Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 62 references

Imaginary poles of the QCD effective charge damp parton propagation at long distance, giving an intuitive picture of confinement.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 08:07 UTC pith:7NDET325

load-bearing objection Clean Fourier link from known imaginary poles of α_g1 to exponential damping of parton propagators; the assignment of those poles to Z2/Z3 is stated but not derived. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.05144 v1 pith:7NDET325 submitted 2026-07-06 hep-ph

Insight on confinement from the QCD effective charge

A. Deur This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords QCD effective chargeconfinementparton propagatorsanalytic structureBjorken sum rulerunning couplinginfrared poles
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper shows that the physical QCD effective charge defined from the Bjorken sum rule develops a pair of purely imaginary singularities once the non-perturbative scale is switched on. Because these singularities sit in the quark and gluon propagator dressings, the Euclidean coordinate-space propagators fall exponentially beyond a distance of order 1 over the QCD scale. The resulting suppression of colored field propagation is offered as a direct, analytic-structure origin of confinement. A reader who accepts the measured analytic form of the effective charge therefore obtains a concrete link between that form and the absence of free colored asymptotic states.

Core claim

Once the two imaginary conjugate singularities of the effective charge at Q^{2} = ±i Λ_s^{2} are assigned to the parton propagator dressings, the Euclidean quark and gluon propagators behave at large |x| as e^{-Λ_s |x|/√2} |x|^{-5/2+d_a} times a cosine phase, so propagation is exponentially suppressed beyond distances of order 1/Λ_s. Confinement is thereby interpreted as the long-distance suppression of QCD Green’s functions.

What carries the argument

The identity that writes the effective charge α_g1 as a product of dressing functions of the quark-gluon (or three-gluon) vertex and the quark and gluon propagators. Placing the imaginary singularities entirely in the propagator dressings, while taking at least one vertex dressing to be analytic, forces the exponential long-distance damping of the coordinate-space propagators.

Load-bearing premise

The singularities of the effective charge sit entirely in the propagator dressings while the vertex dressings remain analytic.

What would settle it

A lattice or continuum calculation showing that the quark-gluon or three-gluon vertex dressings themselves develop non-analytic structure at the same imaginary points, without cancellation between them, would remove the necessity for the propagators to carry the exponential damping.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Quarks and gluons share the identical exponential suppression scale Λ_s/√2.
  • The flow of the poles from the real axis to the imaginary axis quantifies the momentum scales that separate asymptotic freedom from confinement.
  • Maximal analyticity of the effective charge (poles purely imaginary) fixes the physical value of the confinement scale.
  • Any coupling whose infrared poles remain purely imaginary will generate the same long-distance damping once those poles are assigned to the propagators.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Lattice measurements of the large-distance Euclidean gluon propagator that recover an exponential fall-off with scale ≈ Λ_s/√2 would corroborate the assignment of the singularities to the dressings.
  • The small anomalous power d_a ≈ 0.1 could be confronted with the prefactor extracted from existing Dyson-Schwinger or lattice studies of the infrared propagator.
  • The same logic suggests that any scheme-independent definition of the strong coupling that retains purely imaginary infrared poles will automatically produce confinement-like damping.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the two imaginary conjugate singularities of the physical effective charge α_g1 at Q²=±iΛ_s² (arising in the IR from its HLFQCD representation, Eq. (7)) can be assigned entirely to the quark and gluon propagator dressing functions Z2 and Z3. Using the standard relations of α_s to the dressing functions (Eqs. (3)–(4)) and assuming at least one vertex dressing (Z1 or Z3g) remains analytic, the Euclidean coordinate-space propagators then acquire the large-|x| asymptotic form e^{-Λ_s|x|/√2}|x|^{-5/2+d_a} cos(θ) (Eqs. (11)–(12)), with d_a=4/(12+3π²) obtained from the residue at the branch points. Propagation is thereby suppressed beyond distances of order 1/Λ_s, furnishing an intuitive interpretation of confinement as the long-distance damping of QCD Green’s functions.

Significance. If the key assignment of non-analyticity holds, the work supplies a clean, observable-based link between the analytic structure of a physical QCD coupling and the exponential suppression of parton propagation, consistent with pure-glue lattice confinement and yielding a damping scale Λ_s/√2 that numerically matches emergent-gluon-mass estimates in the MOM scheme. The Fourier/Hankel analysis and residue extraction in Supplemental A.2–A.3 are standard, carefully executed, and parameter-free once the branch points are given; the shared analytic structure of Z2 and Z3 (under the vertex-analyticity assumption) also neatly explains why light quarks and gluons share a single confinement scale. These features make the paper a useful interpretive contribution even if it does not derive confinement from first principles.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II and Supplemental A.1] Section II and Supplemental A.1: The central claim that the poles of α_g1 force the exponential damping of the coordinate-space propagators (Eqs. (11)–(12)) rests on the unforced modeling assumption that all non-analytic structure resides in Z2 and Z3 while at least one vertex dressing (Z1 or Z3g) remains analytic. The paper motivates this by locality of vertices, pure-glue confinement, and the fine-tuning that would otherwise be required by Eq. (A7), but never derives the analyticity from a Ward or Slavnov–Taylor identity. Without that step the exponential factor is not forced; the manuscript should either supply a stronger argument or rephrase the abstract and conclusions to make the conditional character of the result fully explicit.
  2. [Eq. (7) and Section I] Eq. (7) and the pole-flow discussion of Section I: The analytic form of α_g1 (and the maximal-analyticity condition that places the poles on the imaginary axis) is taken from prior HLFQCD work by the same collaboration; that form already encodes non-perturbative physics via the holographic scale κ. The present paper therefore interprets rather than independently derives the connection to confinement. A clearer statement of this dependence would prevent over-reading the result as a first-principles derivation.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 2] Figure 2 caption and surrounding text: The free-field comparison curves are useful, but the normalization point x=0.2 GeV^{-1} and the arbitrary zeroing of constant phases should be stated more prominently so that the reader can judge the visual comparison.
  2. [Supplemental A.2] Supplemental A.2, after Eq. (A14): The parenthetical remark that γ=−1 recovers a Gribov-like propagator is interesting but slightly digressive; a short clarifying sentence on why the present (ghost-free) framework yields a different power would help.
  3. Throughout: Occasional typesetting artifacts remain in the arXiv source (e.g., split exponents, missing spaces around operators). A final proof-reading pass would improve readability.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

Confinement interpretation is built on self-cited HLFQCD form of α_g1 (Eq. 7) whose imaginary poles already encode the nonperturbative scale κ; the new step is only the assignment of those poles to Z2/Z3 plus Fourier transform.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Eq. (7) and Sec. I (pole flow, Fig. 1)]
    "α_g1(Q²)=α_g1(Q0²)Z1²(Q²,Q0²)Z2²(Q²,Q0²)Z3(Q²,Q0²)=α_HLF_eff(Q²)=π exp[−∫_0^{Q²} du/(4κ²+u ln(u/Λ_s²))], ... As κ increases, the poles move ... until they reach pure imaginary values Q²=±iΛ_s² when κ²=π/8 Λ_s²."

    The analytic form of α_g1 and the location of its IR poles are imported from prior papers by the same author/collaborators that already fix κ from hadron mass spectra. The present work then treats those poles as an independent input from which confinement (propagator damping) is ‘derived’. The numerical coincidence κ²=πΛ_s²/8 is likewise taken from the same self-cited source rather than re-derived.

  2. uniqueness imported from authors [Sec. I and Supplemental A.1 (maximal analyticity)]
    "κ²=π/8 Λ_s² corresponds to a configuration of maximal analyticity, viz the poles are maximally imaginary. ... This constraint can be implemented using Lagrange multipliers with a quadratic variational functional F[Z2,Z3]=∫dQ²[2b2(Q²)²+b3(Q²)²] ... In Ref. [3], it was shown that α_g1 obeys maximal analyticity..."

    The claim that the poles must sit on the imaginary axis (and that this is the unique configuration of ‘maximal analyticity’) is justified solely by citation to the authors’ own prior work [3]. That uniqueness is then used to argue that nature chooses Λ_s so as to suppress colored propagation, closing the interpretive loop without an independent mathematical uniqueness theorem.

  3. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Eq. (7) and discussion of HLFQCD]
    "To determine the analytic structure of the parton DFs, we equate Eq. (3) to the HLFQCD expression for α_g1 from [3], which captures its correct UV and IR behaviors: α_g1(Q²)=...=α_HLF_eff(Q²)=π exp[−∫...]"

    The concrete functional form that supplies the branch points at ±iΛ_s² is the HLFQCD ansatz of the authors’ earlier papers. Once that ansatz is adopted by citation, the subsequent assignment of singularities to Z2/Z3 and the Fourier transform automatically produce the exponential damping; the damping is therefore not an independent first-principles consequence of QCD but a consequence of the imported holographic ansatz.

full rationale

The paper’s central claim is that the long-distance exponential damping of Euclidean quark and gluon propagators follows from the analytic structure of the effective charge α_g1. That structure—specifically the pair of conjugate poles at Q²=±iΛ_s² and the condition that maximal analyticity places them on the imaginary axis—is taken wholesale from prior HLFQCD papers by the same author and collaborators (Eq. 7, Fig. 1, Refs. [2,3]). Those works already introduce the holographic scale κ fixed by hadron spectroscopy and show that κ²=πΛ_s²/8 moves the poles to pure imaginary values. The present manuscript then assigns the poles to the propagator dressings Z2 and Z3 (motivated but not derived from Ward/Slavnov–Taylor identities) and performs the Fourier transform, obtaining e^{-Λ_s|x|/√2}|x|^{-5/2+d_a}. The propagator calculation itself is independent and non-circular, but the load-bearing premise that supplies the poles is a self-citation of a model that already encodes non-perturbative IR physics via κ. Vertex analyticity is an additional modeling assumption, not a circularity. Overall this is partial circularity (score 5): the interpretive link to confinement is forced once the self-cited poles are accepted and assigned to propagators, yet the coordinate-space asymptotics are a genuine new derivation under that assignment.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three load-bearing inputs that are not derived in this paper: the HLFQCD analytic form of α_g1 (taken from prior work), the numerical values of Λ_s and κ that place the poles on the imaginary axis, and the modeling choice that vertices remain analytic so all non-analyticity sits in the propagators. No new particles or forces are postulated; d_a is a derived residue, not an independent entity.

free parameters (2)
  • Λ_s (g1 scheme) = 0.85 GeV (g1 RS)
    QCD scale that sets both the pole locations ±iΛ_s² and the exponential damping length √2/Λ_s; taken from prior UV matching (0.85 GeV in the g1 RS) rather than derived here.
  • κ (HLFQCD scale) = ≈ M_N/2
    Non-perturbative scale that controls the flow of the poles; physical value ~M_N/2 is taken from hadron spectroscopy so that the poles become purely imaginary at κ²=πΛ_s²/8.
axioms (4)
  • ad hoc to paper At least one vertex dressing function (Z1 or Z3g) is analytic in the complex Q² plane, so the non-analytic structure of α_g1 resides entirely in the propagator dressings Z2 and Z3.
    Stated in Sec. II and Supplemental A.1; motivated by locality of vertices and pure-glue confinement but not derived from a Ward or Slavnov–Taylor identity.
  • domain assumption The HLFQCD expression α_g1(Q²)=π exp(−∫ du/(4κ²+u ln(u/Λ_s²))) correctly captures both the UV and IR analytic structure of the physical effective charge.
    Eq. (7) is imported from Refs. [2–4]; the entire pole-flow and residue analysis rests on this form.
  • standard math The long-distance asymptotics of the Euclidean propagators are controlled by the local branch-point behavior of Z3 (and Z2) near Q²=±iΛ_s².
    Standard steepest-descent / Hankel-transform argument used in Supplemental A.2–A.3; valid only for |x|≫1/Λ_s.
  • domain assumption α_g1 can be identified with the QCD coupling at all scales and therefore its singularities must appear in the product of dressing functions (Eqs. 3–4).
    Effective-charge framework of Grunberg; used throughout Sec. II.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 22009 in / 3312 out tokens · 30961 ms · 2026-07-11T08:07:09.916420+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Like the Gell-Mann--Low coupling $\alpha$ of QED, the effective charge $\alpha_{g_1}$ is a physical, observable-defined running coupling that can serve as the QCD coupling $\alpha_s$. It can be represented by an analytic form consistent with renormalization-group evolution, light-front holographic QCD, and the world data on $\alpha_s$. As an observable, $\alpha_{g_1}$ has a physically relevant analytic structure that reflects the underlying partonic dynamics. It displays, in the long-distance regime, two imaginary conjugate singularities at $Q^2=\pm i\Lambda_s^2$, with $\Lambda_s$ the QCD scale. To connect this structure to confinement, we use known relations between $\alpha_s$ and the parton dressed propagators and vertices. Since, unlike vertices, propagators characterize a field variation between separate locations, the two singularities are assigned to the propagators. This results in the parton propagators displaying a long-distance behavior $e^{-\Lambda_s|x|/\sqrt{2}}|x|^{-5/2+d_a}$ where propagation is suppressed beyond distances of order $1/\Lambda_s$, as expected from confinement. This offers an intuitive interpretation of confinement as the suppression of QCD Green's functions at long distance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05144 by A. Deur.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows that the poles are real until κ 2 = κ 2 crit = Λ2 s/4e. Then maximum suppression of propagation occurs at κ 2 conf = πΛ 2 s/8. As long as the poles are real, propagation occurs freely and the system follows a pQCD behavior. Then, the confinement onset starts at κcrit. The scale characterizing a dynamical domain may then be quantified by Q2 ∗ = Λ2 sκ 2 conf/κ2 ∗ , with κ∗ the value of the κ parameter.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Gluon (red line, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

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

62 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · 20 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    =α HLF eff (Q2) =πexp " − Z Q2 0 du 4κ2 +uln u Λ2s # ,(7) where the RHS is independent ofQ 2

  2. [2]

    (7) has poles for 4κ2 +uln u Λ2s = 0, discussed in Section I

    The integrand in Eq. (7) has poles for 4κ2 +uln u Λ2s = 0, discussed in Section I. Eq. (7) can be rewritten as 2 lnZ1(Q2) + 2 lnZ2(Q2) + lnZ3(Q2) +C=I(Q 2),(8) 4 where I(Q2)≡ − Z Q2 0 du 4κ2 +uln u Λ2s = ln αg1(Q2) π ,(9) andC≡ln(α g1(Q2 0)/π). To study how the complex structure of the DFs affects behavior of partons, we consider their propagators in Eucl...

  3. [3]

    Gross, et al., 50 Years of Quantum Chromodynamics, Eur

    F. Gross, et al., 50 Years of Quantum Chromodynamics, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 1125.arXiv:2212.11107,doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11949-2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11949-2 2023

  4. [4]

    S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de T´ eramond, A. Deur, Nonperturbative QCD coupling and itsβ-function from light-front holography, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 096010.arXiv:1002.3948,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.096010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.096010 2010

  5. [5]

    G. F. de T´ eramond, A. Paul, S. J. Brodsky, A. Deur, H. G. Dosch, T. Liu, R. S. Sufian, QCD Running Coupling in the Nonperturbative and Near-Perturbative Regimes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (18) (2024) 181901.arXiv:2403.16126, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.181901

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.181901 2024

  6. [6]

    G. F. de Teramond, A. Paul, H. G. Dosch, S. J. Brodsky, A. Deur, T. Liu, R. S. Sufian, Asymptotic gauge symmetry and UV extension of the nonperturbative coupling in holographic QCD, Phys. Rev. D 112 (9) (2025) 094010.arXiv:2505.19545, doi:10.1103/tdyb-7ddp

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/tdyb-7ddp 2025

  7. [7]

    A. Deur, S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de T´ eramond, The QCD running coupling, Nucl. Phys. 90 (2016) 1.arXiv:1604.08082, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.04.003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.04.003 2016

  8. [8]

    A. Deur, S. J. Brodsky, C. D. Roberts, QCD running couplings and effective charges, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 134 (2024) 104081.arXiv:2303.00723,doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104081

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104081 2024

  9. [9]

    Grunberg, Renormalization group improved perturbative QCD, Phys

    G. Grunberg, Renormalization group improved perturbative QCD, Phys. Lett. B 95 (1980) 70, [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 110, 501 (1982)].doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90402-5

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90402-5 1980

  10. [10]

    Grunberg, Renormalization-scheme-invariant QCD and QED: The method of effective charges, Phys

    G. Grunberg, Renormalization-scheme-invariant QCD and QED: The method of effective charges, Phys. Rev. D 29 (1984) 2315–2338.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.29.2315. 6

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.29.2315 1984

  11. [11]

    A. Deur, V. Burkert, J.-P. Chen, W. Korsch, Experimental determination of the effective strong coupling constant, Phys. Lett. B 650 (2007) 244–248.arXiv:hep-ph/0509113,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.05.015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2007.05.015 2007

  12. [12]

    Pascalutsa, Causality Rules (Second Edition), 2024.doi:10.1088/978-0-7503-3431-0

    V. Pascalutsa, Causality Rules (Second Edition), 2024.doi:10.1088/978-0-7503-3431-0

    work page doi:10.1088/978-0-7503-3431-0 2024

  13. [13]

    J. D. Bjorken, Applications of the chiralU(6)⊗U(6) algebra of current densities, Phys. Rev. 148 (1966) 1467–1478. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.148.1467

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.148.1467 1966

  14. [14]

    J. D. Bjorken, Inelastic scattering of polarized leptons from polarized nucleons, Phys. Rev. D 1 (1970) 1376–1379.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.1.1376

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.1.1376 1970

  15. [15]

    A. L. Kataev, The ellis-jaffe sum rule: The estimates of the next to next-to-leading order QCD corrections, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) R5469–R5472.arXiv:hep-ph/9408248,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.R5469

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.50.r5469 1994

  16. [16]

    A. L. Kataev, Deep inelastic sum rules at the boundaries between perturbative and nonperturbative QCD, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 20 (2005) 2007–2022.arXiv:hep-ph/0505230,doi:10.1142/S0217732305018165

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/s0217732305018165 2005

  17. [17]

    P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn, Adler function, Bjorken sum rule, and the Crewther relation to orderα 4 s in a general gauge theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 132004.arXiv:1001.3606,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.132004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.132004 2010

  18. [18]

    Adeva, et al., Measurement of the spin-dependent structure functiong 1(x) of the deuteron, Phys

    B. Adeva, et al., Measurement of the spin-dependent structure functiong 1(x) of the deuteron, Phys. Lett. B 302 (1993) 533–539.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)90438-N

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)90438-n 1993

  19. [19]

    Adams, et al., Measurement of the spin-dependent structure functiong 1(x) of the proton, Phys

    D. Adams, et al., Measurement of the spin-dependent structure functiong 1(x) of the proton, Phys. Lett. B 329 (1994) 399–406, [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 339, 332–333 (1994)].arXiv:hep-ph/9404270,doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)90793-5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)90793-5 1994

  20. [20]

    Adeva, et al., The spin-dependent structure functiong 1(x) of the proton from polarized deep-inelastic muon scattering, Phys

    B. Adeva, et al., The spin-dependent structure functiong 1(x) of the proton from polarized deep-inelastic muon scattering, Phys. Lett. B 412 (1997) 414–424.doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)01106-4

    doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(97)01106-4 1997

  21. [21]

    Adams, et al., A new measurement of the spin dependent structure functiong 1(x) of the deuteron, Phys

    D. Adams, et al., A new measurement of the spin dependent structure functiong 1(x) of the deuteron, Phys. Lett. B 357 (1995) 248–254.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00898-U

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)00898-u 1995

  22. [22]

    Spin Structure of the Proton from Polarized Inclusive Deep-Inelastic Muon-Proton Scattering

    D. Adams, et al., Spin structure of the proton from polarized inclusive deep-inelastic muon-proton scattering, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 5330–5358.arXiv:hep-ex/9702005,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.5330

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.56.5330 1997

  23. [23]

    M. G. Alekseev, et al., The spin-dependent structure function of the protong p 1 and a test of the Bjorken sum rule, Phys. Lett. B 690 (2010) 466–472.arXiv:1001.4654,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.05.069

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.05.069 2010

  24. [24]

    Determination of the Deep Inelastic Contribution to the Generalised Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn Integral for the Proton and Neutron

    K. Ackerstaff, et al., Determination of the deep inelastic contribution to the generalized Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn integral for the proton and neutron, Phys. Lett. B 444 (1998) 531–538.arXiv:hep-ex/9809015,doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98) 01396-3

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98 1998

  25. [25]

    The Q^2-dependence of the Generalised Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn Integral for the Proton

    A. Airapetian, et al., TheQ 2-dependence of the generalized Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn integral for the proton, Phys. Lett. B 494 (2000) 1–8.arXiv:hep-ex/0008037,doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)01111-4

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(00)01111-4 2000

  26. [26]

    The $Q^2$-dependence of the generalised Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn integral for the deuteron, proton and neutron

    A. Airapetian, et al., TheQ 2 dependence of the generalized Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn integral for the deuteron, proton and neutron, Eur. Phys. J. C 26 (2003) 527–538.arXiv:hep-ex/0210047,doi:10.1140/epjc/s2002-01118-x

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s2002-01118-x 2003

  27. [27]

    Deur, et al., Experimental determination of the evolution of the Bjorken integral at lowQ 2, Phys

    A. Deur, et al., Experimental determination of the evolution of the Bjorken integral at lowQ 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 212001.arXiv:hep-ex/0407007,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.212001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.93.212001 2004

  28. [28]

    Experimental study of isovector spin sum rules

    A. Deur, et al., Experimental study of isovector spin sum rules, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 032001.arXiv:0802.3198, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.032001

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.032001 2008

  29. [29]

    A. Deur, Y. Prok, V. Burkert, D. Crabb, F. X. Girod, K. A. Griffioen, N. Guler, S. E. Kuhn, N. Kvaltine, High precision determination of theQ 2 evolution of the Bjorken Sum, Phys. Rev. D 90 (1) (2014) 012009.arXiv:1405.7854,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.012009

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.012009 2014

  30. [30]

    Deur, et al., Experimental study of the behavior of the Bjorken sum at very lowQ 2, Phys

    A. Deur, et al., Experimental study of the behavior of the Bjorken sum at very lowQ 2, Phys. Lett. B 825 (2022) 136878. arXiv:2107.08133,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.136878

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.136878 2022

  31. [31]

    Abe, et al., Precision measurement of the proton spin structure functiong p 1, Phys

    K. Abe, et al., Precision measurement of the proton spin structure functiong p 1, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 346–350. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.346

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.74.346 1995

  32. [32]

    Abe, et al., Precision measurement of the deuteron spin structure functiong d 1, Phys

    K. Abe, et al., Precision measurement of the deuteron spin structure functiong d 1, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 25–28. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.25

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.75.25 1995

  33. [33]

    P. L. Anthony, et al., Deep inelastic scattering of polarized electrons by polarized 3He and the study of the neutron spin structure, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 6620–6650.arXiv:hep-ex/9610007,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.6620

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.54.6620 1996

  34. [34]

    Measurements of the Q2-Dependence of the Proton and Deuteron Spin Structure Functions g1p and g1d

    K. Abe, et al., Measurements of theQ 2 dependence of the proton and deuteron spin structure functionsg p 1 andg d 1, Phys. Lett. B 364 (1995) 61–68.arXiv:hep-ex/9511015,doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)01340-2

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/0370-2693(95)01340-2 1995

  35. [35]

    Measurement of the Proton and Deuteron Spin Structure Function g_1 in the Resonance Region

    K. Abe, et al., Measurements of the proton and deuteron spin structure functiong 1 in the resonance region, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 815–819.arXiv:hep-ex/9701004,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.815

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.78.815 1997

  36. [36]

    Precision Determination of the Neutron Spin Structure Function g1n

    K. Abe, et al., Precision determination of the neutron spin structure functiong n 1 , Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 26–30. arXiv:hep-ex/9705012,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.26

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.79.26 1997

  37. [37]

    Next-to-Leading Order QCD Analysis of Polarized Deep Inelastic Scattering Data

    K. Abe, et al., Next-to-leading order QCD analysis of polarized deep inelastic scattering data, Phys. Lett. B 405 (1997) 180–190.arXiv:hep-ph/9705344,doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00641-2

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(97)00641-2 1997

  38. [38]

    Abe, et al., Measurements of the proton and deuteron spin structure functionsg 1 andg 2, Phys

    K. Abe, et al., Measurements of the proton and deuteron spin structure functionsg 1 andg 2, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 112003.arXiv:hep-ph/9802357,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.112003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.58.112003 1998

  39. [39]

    P. L. Anthony, et al., Measurement of the deuteron spin structure functiong d 1(x) for 1−(GeV /c) 2 < Q2 <40−(GeV /c) 2, Phys. Lett. B 463 (1999) 339–345.arXiv:hep-ex/9904002,doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00940-5

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(99)00940-5 1999

  40. [40]

    P. L. Anthony, et al., Measurements of theQ 2 dependence of the proton and neutron spin structure functionsg p 1 andg n 1 , Phys. Lett. B 493 (2000) 19–28.arXiv:hep-ph/0007248,doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)01014-5

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(00)01014-5 2000

  41. [41]

    A. Deur, S. J. Brodsky, G. F. De T´ eramond, The spin structure of the nucleon, Rept. Prog. Phys. 82 (2019) 076201. arXiv:1807.05250,doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ab0b8f

    doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ab0b8f 2019

  42. [42]

    J. D. Bjorken, Asymptotic sum rules at infinite momentum, Phys. Rev. 179 (1969) 1547–1553.doi:10.1103/PhysRev. 7 179.1547

    doi:10.1103/physrev 1969

  43. [43]

    The strong coupling constant at low Q^2

    A. Deur, The Strong coupling constant at low Q**2, in: 1st Workshop on Quark-Hadron Duality and the Transition to pQCD, 2005, pp. 51–56.arXiv:hep-ph/0509188,doi:10.1142/9789812774132_0007

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/9789812774132_0007 2005

  44. [44]

    A. Deur, V. Burkert, J. P. Chen, W. Korsch, Determination of the effective strong coupling constantα s,g1(Q2) from CLAS spin structure function data, Phys. Lett. B 665 (2008) 349–351.arXiv:0803.4119,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.06.049

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.06.049 2008

  45. [45]

    A. Deur, V. Burkert, J. P. Chen, W. Korsch, Experimental determination of the QCD effective chargeα g1(Q), Particles 5 (2022) 171.arXiv:2205.01169,doi:10.3390/particles5020015

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3390/particles5020015 2022

  46. [46]

    S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de T´ eramond, Hadronic spectra and light-front wave functions in holographic QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 201601.arXiv:hep-ph/0602252,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.201601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.201601 2006

  47. [47]

    S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de T´ eramond, Light-front dynamics and AdS/QCD correspondence: The pion form factor in the space- and time-like regions, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 056007.arXiv:0707.3859,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.056007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.056007 2008

  48. [48]

    G. F. de T´ eramond, S. J. Brodsky, Light-front holography: A first approximation to QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 081601.arXiv:0809.4899,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.081601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.081601 2009

  49. [49]

    S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de T´ eramond, H. G. Dosch, J. Erlich, Light-front holographic QCD and emerging confinement, Phys. Rept. 584 (2015) 1–105.arXiv:1407.8131,doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2015.05.001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2015.05.001 2015

  50. [50]

    Binosi, C

    D. Binosi, C. Mezrag, J. Papavassiliou, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodriguez-Quintero, Process-independent strong running coupling, Phys. Rev. D 96 (5) (2017) 054026.arXiv:1612.04835,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.054026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.054026 2017

  51. [51]

    Cui, J.-L

    Z.-F. Cui, J.-L. Zhang, D. Binosi, F. de Soto, C. Mezrag, J. Papavassiliou, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr´ ıguez-Quintero, J. Segovia, S. Zafeiropoulos, Effective charge from lattice QCD, Chin. Phys. C 44 (8) (2020) 083102.arXiv:1912.08232,doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/44/8/083102

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1674-1137/44/8/083102 2020

  52. [52]

    G. B. Arfken, H. J. Weber, Mathematical methods for physicists; 7th ed., Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 2012. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123846549/mathematical-methods-for-physicists

    arXiv 2012

  53. [53]

    M. Q. Huber, Nonperturbative properties of Yang–Mills theories, Phys. Rept. 879 (2020) 1–92.arXiv:1808.05227,doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2020.04.004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2020.04.004 2020

  54. [54]

    S. J. Brodsky, H. J. Lu, Commensurate scale relations in quantum chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 3652–3668. arXiv:hep-ph/9405218,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.3652

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.51.3652 1995

  55. [55]

    A. Deur, S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de T´ eramond, On the interface between perturbative and nonperturbative QCD, Phys. Lett. B 757 (2016) 275–281.arXiv:1601.06568,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.03.077

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.03.077 2016

  56. [56]

    C. S. Fischer, Infrared properties of QCD from Dyson-Schwinger equations, J. Phys. G 32 (2006) R253–R291.arXiv: hep-ph/0605173,doi:10.1088/0954-3899/32/8/R02

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0954-3899/32/8/r02 2006

  57. [57]

    S. J. Brodsky, A. Deur, C. D. Roberts, The Secret to the Strongest Force in the Universe, Sci. Am. 330 (5) (2024) 32–39

    2024

  58. [58]

    S. J. Brodsky, H.-C. Pauli, S. S. Pinsky, Quantum chromodynamics and other field theories on the light cone, Phys. Rept. 301 (1998) 299–486.arXiv:hep-ph/9705477,doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(97)00089-6

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(97)00089-6 1998

  59. [59]

    M. Ding, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, Emergence of Hadron Mass and Structure, Particles 6 (1) (2023) 57–120.arXiv: 2211.07763,doi:10.3390/particles6010004. 8 Appendix A: Supplementary material

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3390/particles6010004 2023

  60. [60]

    We write lnZ i(Q2)≡a i(Q2) +ib i(Q2), wherea i andb i are real functions and, respectively, the log modulus and phase of the DFs

    Constraints on the phasesb i and on vertex analyticities Here, we show that if one of the vertex functions is analytical, sayZ 1, then so is the other (sayZ 3g). We write lnZ i(Q2)≡a i(Q2) +ib i(Q2), wherea i andb i are real functions and, respectively, the log modulus and phase of the DFs. In Ref. [3], it was shown thatα g1 obeys maximal analyticity, viz...

  61. [61]

    It proceeds, in the large|x|limit, in a standard manner using the method of steepest descent [50]

    Gluon propagator Here, we provided the detailed integration of the Euclidean gluon propagator. It proceeds, in the large|x|limit, in a standard manner using the method of steepest descent [50]. For convenience, we repeat Eq. (10), DE(x) = Z d4Q (2π)4 eiQ.xDE(Q2) [Eq.(10)],(A8) 9 and remind thatxandQ 2 are now Euclidean 4-vectors andD E(Q2) =Z 3(−Q2)/Q2 co...

  62. [62]

    Wick-rotatingF(Q 2), Eq

    Quark propagator Deriving the quark propagatorF E(x) proceeds similarly to that of the gluon. Wick-rotatingF(Q 2), Eq. (5) yields FE(Q2) =Z 2(Q2) −i /Q+m Q2 +m 2 ,(A22) withQnow a Euclidean 4-momentum, and there are no poles associated with the bare propagator∝1/(Q 2 +m 2). In coordinate space, FE(|x|) = Z d4Q (2π)4 FE(Q2)eiQ.|x|. 11 SinceQ µeiQ.|x| =−i∂ ...