pion valence-quark generalized parton distribution at physical pion mass, Phys

    H.-W. Lin,Pion valence-quark generalized parton distribution at physical pion mass, Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 138181, [arXiv:2310.10579]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Lin,Overview of Lattice Results for Hadron Structure, Few Body Syst

    H.-W. Lin,Overview of Lattice Results for Hadron Structure, Few Body Syst. 64 (2023), no. 3 58

    2023

  47. [54]

    H.-T. Ding, X. Gao, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, Q. Shi, S. Syritsyn, and Y. Zhao, Three-dimensional Imaging of Pion using Lattice QCD: Generalized Parton Distributions, arXiv:2407.03516

    arXiv

  48. [55]

    Alexandrou, K

    C. Alexandrou, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, A. Scapellato, and F. Steffens,Unpolarized and helicity generalized parton distributions of the proton within lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020), no. 26 262001, [arXiv:2008.10573]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Lin,Nucleon Tomography and Generalized Parton Distribution at Physical Pion Mass from Lattice QCD, Phys

    H.-W. Lin,Nucleon Tomography and Generalized Parton Distribution at Physical Pion Mass from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021), no. 18 182001, [arXiv:2008.12474]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [57]

    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]. – 30 –

    2022 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, J. Dodson, X. Gao, A. Metz, S. Mukherjee, A. Scapellato, F. Steffens, and Y. Zhao,Generalized parton distributions from lattice QCD with asymmetric momentum transfer: Unpolarized quarks, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), no. 11 114512, [arXiv...

    2022 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Bhattacharya et al.,Generalized parton distributions from lattice QCD with asymmetric momentum transfer: Axial-vector case, Phys

    S. Bhattacharya et al.,Generalized parton distributions from lattice QCD with asymmetric momentum transfer: Axial-vector case, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 3 034508, [arXiv:2310.13114]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Alexandrou, K

    C. Alexandrou, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, A. Scapellato, and F. Steffens,Transversity GPDs of the proton from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022), no. 3 034501, [arXiv:2108.10789]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, J. Dodson, A. Metz, A. Scapellato, and F. Steffens,Chiral-even axial twist-3 GPDs of the proton from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), no. 5 054501, [arXiv:2306.05533]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [62]

    A. V. Radyushkin,Generalized parton distributions and pseudodistributions, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019), no. 11 116011, [arXiv:1909.08474]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, X. Gao, A. Metz, J. Miller, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, F. Steffens, and Y. Zhao,Moments of proton GPDs from the OPE of nonlocal quark bilinears up to NNLO, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), no. 1 014507, [arXiv:2305.11117]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, X. Gao, A. Metz, J. Miller, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, F. Steffens, and Y. Zhao,Moments of Axial-Vector GPD from Lattice QCD: Quark Helicity, Orbital Angular Momentum, and Spin-Orbit Correlation, arXiv:2410.03539

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Schoenleber, R

    J. Schoenleber, R. S. Sufian, T. Izubuchi, and Y.-B. Yang,Gluon Unpolarized, Polarized, and Transversity GPDs from Lattice QCD: Lorentz-Covariant Parametrization (Part I), arXiv:2412.14110

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    X. Gao, K. Lee, S. Mukherjee, C. Shugert, and Y. Zhao,Origin and resummation of threshold logarithms in the lattice QCD calculations of PDFs, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021), no. 9 094504, [arXiv:2102.01101]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Y. Su, J. Holligan, X. Ji, F. Yao, J.-H. Zhang, and R. Zhang,Resumming quark’s longitudinal momentum logarithms in LaMET expansion of lattice PDFs, Nucl. Phys. B 991 (2023) 116201, [arXiv:2209.01236]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Zhang, J

    R. Zhang, J. Holligan, X. Ji, and Y. Su,Leading power accuracy in lattice calculations of parton distributions, Phys. Lett. B 844 (2023) 138081, [arXiv:2305.05212]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Holligan, X

    J. Holligan, X. Ji, H.-W. Lin, Y. Su, and R. Zhang,Precision control in lattice calculation of x-dependent pion distribution amplitude, Nucl. Phys. B 993 (2023) 116282, [arXiv:2301.10372]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    X. Ji, Y. Liu, and Y. Su,Threshold resummation for computing large-x parton distribution through large-momentum effective theory, JHEP 08 (2023) 037, [arXiv:2305.04416]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Baker, D

    E. Baker, D. Bollweg, P. Boyle, I. Cloët, X. Gao, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, R. Zhang, and – 31 – Y. Zhao,Lattice QCD calculation of the pion distribution amplitude with domain wall fermions at physical pion mass, JHEP 07 (2024) 211, [arXiv:2405.20120]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    X. Ji, Y. Liu, Y. Su, and R. Zhang,Effects of threshold resummation for large-x PDF in large momentum effective theory, arXiv:2410.12910

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi,Asymptotic Freedom in Parton Language, Nucl. Phys. B 126 (1977) 298–318

    1977

  67. [75]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer,Calculation of the Structure Functions for Deep Inelastic Scattering and e+ e- Annihilation by Perturbation Theory in Quantum Chromodynamics., Sov. Phys. JETP 46 (1977) 641–653

    1977

  68. [76]

    V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov,Deep inelastic e p scattering in perturbation theory, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15 (1972) 438–450

    1972

  69. [77]

    S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt,The Three loop splitting functions in QCD: The Nonsinglet case, Nucl. Phys. B 688 (2004) 101–134, [hep-ph/0403192]

    2004 arXiv

  70. [78]

    A. V. Efremov and A. V. Radyushkin,Asymptotical Behavior of Pion Electromagnetic Form-Factor in QCD, Theor. Math. Phys. 42 (1980) 97–110

    1980

  71. [79]

    A. V. Efremov and A. V. Radyushkin,Factorization and Asymptotical Behavior of Pion Form-Factor in QCD, Phys. Lett. B 94 (1980) 245–250

    1980

  72. [80]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky,Exclusive Processes in Quantum Chromodynamics: Evolution Equations for Hadronic Wave Functions and the Form-Factors of Mesons, Phys. Lett. B 87 (1979) 359–365

    1979

  73. [81]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky,Exclusive Processes in Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2157

    1980

  74. [82]

    X. Gao, A. D. Hanlon, N. Karthik, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, P. Scior, S. Shi, S. Syritsyn, Y. Zhao, and K. Zhou,Continuum-extrapolated NNLO valence PDF of the pion at the physical point, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), no. 11 114510, [arXiv:2208.02297]

    2022 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Gao, W.-Y

    X. Gao, W.-Y. Liu, and Y. Zhao,Parton distributions from boosted fields in the Coulomb gauge, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 9 094506, [arXiv:2306.14960]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Holligan and H.-W

    J. Holligan and H.-W. Lin,Pion valence quark distribution at physical pion mass of Nf = 2 + 1 + 1 lattice QCD, J. Phys. G 51 (2024), no. 6 065101, [arXiv:2404.14525]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Holligan and H.-W

    J. Holligan and H.-W. Lin,Nucleon helicity parton distribution function in the continuum limit with self-renormalization, Phys. Lett. B 854 (2024) 138731, [arXiv:2405.18238]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Yao et al.,Nucleon Transversity Distribution in the Continuum and Physical Mass Limit from Lattice QCD, Phys

    Lattice Parton Collaboration, F. Yao et al.,Nucleon Transversity Distribution in the Continuum and Physical Mass Limit from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023), no. 26 261901, [arXiv:2208.08008]

    2023 arXiv

  79. [87]

    X. Gao, A. D. Hanlon, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, Q. Shi, S. Syritsyn, and Y. Zhao, Transversity PDFs of the proton from lattice QCD with physical quark masses, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024), no. 5 054506, [arXiv:2310.19047]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Holligan and H.-W

    J. Holligan and H.-W. Lin,Systematic Improvement ofx-dependent Unpolarized Nucleon Generalized Parton Distribution in Lattice-QCD Calculation, arXiv:2312.10829

    arXiv

  81. [89]

    Cloet, X

    I. Cloet, X. Gao, S. Mukherjee, S. Syritsyn, N. Karthik, P. Petreczky, R. Zhang, and Y. Zhao,Lattice QCD Calculation ofx-dependent Meson Distribution Amplitudes at Physical Pion Mass with Threshold Logarithm Resummation, arXiv:2407.00206. – 32 –

    arXiv

  82. [90]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, and M. E. Luke,Summing Sudakov logarithms inB → Xsγin effective field theory., Phys. Rev. D 63 (2000) 014006, [hep-ph/0005275]

    2000 arXiv

  83. [91]

    C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart,Invariant operators in collinear effective theory, Phys. Lett. B 516 (2001) 134–142, [hep-ph/0107001]

    2001 arXiv

  84. [92]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart,An Effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light decays, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 114020, [hep-ph/0011336]

    2001 arXiv

  85. [93]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart,Soft collinear factorization in effective field theory, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 054022, [hep-ph/0109045]

    2002 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Becher, M

    T. Becher, M. Neubert, and B. D. Pecjak,Factorization and Momentum-Space Resummation in Deep-Inelastic Scattering, JHEP 01 (2007) 076, [hep-ph/0607228]

    2007 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Becher, M

    T. Becher, M. Neubert, and G. Xu,Dynamical Threshold Enhancement and Resummation in Drell-Yan Production, JHEP 07 (2008) 030, [arXiv:0710.0680]

    2008 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Zhao,Transverse Momentum Distributions from Lattice QCD without Wilson Lines, Phys

    Y. Zhao,Transverse Momentum Distributions from Lattice QCD without Wilson Lines, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024), no. 24 241904, [arXiv:2311.01391]

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart,Power counting in the soft collinear effective theory, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 054005, [hep-ph/0205289]

    2002 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Xiong, X

    X. Xiong, X. Ji, J.-H. Zhang, and Y. Zhao,One-loop matching for parton distributions: Nonsinglet case, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014), no. 1 014051, [arXiv:1310.7471]

    2014 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Dorn,Renormalization of Path Ordered Phase Factors and Related Hadron Operators in Gauge Field Theories, Fortsch.Phys

    H. Dorn,Renormalization of Path Ordered Phase Factors and Related Hadron Operators in Gauge Field Theories, Fortsch.Phys. 34 (1986) 11–56

    1986

  92. [100]

    Ji, J.-H

    X. Ji, J.-H. Zhang, and Y. Zhao,Renormalization in Large Momentum Effective Theory of Parton Physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018), no. 11 112001, [arXiv:1706.08962]

    2018 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Green, K

    J. Green, K. Jansen, and F. Steffens,Nonperturbative Renormalization of Nonlocal Quark Bilinears for Parton Quasidistribution Functions on the Lattice Using an Auxiliary Field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018), no. 2 022004, [arXiv:1707.07152]

    2018 arXiv

  94. [102]

    A. V. Manohar and I. W. Stewart,The Zero-Bin and Mode Factorization in Quantum Field Theory, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 074002, [hep-ph/0605001]

    2007 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Ma and J.-W

    Y.-Q. Ma and J.-W. Qiu,Extracting Parton Distribution Functions from Lattice QCD Calculations, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018), no. 7 074021, [arXiv:1404.6860]

    2018 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Y.-S. Liu, W. Wang, J. Xu, Q.-A. Zhang, S. Zhao, and Y. Zhao,Matching the meson quasidistribution amplitude in the RI/MOM scheme, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), no. 9 094036, [arXiv:1810.10879]

    2019 arXiv

  97. [105]

    G. P. Korchemsky and G. Marchesini,Structure function for large x and renormalization of Wilson loop, Nucl. Phys. B 406 (1993) 225–258, [hep-ph/9210281]

    1993 arXiv

  98. [106]

    X. Ji, Y. Liu, and Y.-S. Liu,Transverse-momentum-dependent parton distribution functions from large-momentum effective theory, Phys. Lett. B 811 (2020) 135946, [arXiv:1911.03840]

    2020 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Ji and Y

    X. Ji and Y. Liu,Computing light-front wave functions without light-front quantization: A large-momentum effective theory approach, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022), no. 7 076014, [arXiv:2106.05310]

    2022 arXiv

  100. [108]

    A. A. Vladimirov and A. Schäfer,Transverse momentum dependent factorization for lattice observables, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020), no. 7 074517, [arXiv:2002.07527]. – 33 –

    2020 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Avkhadiev, P

    A. Avkhadiev, P. E. Shanahan, M. L. Wagman, and Y. Zhao,Collins-Soper kernel from lattice QCD at the physical pion mass, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), no. 11 114505, [arXiv:2307.12359]

    2023 arXiv

  102. [110]

    X. Ji, Y. Liu, A. Schäfer, W. Wang, Y.-B. Yang, J.-H. Zhang, and Y. Zhao,A Hybrid Renormalization Scheme for Quasi Light-Front Correlations in Large-Momentum Effective Theory, Nucl. Phys. B 964 (2021) 115311, [arXiv:2008.03886]

    2021 arXiv

  103. [111]

    J.-W. Chen, X. Ji, and J.-H. Zhang,Improved quasi parton distribution through Wilson line renormalization, Nucl. Phys. B 915 (2017) 1–9, [arXiv:1609.08102]

    2017 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Ishikawa, Y.-Q

    T. Ishikawa, Y.-Q. Ma, J.-W. Qiu, and S. Yoshida,Renormalizability of quasiparton distribution functions, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017), no. 9 094019, [arXiv:1707.03107]

    2017 arXiv

  105. [113]

    G. P. Korchemsky and A. V. Radyushkin,Renormalization of the Wilson Loops Beyond the Leading Order, Nucl. Phys. B 283 (1987) 342–364

    1987

  106. [114]

    J. M. Henn, G. P. Korchemsky, and B. Mistlberger,The full four-loop cusp anomalous dimension in N = 4 super Yang-Mills and QCD, JHEP 04 (2020) 018, [arXiv:1911.10174]

    2020 arXiv

  107. [115]

    von Manteuffel, E

    A. von Manteuffel, E. Panzer, and R. M. Schabinger,Cusp and collinear anomalous dimensions in four-loop QCD from form factors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020), no. 16 162001, [arXiv:2002.04617]

    2020 arXiv

  108. [116]

    del Río and A

    O. del Río and A. Vladimirov,Quasitransverse momentum dependent distributions at next-to-next-to-leading order, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023), no. 11 114009, [arXiv:2304.14440]

    2023 arXiv

  109. [117]

    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

  110. [118]

    Vogt,On soft gluon effects in deep inelastic structure functions, Phys

    A. Vogt,On soft gluon effects in deep inelastic structure functions, Phys. Lett. B 471 (1999) 97–102, [hep-ph/9910545]

    1999 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Schoenleber,Resummation of threshold logarithms in deeply-virtual Compton scattering, JHEP 02 (2023) 207, [arXiv:2209.09015]

    J. Schoenleber,Resummation of threshold logarithms in deeply-virtual Compton scattering, JHEP 02 (2023) 207, [arXiv:2209.09015]

    2023 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Beneke and V

    M. Beneke and V. M. Braun,Power corrections and renormalons in Drell-Yan production, Nucl. Phys. B 454 (1995) 253–290, [hep-ph/9506452]

    1995 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Beneke and V

    M. Beneke and V. I. Zakharov,Improving large order perturbative expansions in quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 2472–2474

    1992

  114. [122]

    Beneke,Large order perturbation theory for a physical quantity, Nucl

    M. Beneke,Large order perturbation theory for a physical quantity, Nucl. Phys. B 405 (1993) 424–450

    1993

  115. [123]

    Beneke,Renormalons, Phys

    M. Beneke,Renormalons, Phys. Rept. 317 (1999) 1–142, [hep-ph/9807443]

    1999 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Bauer, G

    C. Bauer, G. S. Bali, and A. Pineda,Compelling Evidence of Renormalons in QCD from High Order Perturbative Expansions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 242002, [arXiv:1111.3946]

    2012 arXiv

  117. [125]

    G. S. Bali, C. Bauer, A. Pineda, and C. Torrero,Perturbative expansion of the energy of static sources at large orders in four-dimensional SU(3) gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 094517, [arXiv:1303.3279]

    2013 arXiv

  118. [126]

    G. S. Bali, C. Bauer, and A. Pineda,Perturbative expansion of the plaquette toO(α35) in four-dimensional SU(3) gauge theory, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 054505, [arXiv:1401.7999]. – 34 –

    2014 arXiv

  119. [127]

    G. S. Bali, C. Bauer, and A. Pineda,Model-independent determination of the gluon condensate in four-dimensional SU(3) gauge theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 092001, [arXiv:1403.6477]

    2014 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Ayala, X

    C. Ayala, X. Lobregat, and A. Pineda,Superasymptotic and hyperasymptotic approximation to the operator product expansion, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), no. 7 074019, [arXiv:1902.07736]

    2019 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Ayala, X

    C. Ayala, X. Lobregat, and A. Pineda,Hyperasymptotic approximation to the plaquette and determination of the gluon condensate, JHEP 12 (2020) 093, [arXiv:2009.01285]

    2020 arXiv

  122. [130]

    V. M. Braun, A. Vladimirov, and J.-H. Zhang,Power corrections and renormalons in parton quasidistributions, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019), no. 1 014013, [arXiv:1810.00048]

    2019 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Liu and Y

    Y. Liu and Y. Su,Renormalon cancellation and linear power correction to threshold-like asymptotics of space-like parton correlators, JHEP 2024 (2024) 204, [arXiv:2311.06907]

    2024 arXiv

  124. [132]

    Pineda,Determination of the bottom quark mass from the Upsilon(1S) system, JHEP 06 (2001) 022, [hep-ph/0105008]

    A. Pineda,Determination of the bottom quark mass from the Upsilon(1S) system, JHEP 06 (2001) 022, [hep-ph/0105008]

    2001 arXiv

  125. [133]

    A. H. Hoang, A. Jain, I. Scimemi, and I. W. Stewart,Infrared Renormalization Group Flow for Heavy Quark Masses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 151602, [arXiv:0803.4214]

    2008 arXiv

  126. [134]

    A. H. Hoang, A. Jain, I. Scimemi, and I. W. Stewart,R-evolution: Improving perturbative QCD, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 011501, [arXiv:0908.3189]

    2010 arXiv

  127. [135]

    A. V. Radyushkin,Nonforward parton distributions, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 5524–5557, [hep-ph/9704207]

    1997 arXiv

  128. [136]

    A. V. Belitsky and A. V. Radyushkin,Unraveling hadron structure with generalized parton distributions, Phys. Rept. 418 (2005) 1–387, [hep-ph/0504030]

    2005 arXiv

  129. [137]

    G. S. Bali, B. Lang, B. U. Musch, and A. Schäfer,Novel quark smearing for hadrons with high momenta in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016), no. 9 094515, [arXiv:1602.05525]

    2016 arXiv

  130. [138]

    Zhang, A

    R. Zhang, A. V. Grebe, D. C. Hackett, M. L. Wagman, and Y. Zhao, Kinematically-enhanced interpolating operators for boosted hadrons, arXiv:2501.00729

  131. [139]

    Ji,Large-Momentum Effective Theory vs

    X. Ji,Large-Momentum Effective Theory vs. Short-Distance Operator Expansion: Contrast and Complementarity, arXiv:2209.09332. – 35 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.