pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.01952 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-03 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Twist-3 transverse momentum dependent gluon distributions in a spectator model

Xiupeng Xie , Zhun Lu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 16:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords twist-3 gluon TMDsspectator modelequation of motion relationT-even distributionsT-odd distributionsgluon-gluon correlatornucleon structuretransverse momentum dependence
0
0 comments X

The pith

A spectator model shows that twist-3 gluon TMDs satisfy the equation of motion relation to good accuracy.

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

The paper models the nucleon as a virtual gluon plus an on-shell spectator particle whose mass varies continuously according to a spectral function. From this setup it constructs the twist-3 gluon-gluon correlators and expresses them through a set of complex functions whose real and imaginary parts encode the T-even and T-odd distributions. Numerical evaluation then demonstrates that these functions obey the expected equation of motion relation that links different twist-3 gluon distributions. The result supplies a concrete, internally consistent set of distributions that can be used to estimate gluon contributions to spin asymmetries in high-energy collisions.

Core claim

Within the spectator model the nucleon emits a time-like virtual gluon and leaves behind an on-shell spectator whose mass is integrated over a continuous spectral function. The two independent twist-3 gluon-gluon correlators are parameterized by complex functions whose real parts give T-even distributions and imaginary parts give T-odd distributions. Direct numerical integration confirms that the equation of motion relation among these distributions is satisfied to a good approximation across the relevant kinematic range.

What carries the argument

The gluon-gluon correlators Φ^{+i;+-} and Φ^{ij;l+} parameterized by complex functions that separate T-even and T-odd components, evaluated inside a spectator model with continuous spectator-mass spectral function.

If this is right

  • The T-even and T-odd twist-3 gluon distributions can be computed directly from the same complex functions without independent model inputs.
  • The relation allows any one twist-3 function to be expressed in terms of others, reducing the number of independent non-perturbative inputs needed for phenomenology.
  • Because the model respects the equation of motion, it can be used to generate consistent predictions for gluon-induced spin asymmetries in Drell-Yan or heavy-quark production.
  • The continuous spectator mass smooths the distributions and produces finite results even at small transverse momentum.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the relation continues to hold in more elaborate models or on the lattice, it would justify using spectator-model results as benchmarks for global fits of twist-3 TMDs.
  • The same framework could be extended to calculate twist-3 distributions for quarks or for other hadrons, testing whether the EOM consistency is a general feature of spectator constructions.
  • Experimental programs that extract gluon TMDs from azimuthal asymmetries could adopt the model’s functional forms as a simple parametrization before more data-driven approaches become available.

Load-bearing premise

The spectator model with a continuous spectral function for the spectator mass supplies a realistic description of non-perturbative gluon dynamics inside the nucleon.

What would settle it

A precision measurement of a twist-3 observable, such as a single-spin asymmetry in gluon-fusion processes, that clearly violates the numerical size or sign predicted by the model’s distributions would falsify the claim that the equation of motion relation holds in nature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01952 by Xiupeng Xie, Zhun Lu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Tree-level cut diagram for the calculation of real pa view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. One-loop cut diagram for the calculation of the view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Cut diagram for the calculation of the three-gluon view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Upper-left: Real parts of four integrated twist-3 gl view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Twist-3 gluon TMDs obtained from Φ view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Twist-3 gluon TMDs obtained from Φ view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Dynamical twist-3 TMD 2 view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the twist-3 transverse momentum dependent distributions of gluons in a nucleon within a spectator model framework. In this model, the nucleon is described as emitting a virtual (time-like) gluon and an on-shell spectator particle, with the spectator mass treated continuously via a spectral function. The twist-3 gluon-gluon correlators, $\Phi^{+i;+-}$ and $\Phi^{ij;l+}$, are parameterized by a set of complex functions, whose real and imaginary parts correspond to T-even and T-odd components, respectively. We numerically check the equation of motion relation for these distributions and find that relation holds fairly well in the spectator model.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies twist-3 TMD gluon distributions in a nucleon spectator model where the nucleon emits a virtual gluon and an on-shell spectator whose mass is distributed continuously via a spectral function. The twist-3 gluon-gluon correlators Φ^{+i;+-} and Φ^{ij;l+} are parameterized by complex functions (real/imaginary parts for T-even/T-odd components), and the central result is a numerical verification that the equation-of-motion relation among these distributions holds fairly well inside the model.

Significance. If the numerical verification can be made reproducible and quantitative, the result would usefully confirm internal consistency of the spectator model with QCD-derived EOM relations for twist-3 gluon TMDs. The continuous spectral function for spectator mass is a methodological strength that improves upon fixed-mass approximations for non-perturbative modeling. No machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or data-driven fits are reported, so the work remains a self-contained model consistency test rather than a direct phenomenological prediction.

major comments (1)
  1. [§5] §5 (numerical verification of the EOM relation): the claim that the relation 'holds fairly well' is not supported by any quantitative detail. No explicit parametrization or plot of the spectral function is given, no values or ranges for the free parameters are stated, no integration method or kinematic cuts are described, and no measure of deviation (relative error, maximum deviation, or comparison plot) is provided. This information is load-bearing for evaluating the central numerical claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and §2: the statement that the correlators are 'parameterized by a set of complex functions' is imprecise; listing the number and explicit names of these functions (or referencing the relevant equations) would improve clarity.
  2. [§3] §3: the notation for the twist-3 correlators Φ^{+i;+-} and Φ^{ij;l+} is introduced without a compact summary table of their T-even/T-odd components; adding such a table would aid readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive feedback. We address the major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested details.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§5] §5 (numerical verification of the EOM relation): the claim that the relation 'holds fairly well' is not supported by any quantitative detail. No explicit parametrization or plot of the spectral function is given, no values or ranges for the free parameters are stated, no integration method or kinematic cuts are described, and no measure of deviation (relative error, maximum deviation, or comparison plot) is provided. This information is load-bearing for evaluating the central numerical claim.

    Authors: We agree that the numerical verification presented in §5 lacks the quantitative details needed to substantiate the claim that the equation-of-motion relation holds 'fairly well.' The manuscript currently states the result qualitatively without providing an explicit parametrization of the spectral function, the values or ranges of the free parameters, a description of the numerical integration method or kinematic cuts, or any measure of deviation such as relative error or a comparison plot. These omissions limit the ability to assess the verification rigorously. In the revised manuscript we will add: (i) the explicit parametrization (including a plot if appropriate) of the spectral function, (ii) the specific values or ranges used for the free parameters, (iii) details of the integration method and any kinematic cuts applied, and (iv) a quantitative measure of the deviation, for example the maximum relative error between the two sides of the EOM relation or an additional plot comparing them. This will make the central numerical result reproducible and allow a clearer evaluation of its accuracy within the model. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; verification is independent of model inputs

full rationale

The paper defines a spectator model with a continuous spectral function for spectator mass, computes the twist-3 gluon TMDs from the gluon-spectator correlators, and performs a numerical check that an external QCD equation-of-motion relation holds. This is a consistency test of the model against an independent theoretical constraint rather than a derivation that reduces to its own definitions or fitted parameters. No self-citations, ansatze, or renamings are load-bearing; the parameterization into T-even/T-odd components is general and the EOM check is not imposed by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the spectator-model description of the nucleon and the choice of spectral function; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • spectator mass spectral function
    Continuous treatment of spectator mass to model virtual gluon emission; no specific functional form or fitted values given in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The nucleon can be described as emitting a virtual time-like gluon and an on-shell spectator particle.
    Core assumption of the spectator model framework invoked throughout the study.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5397 in / 1207 out tokens · 32063 ms · 2026-05-09T16:18:02.026433+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    We perform the calculation within the spectator approximation, in which the nucleon in the state |P, S ⟩ can split into a gluon with momentum k and a single on-shell spectator particle in the state |P − k⟩ with momentum P − k and mass MX . Within the twist-3 formalism, the tree-level spectator model expressions for the gluon-gluon correlator take the form...

  2. [2]

    with the two independent Dirac structures γµ and σµν allows us to mimic the conserved electromagnetic current of a nucleon obtained from the Gordon decomposition, given that the spectator is an on-shell spin-1/2 particle. Following previous spectator model studies of twist-2 gluon TMDs [ 59, 60], we adopt the dipolar form factors g1, 2 ( k2) = κ 1, 2 k2 |...

  3. [3]

    (29) This relation is model-dependent and holds only within the specific model considered here

    and ( 28), one obtains a relation between ∆ H ℜ 3T ( x, k2 T ) and ∆ H ⊥ℜ 3T ( x, k2 T ) : ∆ H ℜ 3T ( x, k2 T ) = k2 T 2M 2 ∆ H ⊥ℜ 3T ( x, k2 T ) . (29) This relation is model-dependent and holds only within the specific model considered here. B. The imaginary parts of twist-3 TMDs In this section, we compute the imaginary parts of the twist-3 gluon TMDs b...

  4. [4]

    We therefore present our results exclusively for the f -type gluon TMDs

    and ( 7). We therefore present our results exclusively for the f -type gluon TMDs. To extract the imaginary parts for twist-3 gluon TMDs, we consider the cuts through the eikonal line and the spectator line inside the loop diagram. Applying the Cutkosky rules, we can make the following replacement 1 l+ + iǫ → − 2πiδ(l+) , (34) 1 (P − k − l)2 − M 2 X + iǫ ...

  5. [5]

    4, we present the integrated results for the full set of twist-3 gluon TMDs

    1 Parameter Mean Replica 11 κ 1 1.51± 0.16 1.46 κ 2 0.414± 0.036 0.414 Λ X 0.472± 0.058 0.448 a 0.82± 0.21 0.78 b 1.43± 0.23 1.38 A 6.1± 2.3 6.0 C 371± 58 346 D 0.548± 0.081 0.548 σ 0.52± 0.14 0.50 In Fig. 4, we present the integrated results for the full set of twist-3 gluon TMDs. The distributions ∆ G⊥ 3T and ∆ H ⊥ 3T are shown as their first moment F (1...

  6. [6]

    003(dashed), and x = 0

    001(solid), x = 0 . 003(dashed), and x = 0 . 1(dotted). These distributions also fall off rapidly with increasing k2 T . While xkT /M H ⊥ℜ 3 and xkT /M ∆ H ⊥ℜ 3L remain positive over the whole k2 T range, xkT /M H ⊥ℑ 3 and xkT /M ∆ H ⊥ℑ 3L change sign as k2 T increases. Interest- ingly, at x = 0 . 001, both x∆ H ℑ 3T and xk2 T /M 2 ∆ H ⊥ℑ 3T change sign, e...

  7. [7]

    We note that i, j , and k correspond to gi(k2), gj(l2), and gk((k + l)2), respectively

    and ( 45) for each twist-3 gluon TMDs F ℑ and ˜N , and for l = 1 , ..., 8, i, j, k = 1 , 2. We note that i, j , and k correspond to gi(k2), gj(l2), and gk((k + l)2), respectively

  8. [8]

    Coefficients functions of G⊥ 3 for ijk = {111, 112}

    G⊥ 3 TABLE II. Coefficients functions of G⊥ 3 for ijk = {111, 112}. C [G⊥ 3 ],l ijk ijk = 111 ijk = 112 l = 1 0 0 l = 2 − 24 x [ k2 T (x − 2) + M 2(x3 − 2x2 + 3x − 2) +2xM MX − M 2 X (x − 2) ] 12 M (x− 1) [ k2 T MX x + 2M 3(x − 1)2 + M 2MX (x3 − 2x2 + 3x − 2) +2M M2 X (x − 1) − M 3 X (x − 2)] l = 3 0 24MX M (x− 1) k2 T l = 4 24(2− x) x k2 T 12(M +MX ) M k2 ...

  9. [9]

    Coefficients functions of ∆ G⊥ 3L for ijk = {111, 112}

    ∆ G⊥ 3L TABLE VI. Coefficients functions of ∆ G⊥ 3L for ijk = {111, 112}. C [∆ G⊥ 3L],l ijk ijk = 111 ijk = 112 l = 1 0 24(k2 T − M 2(x − 1)2 + M 2 X ) l = 2 24(k2 T − M 2(x2 − 1) − 2M MX x − M 2 X ) 12 M (x− 1) [k2 T (4M (x − 1) − MX (x − 2)) +(M (x − 1) + MX )(2M 2(x − 1) + M MX (x2 + x − 2) + M 2 X x)] l = 3 0 24k2 T (2M (x− 1)+MX ) M (x− 1) l = 4 24k2 T...

  10. [10]

    Coefficients functions of ∆ G3T for ijk = {111, 112}

    ∆ G3T TABLE X. Coefficients functions of ∆ G3T for ijk = {111, 112}. C [∆ G3T ],l ijk ijk = 111 ijk = 112 l = 1 0 12 M 2(x− 1)x [k4 T (2 − x) + 2k2 T (M 2 X − M 2(x − 1)2(x + 1)) + x(M 2 X + M 2(x − 1)2)2] l = 2 − 48k2 T (M (x− 1)+MX ) M 12k2 T M 2(1− x)x [k2 T (2x − 5) + (x − 1)(M 2(x − 1)(x + 3) +M MX (1 − 2x)x − 2M 2 X x) − 3M 2 X ] l = 3 0 6k2 T M 2(x− ...

  11. [11]

    Coefficients functions of ∆ G⊥ 3T for ijk = {111, 112}

    ∆ G⊥ 3T TABLE XIV. Coefficients functions of ∆ G⊥ 3T for ijk = {111, 112}. C [∆ G⊥ 3T ],l ijk ijk = 111 ijk = 112 l = 1 0 48(k2 T +M 2(x− 1)+M 2 X ) x l = 2 0 24(5k2 T +3M 2(x− 1)+M MX x+3M 2 X ) x l = 3 0 24(3k2 T +(M +MX )(M (x− 1)+MX )) x l = 4 0 24k2 T x l = 5 0 24k2 T x l = 6 0 0 l = 7 0 0 l = 8 0 0 TABLE XV. Coefficients functions of ∆ G⊥ 3T for ijk = {...

  12. [12]

    Coefficients functions of H ⊥ 3 for ijk = {111, 112}

    H ⊥ 3 TABLE XVIII. Coefficients functions of H ⊥ 3 for ijk = {111, 112}. C [H ⊥ 3 ],l ijk ijk = 111 ijk = 112 l = 1 0 0 l = 2 24(k2 T (x− 2)− x(M (x− 1)+MX )2) x 12(M +MX )(k2 T +(M (x− 1)+MX )2) M l = 3 − 48k2 T x 24k2 T (M +MX ) M l = 4 24k2 T 12(x − 2)k2 T l = 5 0 12k2 T (M (x− 1)+MX ) M l = 6 0 0 l = 7 0 0 l = 8 0 0 TABLE XIX. Coefficients functions of H ...

  13. [13]

    Coefficients functions of ∆ H ⊥ 3L for ijk = {111, 112}

    ∆ H ⊥ 3L TABLE XXII. Coefficients functions of ∆ H ⊥ 3L for ijk = {111, 112}. C [∆ H ⊥ 3L],l ijk ijk = 111 ijk = 112 l = 1 0 48k2 T (x− 1) x l = 2 − 12(k2 T (5x− 6)− x(M (x− 1)+MX )2) x 6 xM [k2 T (5x(M + MX ) − 2(5M + MX ) + 4M x2) − x(M + MX )(M (x − 1) + MX )2] l = 3 0 18k2 T (M (x− 1)+MX ) M l = 4 12(2− x)k2 T x − 6k2 T (M (x2− 2x+2)+2MX ) xM l = 5 0 0 ...

  14. [14]

    Coefficients functions of ∆ H3T for ijk = {111, 112}

    ∆ H3T TABLE XXVI. Coefficients functions of ∆ H3T for ijk = {111, 112}. C [∆ H3T ],l ijk ijk = 111 ijk = 112 l = 1 0 12k2 T (k2 T − M 2(x− 1)2+M 2 X ) xM 2 l = 2 12k2 T (5x− 1)(M (x− 1)+MX ) xM 6k2 T xM 2 [k2 T (x + 2) − M 2(x3 + 3x2 − 5x + 1) +M MX (1 − 5x)x + M 2 X (1 − 4x)] l = 3 12k2 T (M (x− 1)+MX ) M 3k4 T (3x− 4) 2xM 2 l = 4 0 3k2 T (k2 T (x+4)− 4x(M...

  15. [15]

    Coefficients functions of ∆ H ⊥ 3T for ijk = {111, 112}

    ∆ H ⊥ 3T TABLE XXX. Coefficients functions of ∆ H ⊥ 3T for ijk = {111, 112}. C [∆ H ⊥ 3T ],l ijk ijk = 111 ijk = 112 l = 1 0 24(k2 T − M 2(x− 1)2+M 2 X ) x l = 2 24M (x− 1)(M (x− 1)+MX ) x 12 x [k2 T (x + 2) − M 2(x − 1)2(x + 1) − M MX (x − 1)x + M 2 X ] l = 3 0 3k2 T (9x− 4) x l = 4 0 3k2 T (4− 5x) x l = 5 0 0 l = 6 0 0 l = 7 0 0 l = 8 0 0 TABLE XXXI. Coeffi...

  16. [16]

    Coefficients functions of ˜N for ijk = {111, 112}

    Dynamical TMD ˜N TABLE XXXIV. Coefficients functions of ˜N for ijk = {111, 112}. C [ ˜N ],l ijk ijk = 111 ijk = 112 l = 1 0 0 l = 2 0 0 l = 3 12k2 T (1− x)(M (x− 1)+MX ) M 3k2 T 4M 2(x− 1)x [k2 T (x3 − 10x2 + 24x − 16) +x2(M 2(x − 1)2(3x − 2) + 8M MX (x − 1)2 + M 2 X (7x − 8))] l = 4 12k2 T (x− 1)(M (x− 1)+MX ) M − 3k2 T 4M 2(x− 1)x [k2 T (x3 − 10x2 + 24x −...

  17. [17]

    A. V. Efremov and O. V. Teryaev, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 36, 140 (1982) JINR-P2-81-485

    1982

  18. [18]

    J. w. Qiu and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 378, 52-78 (1992) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(92)90003-T

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(92)90003-t 1992

  19. [19]

    J. w. Qiu and G. F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D 59, 014004 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.014004 [arXiv:hep-ph/9806356 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.014004 1999

  20. [20]

    R. L. Jaffe, Comments Nucl. Part. Phys. 19 (1990) no.5, 239-257 MIT-CTP-1798

    1990

  21. [21]

    A. V. Belitsky, X. D. Ji, W. Lu and J. Os- borne, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001), 094012 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.094012 [arXiv:hep- ph/0007305 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.63.094012 2001

  22. [22]

    Kanazawa and Y

    Y. Kanazawa and Y. Koike, Phys. Lett. B 478 (2000), 121-126 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00261-6 [arXiv:hep- ph/0001021 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(00)00261-6 2000

  23. [23]

    Kanazawa and Y

    Y. Kanazawa and Y. Koike, Phys. Lett. B 490 (2000), 99-105 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00969-2 [arXiv:hep- ph/0007272 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(00)00969-2 2000

  24. [24]

    X. Ji, J. w. Qiu, W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006), 094017 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.094017 [arXiv:hep-ph/0604023 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.094017 2006

  25. [25]

    Kouvaris, J

    C. Kouvaris, J. W. Qiu, W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006), 114013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.114013 [arXiv:hep- ph/0609238 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.114013 2006

  26. [26]

    Koike and K

    Y. Koike and K. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007), 011502 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.011502 [arXiv:hep- ph/0703169 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.011502 2007

  27. [27]

    Koike and T

    Y. Koike and T. Tomita, Phys. Lett. B 675 (2009), 181- 189 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.04.017 [arXiv:0903.19 23 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.04.017 2009

  28. [28]

    Vogelsang and F

    W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009), 094010 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.094010 [arXiv:0904.0410 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.094010 2009

  29. [29]

    Koike and S

    Y. Koike and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011), 014026 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.014026 [arXiv:1104.3943 [hep- ph]]. 33

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.84.014026 2011

  30. [30]

    Koike and S

    Y. Koike and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012), 034030 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.034030 [arXiv:1112.1161 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.034030 2012

  31. [31]

    Z. B. Kang, F. Yuan and J. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B 691 (2010), 243-248 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.07.003 [arXiv:1002.0399 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.07.003 2010

  32. [32]

    Kanazawa and Y

    K. Kanazawa and Y. Koike, Phys. Lett. B 701 (2011), 576-580 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.06.021 [arXiv:1105.1036 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.06.021 2011

  33. [33]

    Metz and D

    A. Metz and D. Pitonyak, Phys. Lett. B 723 (2013), 365-370 [erratum: Phys. Lett. B 762 (2016), 549- 549] doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.05.043 [arXiv:1212.5 037 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.05.043 2013

  34. [34]

    Beppu, K

    H. Beppu, K. Kanazawa, Y. Koike and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) no.3, 034029 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.034029 [arXiv:1312.6862 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.034029 2014

  35. [35]

    Kanazawa, Y

    K. Kanazawa, Y. Koike, A. Metz and D. Pitonyak, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) no.1, 014013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.014013 [arXiv:1410.3448 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.014013 2015

  36. [36]

    Z. B. Kang and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011), 034019 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.034019 [arXiv:1106.1375 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.84.034019 2011

  37. [37]

    Hatta, B

    Y. Hatta, B. W. Xiao, S. Yoshida and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) no.5, 054013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.054013 [arXiv:1606.08640 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.054013 2016

  38. [38]

    Hatta, B

    Y. Hatta, B. W. Xiao, S. Yoshida and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.1, 014008 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.014008 [arXiv:1611.04746 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.014008 2017

  39. [39]

    Beni´ c and Y

    S. Beni´ c and Y. Hatta, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.9, 094025 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.094025 [arXiv:1806.10901 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.094025 2018

  40. [40]

    Beni´ c and Y

    S. Beni´ c and Y. Hatta, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.9, 094012 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.094012 [arXiv:1811.10589 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.094012 2019

  41. [41]

    X. Ji, J. W. Qiu, W. Vogelsang and F. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B 638 (2006), 178-186 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.05.044 [arXiv:hep- ph/0604128 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.05.044 2006

  42. [42]

    Eguchi, Y

    H. Eguchi, Y. Koike and K. Tanaka, Nucl. Phys. B 752 (2006), 1-17 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.05.036 [arXiv:hep-ph/0604003 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.05.036 2006

  43. [43]

    Eguchi, Y

    H. Eguchi, Y. Koike and K. Tanaka, Nucl. Phys. B 763 (2007), 198-227 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.11.016 [arXiv:hep-ph/0610314 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.11.016 2007

  44. [44]

    Yuan and J

    F. Yuan and J. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009), 052001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.052001 [arXiv:0903.4680 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.052001 2009

  45. [45]

    Beppu, Y

    H. Beppu, Y. Koike, K. Tanaka and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010), 054005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.054005 [arXiv:1007.2034 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.054005 2010

  46. [46]

    Koike, K

    Y. Koike, K. Tanaka and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011), 114014 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.114014 [arXiv:1104.0798 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.114014 2011

  47. [47]

    Kanazawa and Y

    K. Kanazawa and Y. Koike, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013), 074022 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.074022 [arXiv:1309.1215 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.074022 2013

  48. [48]

    Yoshida, Phys

    S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.5, 054048 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.054048 [arXiv:1601.07737 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.054048 2016

  49. [49]

    Xing and S

    H. Xing and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.5, 054024 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.054024 [arXiv:1904.02287 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.054024 2019

  50. [50]

    Benic, Y

    S. Benic, Y. Hatta, H. n. Li and D. J. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.9, 094027 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.094027 [arXiv:1909.10684 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.094027 2019

  51. [51]

    Kanazawa and Y

    Y. Kanazawa and Y. Koike, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001), 034019 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.034019 [arXiv:hep- ph/0012225 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.64.034019 2001

  52. [52]

    J. Zhou, F. Yuan and Z. T. Liang, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008), 114008 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.114008 [arXiv:0808.3629 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.114008 2008

  53. [53]

    Koike, K

    Y. Koike, K. Yabe and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.9, 094011 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.094011 [arXiv:1509.06830 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.094011 2015

  54. [54]

    Koike, A

    Y. Koike, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak, K. Yabe and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no.11, 114013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.114013 [arXiv:1703.09399 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.114013 2017

  55. [55]

    K. Yabe, Y. Koike, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak and S. Yoshida, JPS Conf. Proc. 26 (2019), 021016 doi:10.7566/JPSCP.26.021016

    work page doi:10.7566/jpscp.26.021016 2019

  56. [56]

    Kenta, Y

    Y. Kenta, Y. Koike, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak and S. Yoshida, PoS SPIN2018 (2019), 192 doi:10.22323/1.346.0192

    work page doi:10.22323/1.346.0192 2019

  57. [57]

    Gamberg, Z

    L. Gamberg, Z. B. Kang, D. Pitonyak, M. Schlegel and S. Yoshida, JHEP 01 (2019), 111 doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)111 [arXiv:1810.08645 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep01(2019)111 2019

  58. [58]

    R. L. Jaffe and X. D. Ji, Nucl. Phys. B 375 (1992), 527- 560 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(92)90110-W

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(92)90110-w 1992

  59. [59]

    Z. T. Liang, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak, A. Sch¨ afer, Y. K. Song and J. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B 712 (2012), 235- 239 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.04.072 [arXiv:1203.39 56 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.04.072 2012

  60. [60]

    Hatta, K

    Y. Hatta, K. Kanazawa and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) no.1, 014037 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.014037 [arXiv:1305.7001 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.014037 2013

  61. [61]

    Koike, D

    Y. Koike, D. Pitonyak, Y. Takagi and S. Yoshida, Phys. Lett. B 752 (2016), 95-101 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.11.014 [arXiv:1508.06499 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.11.014 2016

  62. [62]

    Koike, D

    Y. Koike, D. Pitonyak and S. Yoshida, Phys. Lett. B 759 (2016), 75-81 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.05.043 [arXiv:1603.07908 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.05.043 2016

  63. [63]

    Kanazawa, Y

    K. Kanazawa, Y. Koike, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak and M. Schlegel, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.5, 054024 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.054024 [arXiv:1512.07233 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.054024 2016

  64. [64]

    Bacchetta, P

    A. Bacchetta, P. J. Mulders and F. Pijl- man, Phys. Lett. B 595 (2004), 309-317 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.06.052 [arXiv:hep- ph/0405154 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.06.052 2004

  65. [65]

    Mangano, M

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

    work page doi:10.1088/1126- 2007

  66. [66]

    Gamberg, Z

    L. Gamberg, Z. B. Kang, D. Y. Shao, J. Terry and F. Zhao, [arXiv:2211.13209 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv

  67. [67]

    M. A. Ebert, A. Gao and I. W. Stewart, JHEP 06 (2022), 007 [erratum: JHEP 07 (2023), 096] doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2022)007 [arXiv:2112.07680 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2022)007 2022

  68. [68]

    Koike, K

    Y. Koike, K. Yabe and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 101 34 (2020) no.5, 054017 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.054017 [arXiv:1912.11199 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.054017 2020

  69. [69]

    P. J. Mulders and J. Rodrigues, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001), 094021 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.094021 [arXiv:hep-ph/0009343 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.63.094021 2001

  70. [70]

    D. Boer, P. J. Mulders, C. Pisano and J. Zhou, JHEP 08 (2016), 001 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2016)001 [arXiv:1605.07934 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2016)001 2016

  71. [71]

    C. J. Bomhof, P. J. Mulders and F. Pijlman, Eur. Phys. J. C 47 (2006), 147-162 doi:10.1140/epjc/s2006-02554-2 [arXiv:hep-ph/0601171 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s2006-02554-2 2006

  72. [72]

    M. G. A. Buffing, A. Mukherjee and P. J. Mul- ders, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013), 054027 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.054027 [arXiv:1306.5897 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.054027 2013

  73. [73]

    Goeke, S

    K. Goeke, S. Meissner, A. Metz and M. Schlegel, Phys. Lett. B 637 (2006), 241- 244 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.05.004 [arXiv:hep- ph/0601133 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.05.004 2006

  74. [74]

    Collins, Camb

    J. Collins, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cos- mol. 32 (2011), 1-624 Cambridge University Press, 2011, ISBN 978-1-009-40184-5, 978-1-009-40183-8, 978-1-009- 40182-1 doi:10.1017/9781009401845

    work page doi:10.1017/9781009401845 2011

  75. [75]

    Bacchetta, F

    A. Bacchetta, F. G. Celiberto, M. Radici and P. Taels, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) no.8, 733 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8327-6 [arXiv:2005.02288 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8327-6 2020

  76. [76]

    Bacchetta, F

    A. Bacchetta, F. G. Celiberto and M. Radici, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no.6, 576 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024- 12927-y [arXiv:2402.17556 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024- 2024

  77. [77]

    X. D. Ji, Phys. Lett. B 289 (1992), 137-142 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)91375-J

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)91375-j 1992

  78. [78]

    Lu and I

    Z. Lu and I. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B 747 (2015), 357-364 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.06.011 [arXiv:1501.04379 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.06.011 2015

  79. [79]

    Y. Yang, Z. Lu and I. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B 761 (2016), 333-339 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.08.053 [arXiv:1607.01638 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.08.053 2016