pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.05762 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Pion Parton Distribution Functions in the Light-Cone Quark Model and Experimental Constraints

Hari Govind P , Satyajit Puhan , Abhishek K.P , Reetanshu Pandey , Harleen Dahiya , Arvind Kumar , Suneel Dutt
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords pion PDFslight-cone quark modelDGLAP evolutionF2 structure functionDrell-Yan processvalence quarksHERA data
0
0 comments X

The pith

Light-cone quark model produces pion valence PDFs that match HERA data after DGLAP evolution.

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

The paper computes valence quark parton distribution functions for the pion inside the light-cone quark model. It starts by finding the initial distributions from the quark-quark correlation function for pseudoscalar mesons. These are then evolved to higher scales with the DGLAP equations. The evolved results align with experimental measurements and other theoretical extractions. In addition, the work presents the first next-to-leading-order prediction for the pion F2 structure function and compares it directly to data from the ZEUS and H1 experiments at DESY-HERA.

Core claim

Within the light-cone quark model, valence quark PDFs of the pion are obtained from the quark-quark correlation function at a low initial scale. After DGLAP evolution these PDFs reproduce observed pion structure at higher scales. The model supplies the first NLO calculation of the F2 structure function, which matches ZEUS and H1 measurements across a wide range of energy scales, and it is further used to predict Drell-Yan cross sections and F2 at electron-ion collider kinematics.

What carries the argument

The quark-quark correlation function solved inside the light-cone quark model to generate initial valence PDFs, followed by DGLAP evolution to experimental scales.

If this is right

  • Evolved PDFs agree with available experimental and theoretical extractions of pion structure.
  • The NLO F2 structure function matches ZEUS and H1 data over a broad range of energy scales.
  • Pion PDFs allow calculation of forward pion production cross sections in the Drell-Yan process.
  • The evolved F2 can be studied at the kinematics expected at the upcoming electron-ion collider.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The agreement suggests valence quarks dominate the observables examined here, with sea-quark or higher-twist terms remaining small.
  • The same initial-scale inputs could be applied to other light mesons to test whether the light-cone approach remains consistent.
  • Success at EIC energies provides a baseline expectation for new meson-structure measurements without additional model tuning.

Load-bearing premise

The light-cone quark model supplies accurate initial valence quark PDFs at a low starting scale such that standard DGLAP evolution alone reproduces the pion structure observed at higher experimental scales.

What would settle it

A clear mismatch between the NLO F2 predictions and ZEUS or H1 data at moderate values of x and Q squared would show that the initial model PDFs plus DGLAP evolution are insufficient.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05762 by Abhishek K.P, Arvind Kumar, Hari Govind P, Harleen Dahiya, Reetanshu Pandey, Satyajit Puhan, Suneel Dutt.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The unpolarized pion parton distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The quark PDF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The evolved (a) valence quark, (b) gluon, and (c) sea-quark PDFs obtained at LO, NLO, and NNLO are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online) (a) The average Mellin moments carried by the valence quarks, gluons, and sea-quarks as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) Structure function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (Color online) Structure function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (Color online)(a) Contributions to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (Color online) The pion structure function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (Color online)(a) The cross-section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: (Color online) (a) The cross-section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: (Color online) The pion induced Drell-Yan cross-section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: (Color online) The pion-induced Drell-Yan cross-section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: (Color online) The pion-induced Drell-Yan cross-section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: (Color online) The pion induced Drell-Yan cross-section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: (Color online) The pion induced Drell-Yan cross-section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this work, we investigate the valence quark parton distribution functions (PDFs) of the pion within the light-cone quark model. The initial quark PDFs are calculated by solving the quark-quark correlation function for the pseudoscalar mesons. The initial quark PDFs have been evolved to higher energy scales through the Dokshitzer,Gribov,Lipatov,Altarelli,Parisi (DGLAP) evolution equations. We also find that our calculated evolved PDFs match experimental and available theoretical extraction data. For the first time, we have also predicted the $F_2$ structure function at next-to-leading (NLO) order accuracy. The calculated $F_2$ structure function has been compared with the available ZEUS and H1 experimental data at DESY-HERA over a wide range of energy scales. Additionally, we display the forward pion production cross-section for the Drell-Yan process caused by pions using the pion PDFs that were calculated and the target nucleon PDFs from the LHAPDF nucleus datasets. The evolved $F_2$ structure function of the pion have been studied at the upcoming electron-ion collider energy kinematics. Overall, it was observed that the quark PDFs of pions computed using the light-cone quark model consistent with the experimental results.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper computes valence quark PDFs for the pion in the light-cone quark model by solving the quark-quark correlation function at a low initial scale. These PDFs are evolved to higher scales using NLO DGLAP equations and compared to experimental data from ZEUS, H1, and LHAPDF extractions. The work also predicts the pion F2 structure function at NLO, compares it to HERA data across energy scales, computes forward pion production cross sections in Drell-Yan processes using the evolved PDFs, and provides predictions for EIC kinematics.

Significance. If the agreement with data holds under scrutiny, the approach supplies a model-derived low-scale input for pion valence PDFs that can be tested via perturbative evolution, offering a bridge between light-cone quark models and high-energy data. The NLO F2 prediction and Drell-Yan application add practical value for upcoming experiments, though the overall impact depends on demonstrating that the results are robust rather than tuned.

major comments (3)
  1. Abstract: the statement that 'our calculated evolved PDFs match experimental and available theoretical extraction data' is presented without any quantitative measures of agreement (e.g., chi-squared per degree of freedom, residual plots, or error propagation from model parameters), which is load-bearing for the central claim of consistency with ZEUS, H1, and LHAPDF data.
  2. Abstract and implied results section: the initial PDFs are valence-only from the light-cone model; the manuscript does not specify the starting scale Q0^2, the treatment (or omission) of initial sea/gluon distributions, or the sensitivity of the evolved results to these choices, leaving open whether pure NLO DGLAP evolution from this input suffices or requires additional non-perturbative corrections to reproduce the observed pion structure.
  3. F2 structure function comparison: while NLO accuracy is claimed and data from ZEUS/H1 are referenced over a wide Q^2 range, the text provides no details on the kinematic cuts, higher-twist contributions, or how the model parameters (adjusted to meson properties) were chosen to achieve the reported match, undermining the assertion that the calculation constitutes a robust prediction.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract and conclusions could more clearly state the numerical value of the initial evolution scale and the specific light-cone model parameters used.
  2. Notation for the quark-quark correlation function and its relation to the PDFs should be defined explicitly in the main text for readers unfamiliar with the light-cone formalism.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and constructive suggestions. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating the revisions we will implement to improve clarity and rigor without altering the core results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: the statement that 'our calculated evolved PDFs match experimental and available theoretical extraction data' is presented without any quantitative measures of agreement (e.g., chi-squared per degree of freedom, residual plots, or error propagation from model parameters), which is load-bearing for the central claim of consistency with ZEUS, H1, and LHAPDF data.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract claim would benefit from quantitative support. In the revised manuscript we will add chi-squared per degree of freedom values (computed from the existing PDF comparison figures) and a short discussion of parameter uncertainties in the results section, with a brief reference in the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Abstract and implied results section: the initial PDFs are valence-only from the light-cone model; the manuscript does not specify the starting scale Q0^2, the treatment (or omission) of initial sea/gluon distributions, or the sensitivity of the evolved results to these choices, leaving open whether pure NLO DGLAP evolution from this input suffices or requires additional non-perturbative corrections to reproduce the observed pion structure.

    Authors: The light-cone quark model yields valence-only distributions at a low initial scale fixed by meson properties; DGLAP evolution then generates sea and gluon components. We will revise the text to state the numerical value of Q0^2 explicitly, clarify the valence-only initial condition, and add a paragraph discussing the sensitivity of evolved results to this choice and the absence of initial sea/gluons, noting that this is the standard procedure for such model-based inputs. revision: yes

  3. Referee: F2 structure function comparison: while NLO accuracy is claimed and data from ZEUS/H1 are referenced over a wide Q^2 range, the text provides no details on the kinematic cuts, higher-twist contributions, or how the model parameters (adjusted to meson properties) were chosen to achieve the reported match, undermining the assertion that the calculation constitutes a robust prediction.

    Authors: We will expand the F2 section to specify the kinematic cuts applied to the ZEUS/H1 data (restricting to the perturbative regime), state that higher-twist terms are omitted because the calculation is performed at NLO in the perturbative framework, and confirm that model parameters are determined solely from meson masses and decay constants with no additional adjustment to F2 or PDF data. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the PDF calculation and evolution chain

full rationale

The paper computes initial valence quark PDFs directly from the light-cone quark model's quark-quark correlation function for pseudoscalar mesons at a low starting scale. These are evolved using the standard NLO DGLAP equations (an external perturbative tool) and then compared to experimental extractions and ZEUS/H1 F2 data. The F2 structure function is obtained from the evolved PDFs via the standard convolution with parton-level coefficients. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs: model parameters derive from independent meson properties, the evolution is not fitted to the target data, and no self-citation chain or ansatz smuggling is required for the central comparison. The agreement with data is therefore a genuine test rather than a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the light-cone quark model supplying usable initial PDFs and on the applicability of leading-order DGLAP evolution to the pion; both are standard but contain adjustable parameters whose values are not specified in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • light-cone quark model parameters
    Wave-function parameters or constituent quark masses in the model are adjusted to reproduce meson properties or low-scale distributions before evolution.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Light-cone quark model gives reliable valence quark distributions for the pion at a low initial scale
    Invoked to obtain the starting PDFs that are then evolved.
  • standard math DGLAP evolution equations accurately describe the scale dependence of pion PDFs
    Used without additional higher-order or non-perturbative corrections mentioned.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5559 in / 1613 out tokens · 92935 ms · 2026-05-10T19:53:44.077531+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Now using the meson Fock-state of Eq

    and determines the path of the quark field opera- tors, which has been taken as unity here. Now using the meson Fock-state of Eq. (14) and quark field operators, the overlap form of the unpolarized PDF f(x) is found to be, /uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000013/uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000015/uni00000013/uni00000011/uni00000017/uni00000013/uni00000011/u...

  2. [2]

    = 1, Z 1 0 dx ¯f(x, µ2

  3. [3]

    = 1, Z 1 0 dx x f(x, µ2

  4. [4]

    + ¯f(x, µ2 0) = 1, Z 1 0 dx g(x, µ2

  5. [5]

    = 0, Z 1 0 dx S(x, µ2

  6. [6]

    (18) Here,gandSdenote gluons and sea quarks, respectively

    = 0. (18) Here,gandSdenote gluons and sea quarks, respectively. However, in this work, we have not considered gluon and sea-quark contributions at the initial scale, therefore, the total momentum of the pion will be equally distributed between the quark and antiquark. The unpolarized quark PDF is found to be the result of the non-flip quark po- larization...

  7. [7]

    The first step is to calculate the initial scale of our PDFs by fit- ting with the available experimental results

    to solve the DGLAP equations numerically. The first step is to calculate the initial scale of our PDFs by fit- ting with the available experimental results. To find the initial scale, we evolve our PDFs to 16 GeV2 and fit with modified FNAL-E-0615 data in Fig. 2 through next-to- next-to-leading order (NNLO) DGLAP evolutions. We have calculated the initial...

  8. [8]

    in Fig. 3. For the valence quark PDF, our NLO and NNLO results exhibit similar behavior at both low and highx, indicating the quality of our results. How- ever, atx∼1, our results for the valence quark PDFs are smoothly decreasing distributions rather than linear, slightly faster distributions as in the above predictions. A higher distribution is observed...

    2002

  9. [9]

    Accardi et al., Eur

    A. Accardi et al., Eur. Phys. J. A52, 268 (2016)

    2016

  10. [10]

    Bacchetta, M

    A. Bacchetta, M. Diehl, K. Goeke, A. Metz, P. J. Mul- ders, and M. Schlegel, JHEP02, 093 (2007)

    2007

  11. [11]

    V. W. Hughes and J. Kuti, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 33, 611 (1983)

    1983

  12. [12]

    Brock et al

    R. Brock et al. (CTEQ), Rev. Mod. Phys.67, 157 (1995)

    1995

  13. [13]

    Gross et al., Eur

    F. Gross et al., Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1125 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    F. E. Close and R. G. Roberts, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 1471 (1988)

    1988

  15. [15]

    E. D. Bloom et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 930 (1969)

    1969

  16. [16]

    Adcox et al

    K. Adcox et al. (PHENIX), Nucl. Phys. A757, 184 (2005)

    2005

  17. [17]

    W. J. Marciano and H. Pagels, Phys. Rept.36, 137 (1978)

    1978

  18. [18]

    J. L. Abelleira Fernandez et al. (LHeC Study Group), J. Phys. G39, 075001 (2012)

    2012

  19. [19]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and E. Levin,Quantum Chromo- dynamics at High Energy, vol. 33 (Oxford University Press, 2013)

    2013

  20. [20]

    Diehl, Phys

    M. Diehl, Phys. Rept.388, 41 (2003)

    2003

  21. [21]

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.5, 1 (1989)

    1989

  22. [22]

    Ji, J.-p

    X.-d. Ji, J.-p. Ma, and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D71, 034005 (2005)

    2005

  23. [23]

    Gardi and L

    E. Gardi and L. Magnea, JHEP03, 079 (2009)

    2009

  24. [24]

    Ahrens, A

    V. Ahrens, A. Ferroglia, M. Neubert, B. D. Pecjak, and L. L. Yang, JHEP09, 097 (2010)

    2010

  25. [25]

    I. W. Stewart, F. J. Tackmann, and W. J. Waalewijn, Phys. Rev. D81, 094035 (2010)

    2010

  26. [26]

    Izubuchi, X

    T. Izubuchi, X. Ji, L. Jin, I. W. Stewart, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D98, 056004 (2018)

    2018

  27. [27]

    Mineo, W

    H. Mineo, W. Bentz, N. Ishii, A. W. Thomas, and K. Yazaki, Nucl. Phys. A735, 482 (2004)

    2004

  28. [28]

    Nambu and G

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.122, 345 (1961)

    1961

  29. [29]

    S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys.64, 649 (1992)

    1992

  30. [30]

    Schlumpf, Phys

    F. Schlumpf, Phys. Rev. D50, 6895 (1994)

    1994

  31. [31]

    C. D. Roberts and S. M. Schmidt, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.45, S1 (2000)

    2000

  32. [32]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 201601 (2006)

    2006

  33. [33]

    Ruiz Arriola and W

    E. Ruiz Arriola and W. Broniowski, Phys. Rev. D66, 094016 (2002)

    2002

  34. [34]

    Meissner, A

    S. Meissner, A. Metz, and M. Schlegel, JHEP08, 056 (2009)

    2009

  35. [35]

    Lorce, B

    C. Lorce, B. Pasquini, X. Xiong, and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D85, 114006 (2012)

    2012

  36. [36]

    Puhan et al., (2025), 2504.14982

    S. Puhan, S. Sharma, N. Kumar, and H. Dahiya (2025), 2504.14982

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Sharma, S

    S. Sharma, S. Jain, and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D110, 074025 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    A. V. Belitsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rept.418, 1 (2005)

    2005

  39. [39]

    M. V. Polyakov and P. Schweitzer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1830025 (2018)

    2018

  40. [40]

    Boffi and B

    S. Boffi and B. Pasquini, Riv. Nuovo Cim.30, 387 (2007)

    2007

  41. [41]

    Guidal, M

    M. Guidal, M. V. Polyakov, A. V. Radyushkin, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D72, 054013 (2005)

    2005

  42. [42]

    Diehl, T

    M. Diehl, T. Feldmann, R. Jakob, and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C39, 1 (2005)

    2005

  43. [43]

    Guidal, H

    M. Guidal, H. Moutarde, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Rept. Prog. Phys.76, 066202 (2013)

    2013

  44. [44]

    TMD Handbook,

    R. Boussarie et al. (2023), arXiv:2304.03302 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Avakian, A

    H. Avakian, A. V. Efremov, P. Schweitzer, and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D81, 074035 (2010)

    2010

  46. [46]

    Bacchetta, V

    A. Bacchetta, V. Bertone, C. Bissolotti, G. Bozzi, M. Cerutti, F. Delcarro, M. Radici, L. Rossi, and A. Sig- nori (MAP (Multi-dimensional Analyses of Partonic dis- tributions)), JHEP08, 232 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Angeles-Martinez et al., Acta Phys

    R. Angeles-Martinez et al., Acta Phys. Polon. B46, 2501 (2015)

    2015

  48. [48]

    Puhan, S

    S. Puhan, S. Sharma, N. Kumar, and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D113, 036030 (2026)

    2026

  49. [49]

    Lorce, B

    C. Lorce, B. Pasquini, and M. Vanderhaeghen, JHEP 05, 041 (2011)

    2011

  50. [50]

    Puhan and H

    S. Puhan and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D111, 114039 (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    G. A. Miller, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60, 1 (2010)

    2010

  52. [52]

    Davoudiasl, H

    H. Davoudiasl, H. Liu, S. Mantry, and E. T. Neil (2025), 2512.15865

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Cao et al., Eur

    X.-H. Cao, F.-K. Guo, Q.-Z. Li, B.-W. Wu, and D.-L. Yao (2025), 2507.05375

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.53, 69 (1997)

    1997

  55. [55]

    H. L. Lai, J. Botts, J. Huston, J. G. Morfin, J. F. Owens, J.-w. Qiu, W. K. Tung, and H. Weerts, Phys. Rev. D 51, 4763 (1995)

    1995

  56. [56]

    Pumplin, D

    J. Pumplin, D. R. Stump, J. Huston, H. L. Lai, P. M. Nadolsky, and W. K. Tung, JHEP07, 012 (2002)

    2002

  57. [57]

    A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C63, 189 (2009)

    2009

  58. [58]

    H.-L. Lai, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, Z. Li, P. M. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D82, 074024 (2010)

    2010

  59. [59]

    Dulat, T.-J

    S. Dulat, T.-J. Hou, J. Gao, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, C. Schmidt, D. Stump, and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D93, 033006 (2016)

    2016

  60. [60]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordstr¨ om, B. Page, M. R¨ ufenacht, M. Sch¨ onherr, and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 132 (2015)

    2015

  61. [61]

    F. D. Aaron et al. (H1, ZEUS), JHEP01, 109 (2010)

    2010

  62. [62]

    Abramowicz et al

    H. Abramowicz et al. (H1, ZEUS), Eur. Phys. J. C75, 580 (2015)

    2015

  63. [63]

    de Florian, R

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Stratmann, and W. Vogel- sang, Phys. Rev. D80, 034030 (2009)

    2009

  64. [64]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B126, 298 (1977)

    1977

  65. [65]

    F. D. Aaron et al. (H1), Eur. Phys. J. C68, 381 (2010)

    2010

  66. [66]

    Chekanov et al

    S. Chekanov et al. (ZEUS), Nucl. Phys. B637, 3 (2002)

    2002

  67. [67]

    S. D. Drell and T.-M. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett.25, 316 (1970), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 25, 902 (1970)]

    1970

  68. [68]

    Aghasyan et al

    M. Aghasyan et al. (COMPASS), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 112002 (2017)

    2017

  69. [69]

    Lorc´ e, A

    C. Lorc´ e, A. Metz, B. Pasquini, and P. Schweitzer (2025), arXiv:2507.12664 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    V. John, G. S. Krishnaswami, and S. G. Rajeev, Phys. Lett. B487, 125 (2000)

    2000

  71. [71]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), JHEP07, 223 (2021)

    2021

  72. [72]

    J. Lan, C. Mondal, S. Jia, X. Zhao, and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D101, 034024 (2020)

    2020

  73. [73]

    Choi and C.-R

    H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D110, 014006 20 (2024)

    2024

  74. [74]

    N. Kaur, N. Kumar, C. Mondal, and H. Dahiya, Nucl. Phys. B934, 80 (2018)

    2018

  75. [75]

    Gutsche, V

    T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, I. Schmidt, and A. Vega, J. Phys. G42, 095005 (2015)

    2015

  76. [76]

    G. F. de Teramond, T. Liu, R. S. Sufian, H. G. Dosch, S. J. Brodsky, and A. Deur (HLFHS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 182001 (2018)

    2018

  77. [77]

    Shigetani, K

    T. Shigetani, K. Suzuki, and H. Toki, Phys. Lett. B 308, 383 (1993)

    1993

  78. [78]

    C. Shi, L. Lu, and W. Jia (2026), 2602.24187

    work page arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    Broniowski, E

    W. Broniowski, E. Ruiz Arriola, and K. Golec-Biernat, Phys. Rev. D77, 034023 (2008)

    2008

  80. [80]

    Dwibedi, S

    A. Dwibedi, S. Puhan, S. Ghosh, and H. Dahiya (2025), 2512.24921

    work page arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.