Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Neutrino-jet correlations in charged-current SIDIS

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Charged-current SIDIS cross section is derived to twist-3 with a complete set of jet-neutrino asymmetries.

desk verdict A legitimate and technically substantial twist-3 CC SIDIS calculation, but the completeness claim hinges on an unexamined EOM relation and the strange-asymmetry plot doesn't test what the abstract claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04093 v2 pith:KHVW7EFY submitted 2025-05-07 hep-ph

Weihua Yang , Jing Zhao , Zhe Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords charged-currentdeepinelasticscatteringsemi-inclusiveDISjetproductiontwist-3transversemomentumdependentpartondistributionsazimuthalasymmetrieschargeasymmetrystrange-antistrange
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 derives the complete tree-level twist-3 differential cross section for charged-current semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering in which a jet is detected alongside the scattered neutrino. The calculation is done in the eN collinear frame, where the measured transverse momentum of the neutrino-jet pair equals the intrinsic transverse momentum of the struck quark. From the cross section the authors extract the full set of azimuthal and intrinsic asymmetries and introduce a charge asymmetry A_C built from electron versus positron scattering. They argue A_C is a clean probe of valence and sea quark distributions and is especially sensitive to strange-antistrange asymmetry at small x. If the derivation is right, it provides a complete leading-order twist-3 TMD description of neutrino-jet correlations, with more than a dozen new measurable asymmetries.

What carries the argument

The eN collinear frame in which the nucleon moves along +z and the incoming lepton along -z, so that the transverse momentum j_T of the neutrino-jet pair equals the intrinsic transverse momentum k_T of the struck quark. The machinery is the decomposition of the hadronic tensor into basic Lorentz tensors, the twist-3 correlators, and the equation-of-motion identity f^K_{dS} - g^K_{dS} = -x(f^K_S - i g^K_S), imported from Ref. [19], which converts quark-gluon-quark twist-3 TMDs into quark-quark twist-3 TMDs. This conversion, together with the sum of left-cut and right-cut contributions, yields a twist-3 hadronic tensor that satisfies current conservation, from which all asymmetries are derived.

What would settle it

A direct lattice computation of one quark-gluon-quark twist-3 TMD, compared with the combination of quark-quark TMDs fixed by Eq. (4.24), would settle the completeness claim; any mismatch means the twist-3 tensor omits terms. Alternatively, a high-statistics measurement of the $\cos\phi$ asymmetry that disagrees with the predicted ratio of twist-3 to leading-twist TMDs, $-x\kappa_M k_{TM}(\widetilde{T}^q/T^q)(f^\perp/f_1)$, would show the EOM relation or the TMD identification fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the differential cross section for jet-production charged-current SIDIS in the eN collinear frame can be computed consistently through twist-3 at leading order and expressed entirely in terms of transverse-momentum-dependent parton distribution functions, with no fragmentation functions. The authors construct the twist-3 hadronic tensor by combining the quark-quark and quark-gluon-quark correlator contributions and imposing current conservation; the quark-gluon-quark pieces are reduced using the equation-of-motion relation of Ref. [19]. Comparing the structure-function form with the TMD form yields twelve nonzero structure functions, ten azimuthal asymmetries, and four intrinsic asymmetries. The paper then defines the charge asymmetry A_C, the ratio of the electron-minus-positron to electron-plus-positron differential cross sections, and shows it is governed by valence quark combinations and is sensitive to strange-antistrange asymmetry at small x.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the equation-of-motion relation imported from Ref. [19] completely expresses the quark-gluon-quark twist-3 distributions in terms of quark-quark twist-3 distributions; if genuine interaction-dependent twist-3 pieces are left out, the cross section and asymmetries claimed to be complete would be missing real terms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two leading-twist azimuthal asymmetries, the Sivers-type sin(phi-phi_S) and cos(phi-phi_S), reduce to simple ratios of the corresponding TMD to f_1 in this process.
  • Eight twist-3 azimuthal asymmetries and four intrinsic asymmetries are predicted; since fragmentation functions are absent, these ratios give direct access to twist-3 TMDs.
  • The charge asymmetry A_C is expressed through valence quark combinations, so charged-current SIDIS can separate u, d, and s distributions without assuming strange-antistrange symmetry.
  • Numerical estimates show strange and antistrange quarks affect A_C significantly at small x, making it a candidate observable for the strange asymmetry.
  • For isoscalar nuclei the asymmetry becomes independent of the target at low x, which simplifies nuclear data interpretation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the twist-3 completeness claim survives direct checks, the same eN-frame method could be extended to other weak processes, such as charged-current dijet or Z-boson tagged SIDIS, where similar back-to-back transverse momentum relations hold.
  • The absence of fragmentation functions makes these asymmetries attractive for a future lepton-nucleon collider: the measured jet p_T directly equals the quark k_T, so the TMD ratios can be extracted with fewer systematic uncertainties than in hadron-production SIDIS.
  • A lattice calculation of one quark-gluon-quark twist-3 TMD could test the EOM relation in Eq. (4.24) nonperturbatively; if the relation is only approximate, the set of 'complete' asymmetries here would need revision.
  • The charge asymmetry A_C could be turned into a quantitative strange asymmetry extraction by combining electron and positron data at matched kinematics, provided the nuclear target corrections are controlled.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies charged-current semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering with a detected jet in the eN collinear frame. The authors first write the cross section in terms of structure functions, then compute the tree-level parton-model cross section in terms of transverse-momentum-dependent parton distribution functions, working up to twist-3. They derive leading-twist and twist-3 azimuthal asymmetries, define intrinsic asymmetries, and introduce a charge asymmetry A_C between electron and positron scattering. Numerical estimates using CT18/EPPS21 PDFs and Gaussian transverse-momentum widths illustrate the x- and y-dependence of A_C for proton and isoscalar nuclear targets, with emphasis on the strange-antistrange contribution.

Significance. If the completeness of the twist-3 derivation is established, this paper provides a useful systematic reference for neutrino-jet correlations at twist-3: the analytic results are parameter-free at tree level, the hadronic tensor is explicitly checked to satisfy current conservation, and the full set of asymmetries is presented in compact form. The charge asymmetry A_C is a simple leading-twist observable with a clear flavor structure, and the numerical setup uses standard external inputs. The significance is conditional, however, because the relation that eliminates the quark-gluon-quark TMDs is imported without derivation or remainder analysis, and the advertised sensitivity of A_C to strange-antistrange asymmetry is supported only by a model illustration.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (4.24)] The completeness claim of the paper rests on Eq. (4.24), f^K_{dS} - g^K_{dS} = -x (f^K_S - i g^K_S). This relation is neither derived in the manuscript nor accompanied by a statement of its precise status. As printed it is also algebraically suspicious: if the TMDs f and g are real, the left-hand side is real while the right-hand side is complex, so either a non-standard reality convention is silently assumed or the equation contains a misprint. More importantly, the relation is used to eliminate all quark-gluon-quark twist-3 TMDs in Eq. (4.25) and therefore determines every twist-3 structure function (5.5)-(5.12), azimuthal asymmetry (5.17)-(5.24), and intrinsic asymmetry (5.29)-(5.32). If Eq. (4.24) is only a Wandzura-Wilczek-type truncation, the genuine interaction-dependent twist-3 remainder is omitted and the word 'complete' in Eq. (4.30) is not justified. The current-conservation check on the summed tensor cannot exclude such an omission, because W^t3,q (4.20) and W^t3,L (4.23) are separately non-conserved and the relation can restore conservation even when a genuine remainder is dropped. Please provide the derivation or a precise statement of the exact identity, including reality conventions and the fate of gluonic-pole or other interaction-dependent contributions.
  2. [Sec. V.D, Eqs. (5.35)-(5.41), Figs. 3-5] The advertised claim that A_C is a sensitive probe of strange-antistrange symmetry is not quantitatively established. Equation (5.41) shows that the numerator depends on the combination delta u - delta d - delta s, so A_C alone does not isolate the strange-antistrange asymmetry; the paper should state what additional measurements or assumptions disentangle delta s from delta d. The numerical illustration fixes y, kT, and the Gaussian widths, and the PDF band in Fig. 5 is not defined in the text. No comparison with existing charged-current data or an uncertainty estimate from the strange PDF is provided. Please either quantify the sensitivity with a well-defined extraction strategy and uncertainty budget, or qualify the claim as an illustration rather than an established sensitivity.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV.C, text before Eq. (4.42)] The word 'electrion' should be 'electron'.
  2. [Sec. V.D, last paragraph] The sentence 'if is has the same number of neutrons and protons' contains a typo and should read 'if it has'; the statement about independence from the target type should also be qualified as holding at leading twist and under isospin symmetry.
  3. [Captions of Figs. 3 and 4] The notation 'p-s(p)' in the captions is difficult to parse; please spell out which curves include or exclude strange and antistrange quarks.
  4. [Sec. V.D, Eq. (5.42) and reference [34]] The text refers to 'CTEQ18' while reference [34] is the CT18 global analysis; please unify the naming.
  5. [Sec. V.D, Eqs. (5.33)-(5.36)] The arguments of the quark distributions f_1^q in Eqs. (5.33)-(5.36) are not shown explicitly; please state clearly that they depend on both x and kT in this differential definition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the twist-3 asymmetries are derived algebraically from standard TMD decompositions; Eq. (4.24) is an input lemma, not a self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. Starting from the standard quark-quark and quark-gluon-quark correlator decompositions, Eqs. (4.5)-(4.6) and (4.18)-(4.19), the paper computes the hard-scattering traces, sums the left- and right-cut contributions, and imposes current conservation to assemble the twist-3 hadronic tensor, Eq. (4.30). The azimuthal and intrinsic asymmetries in Eqs. (5.17)-(5.24) and (5.29)-(5.32) are algebraic ratios of the resulting cross-section harmonics to f1; they are not re-introductions of any fitted input. The only imported relation is Eq. (4.24), taken from Ref. [19] (which shares an author), and it is used as a lemma to eliminate the d-type functions. This is a citation of a parameter-free theoretical relation, not a fit to the paper's own target, and the output formulas are not identical to that relation by construction. A reader who doubts whether Eq. (4.24) includes all interaction-dependent twist-3 remainders is raising a completeness or correctness concern about that lemma, not a circularity in the present derivation. The numerical illustrations of A^C use external CT18/EPPS21 PDFs and published Gaussian widths; no parameter is fitted to the asymmetries being presented. The manuscript does not derive Eq. (4.24) or discuss possible remainders, and this is noted as a caveat, but it does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation is parameter-free at tree level, relying on standard factorization and TMD parametrizations. Numerical inputs (TMD widths) come from external fits and are not free parameters of the theory. No new entities are introduced. The main auxiliary assumption is the EOM relation Eq. (4.24), imported from the authors' prior work.

free parameters (3)
  • Gaussian width for u/d quarks (Delta^2) = 0.34 GeV^2
    External input from TMD fits [36-41]; used only in the numerical estimates of A_C in Figs. 3-5, not in the analytic derivation.
  • Gaussian width for anti-u/anti-d quarks (Delta^2) = 0.63 GeV^2
    External input from TMD fits [36-41]; affects the A_C plots.
  • Gaussian width for strange quarks (Delta^2) = 0.22 GeV^2
    External input from TMD fits [36-41]; affects the A_C plots.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math SIDIS factorization into a hard part and TMD correlators at tree level
    Invoked in Sec. IV.A, Eq. (4.1), following Ref [4] (Collins, Soper, Sterman).
  • domain assumption TMD decompositions of the quark-quark and quark-gluon-quark correlators in Eqs. (4.5)-(4.6) and (4.18)-(4.19)
    Standard parametrization from Mulders-Tangerman [5] and prior work by the authors [19]; assumed without proof.
  • domain assumption The equation-of-motion relation Eq. (4.24) from Ref [19] fully connects the d-type twist-3 TMDs to the regular twist-3 TMDs
    Imported from Ref [19] (by the authors); no derivation or completeness check in this paper. This is the weakest assumption of the paper.
  • domain assumption The jet is identified with the struck quark, so jT = kT (Eq. (2.9))
    Neglects gluon radiation and fragmentation; valid at tree level only.
  • domain assumption Only light quark flavors are considered in A_C
    Stated in Sec. V.D: 'only light flavors are considered here'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino-jet correlations in charged-current SIDIS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KHVW7EFY

@misc{pith2026250504093,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino-jet correlations in charged-current SIDIS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KHVW7EFY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04093}
}
abstract

Charged-current deep inelastic scattering plays a significant role in determining parton distribution functions with flavour separation.In this work, we present a systematic calculation of the charged-current semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering (SIDIS) in the $eN$ collinear frame up to twist-3 level at leading order. Semi-inclusive refers to the process in which a jet is detected in addition to the scattered neutrino. We focus on neutrino-jet correlations in our calculation. We first present the differential cross section in terms of structure functions, followed by the differential cross section expressed in term of transverse momentum dependent parton distribution functions. We derive the complete set of azimuthal asymmetries and intrinsic asymmetries. We also introduce an observable $A^C$, defined as the ratio of the difference to the sum of differential cross sections for electron and positron semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering.We notice that $A^C$ provides a sensitive probe for valence and sea quark distribution functions

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04093 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Illustration of the SIDIS process of the jet productions in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Illustration of the SIDIS process of the jet productions in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Our estimations are based on the Gaussian ansatz for f1(x, kT ), i.e., f1(x, kT ) = 1 π∆2 f1(x)e −⃗k 2 T /∆ 2 , (5.42) where f1(x) is taken from CTEQ18 [34] for proton and from EPPS21 [34, 35] for carbon, oxygen, and calcium. The aver￾age squared transverse momenta are taken as ∆ 2 u = ∆2 d = 0.34 GeV2 , ∆ 2 u¯ = ∆2 d¯ = 0.63 GeV2 , and ∆ 2 s = ∆2 s¯ = 0.22 GeV2 [36– 41] for numerical estimates. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Numerical estimations of ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Twist-3 effects in fully inclusive jet production from $e^+e^-$ annihilation

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Twist-3 corrections to e+e- -> hadron + inclusive jet are derived including weak interactions, yielding two azimuthal asymmetries that can expose the Collins fragmentation function at future colliders.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [19]

    S. y. Wei, Y . k. Song, K. b. Chen and Z. t. Liang, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 7, 074017 (2017) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.95.074017 [arXiv:1611.08688 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2017

  2. [27]

    X. Liu, F. Ringer, W. V ogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no.19, 192003 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.192003 [arXiv:1812.08077 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [1]

    (5.36) can be rewritten as N = A(y) + C(y) δ f u− A(y)− C(y) δ f d +δ f s

    (5.40) If we define δ f q = f q− f ¯q with q = u, d, s, the numerator in Eq. (5.36) can be rewritten as N = A(y) + C(y) δ f u− A(y)− C(y) δ f d +δ f s . (5.41) We notice that AC not only provides a sensitive probe for va- lence quark distribution funcitons but also reveal violations of strange-antistrange symmetry. To have an intuitive impression of the c...

    work page

  4. [2]

    Accardi et al

    A. Accardi et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 52, no. 9, 268 (2016) doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16268-9 [arXiv:1212.1701 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [3]

    Abdul Khalek, A

    R. Abdul Khalek, A. Accardi, J. Adam, D. Adamiak, W. Akers, M. Albaladejo, A. Al-bataineh, M. G. Alex- eev, F. Ameli and P. Antonioli, et al. Nucl. Phys. A 1026, 122447 (2022) doi:10.1016 /j.nuclphysa.2022.122447 [arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [4]

    D. P. Anderle, V . Bertone, X. Cao, L. Chang, N. Chang, G. Chen, X. Chen, Z. Chen, Z. Cui and L. Dai, et al. Front. Phys. (Beijing) 16, no.6, 64701 (2021) doi:10.1007 /s11467- 021-1062-0 [arXiv:2102.09222 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [5]

    Pertur- bative Quantum Chromodynamics,

    See e.g., J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper and G. F. Ster- man, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 5, 1 (1989) doi:10.1142/9789814503266 0001 [hep-ph/0409313]. “Pertur- bative Quantum Chromodynamics,” A.H. Mueller ed., Singa- pore, World Scientific, 1989

    arXiv 1989

  8. [6]

    P. J. Mulders and R. D. Tangerman, Nucl. Phys. B 461, 197 (1996) Erratum: [Nucl. Phys. B 484, 538 (1997)] doi:10.1016 /S0550-3213(96)00648-7, 10.1016 /0550- 3213(95)00632-X [hep-ph/9510301]

    arXiv 1996

Show all 42 references
  1. [7]

    Bacchetta, M

    A. Bacchetta, M. Diehl, K. Goeke, A. Metz, P. J. Mulders and M. Schlegel, JHEP 0702, 093 (2007) doi:10.1088 /1126- 6708/2007/02/093 [hep-ph/0611265]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Yang and X

    W. Yang and X. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.9, 093003 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.093003 [arXiv:2209.01629 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Yang and X

    W. Yang and X. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B 990, 116181 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2023.116181

    2023

  4. [10]

    Yang, Phys

    W. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.5, 056022 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.056022 [arXiv:2306.12632 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [11]

    C. Wu, X. Yang, C. Li and W. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B997, 116390 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2023.116390

    2023

  6. [12]

    Accardi and A

    A. Accardi and A. Bacchetta, Phys. Lett. B 773, 632-638 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.08.074 [arXiv:1706.02000 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Accardi and A

    A. Accardi and A. Signori, Phys. Lett. B 798, 134993 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.134993 [arXiv:1903.04458 [hep- ph]]

    2019

  8. [14]

    Accardi and A

    A. Accardi and A. Signori, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.9, 825 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8380-1 [arXiv:2005.11310 [hep- ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Z. B. Kang, K. Lee and F. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 809, 135756 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135756 [arXiv:2005.02398 [hep-ph]]

    2020

  10. [16]

    D. Boer, M. Diehl, R. Milner, R. Venugopalan, W. V ogelsang, D. Kaplan, H. Montgomery, S. Vigdor, A. Accardi and E. C. As- chenauer, et al. [arXiv:1108.1713 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  11. [17]

    Y . k. Song, J. h. Gao, Z. t. Liang and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 83, 054010 (2011) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.83.054010 [arXiv:1012.4179 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Y . k. Song, J. h. Gao, Z. t. Liang and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 1, 014005 (2014) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.89.014005 [arXiv:1308.1159 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [20]

    K. B. Chen and W. H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.9, 096017 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.096017 [arXiv:2004.01359 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Yang, Phys

    W. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.1, 016011 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.016011 [arXiv:2011.10212 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Gutierrez-Reyes, I

    D. Gutierrez-Reyes, I. Scimemi, W. J. Waalewijn and L. Zoppi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no.16, 162001 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.162001 [arXiv:1807.07573 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Gutierrez-Reyes, I

    D. Gutierrez-Reyes, I. Scimemi, W. J. Waalewijn and L. Zoppi, JHEP 10, 031 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2019)031 [arXiv:1904.04259 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Z. B. Kang, X. Liu, S. Mantry and D. Y . Shao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 242003 (2020) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevLett.125.242003 [arXiv:2008.00655 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Arratia, Y

    M. Arratia, Y . Makris, D. Neill, F. Ringer and 12 N. Sato, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.3, 034005 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.034005 [arXiv:2006.10751 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [26]

    X. Liu, F. Ringer, W. V ogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.9, 094022 (2020) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.102.094022 [arXiv:2007.12866 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Arratia, Z

    M. Arratia, Z. B. Kang, S. J. Paul, A. Prokudin, F. Ringer and F. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.9, 094036 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.094036 [arXiv:2212.02432 [hep- ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Arratia, Y

    M. Arratia, Y . Song, F. Ringer and B. V . Jacak, Phys. Rev. C 101, no.6, 065204 (2020) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevC.101.065204 [arXiv:1912.05931 [nucl-ex]]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    K. b. Chen, W. h. Yang, S. y. Wei and Z. t. Liang, Phys. Rev. D 94, no.3, 034003 (2016) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.94.034003 [arXiv:1605.07790 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. Zhao, Z. Zhang, Z. t. Liang, T. Liu and Y . j. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.7, 074017 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.074017 [arXiv:2401.10031 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Z. t. Liang and X. N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 75, 094002 (2007) [hep-ph/0609225]

    2007 arXiv

  25. [33]

    D. W. Sivers, Phys. Rev. D 41, 83 (1990) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.41.83

    1990 doi

  26. [34]

    D. W. Sivers, Phys. Rev. D 43, 261-263 (1991) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.43.261

    1991 doi

  27. [35]

    T. J. Hou, J. Gao, T. J. Hobbs, K. Xie, S. Du- lat, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin and C. Schmidt, et al. Phys. Rev. D 103, no.1, 014013 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.014013 [arXiv:1912.10053 [hep- ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    K. J. Eskola, P. Paakkinen, H. Paukkunen and C. A. Salgado, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.5, 413 (2022) doi:10.1140 /epjc/s10052- 022-10359-0 [arXiv:2112.12462 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, A. Kotzinian, F. Murgia and A. Prokudin, Phys. Rev. D 71, 074006 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.074006 [arXiv:hep-ph /0501196 [hep-ph]]

    2005 doi

  30. [38]

    Signori, A

    A. Signori, A. Bacchetta, M. Radici and G. Schnell, JHEP 11, 194 (2013) doi:10.1007 /JHEP11(2013)194 [arXiv:1309.3507 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, J. O. Gonzalez Hernan- dez, S. Melis and A. Prokudin, JHEP 04, 005 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2014)005 [arXiv:1312.6261 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Cammarota et al

    J. Cammarota et al. [Jefferson Lab Angular Mo- mentum], Phys. Rev. D 102, no.5, 054002 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.054002 [arXiv:2002.08384 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bacchetta et al

    A. Bacchetta et al. [MAP (Multi-dimensional Anal- yses of Partonic distributions)], JHEP 10, 127 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2022)127 [arXiv:2206.07598 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bacchetta et al

    A. Bacchetta et al. [MAP], JHEP 08, 232 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)232 [arXiv:2405.13833 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.