Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 89 references

A track-only map of net electric charge around fragmenting quarks carries a chiral-odd dipole equal to the charge-weighted Collins moment, opening a calorimeter-free route to transversity.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 21:05 UTC pith:JN5VOCWH

load-bearing objection A genuinely new track-only observable for transversity, with a plausible OPE onto the Collins moment; the twist-3 and gauge-link gaps are real but the paper names them, and it deserves a serious referee. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16392 v1 pith:JN5VOCWH submitted 2026-07-17 hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-th

Transverse Charge Distribution as a Probe of Nucleon Transversity

Wanchen Li , Xiaohui Liu , Ding Yu Shao This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-th PACS 13.88.+e
keywords transversitytransverse charge distributionCollins effectcharge-weighted Collins momentcharge-flow operatorTMD factorizationsingle-spin asymmetrynucleon tomography
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 introduces the transverse charge distribution: the angular distribution of net electric charge emitted around a fragmenting quark, built purely from charged-track directions and charge signs. It claims that, at leading twist, this distribution contains a chiral-odd transverse charge dipole whose operator product expansion coefficient is the charge-weighted Collins moment. That identification makes the dipole a direct probe of the Collins effect and gives it the chiral-odd coupling needed to reach nucleon transversity in polarized collisions. The paper further argues that charge weighting cancels the unpolarized monopole while making the spin-dependent dipoles of oppositely charged hadrons add coherently, producing single-spin asymmetries of 20–25% in its numerical estimate. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns transversity extraction into a tracking-only measurement, sidestepping calorimeter energy-scale uncertainties and hadron identification.

Core claim

The transverse charge distribution—the charge-weighted angular distribution of final-state hadrons around a fragmenting quark—decomposes at leading twist into a rotationally symmetric monopole and a chiral-odd dipole. The monopole's small-distance operator product expansion is fixed by the parton's electric charge, while the dipole's expansion coefficient is the charge-weighted Collins moment, a single number per quark flavor. This makes the dipole a geometric image of the Collins effect and supplies the chiral-odd final-state matrix element needed to access transversity in polarized collisions. The paper further shows that summing over charges cancels the unpolarized monopole while the spin

What carries the argument

The central object is the charge-flow operator, which measures the net electric charge emitted in a given direction and is inserted into a collinear quark correlator to define the transverse charge distribution. Fourier transforming to impact-parameter space exposes a transverse multipole expansion: the monopole is the total-charge operator fixed by the electromagnetic Ward identity, and the dipole operator involves the first moment of the charge-weighted transverse momentum of final-state hadrons. The operator product expansion maps the dipole coefficient to the charge-weighted Collins moment, which then enters the factorized spin-dependent cross section through transversity, the hard spin-

Load-bearing premise

The central identification—that the measured charge dipole equals the charge-weighted Collins moment—assumes the operator product expansion survives when the suppressed gauge links are restored and the twist-3 quark-gluon-quark contributions are included; if those terms contribute to the charge-weighted sum, the dipole is no longer purely the Collins moment and the coherence-enhancement argument changes.

What would settle it

Measure the azimuthal single-spin asymmetry of the net charge in jets from transversely polarized proton-proton collisions at √s = 200 GeV, integrated over 0 < θₙ < 0.4, and compare with the paper's 20–25% prediction; a significantly smaller asymmetry, or a sign and magnitude of the charge-weighted dipole inconsistent with the Collins-moment extraction from single-hadron SIDIS, would falsify the central identification.

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

If this is right

  • Transversity can be extracted from track-only measurements, avoiding calorimeter energy-scale uncertainties and particle identification.
  • Charge weighting suppresses the unpolarized monopole and makes charge dipoles add coherently, boosting spin asymmetries to 20–25% in the paper's estimate.
  • The dipole D⊥j is a single number per quark flavor, reducing multidimensional Collins fragmentation information to one universal nonperturbative constant.
  • The same formalism connects charge-flow observables to standard TMD factorization and evolution, allowing existing Collins and transversity extractions to be cross-checked or extended.
  • The comparison between TMD-evolution and Gaussian-profile frameworks shows the observable is sensitive to transverse-momentum structure and can discriminate between evolution schemes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • One could extend the same charge-flow logic to other chiral-odd fragmentation structures, such as dihadron interference fragmentation, and ask whether a similar dipole/monopole geometry appears; this would generalize the track-only approach beyond the Collins channel.
  • A first measurement of the angular dependence of the charge-weighted asymmetry in existing polarized proton-proton data would directly test the predicted 20–25% enhancement and the coherence mechanism.
  • If the suppressed gauge-link and twist-3 quark-gluon-quark terms contribute at leading power to the charge-weighted sum, the equality between the dipole and the charge-weighted Collins moment would need revision; a dedicated small-distance calculation including those terms could settle this.
  • Comparing charge-weighted with unweighted azimuthal asymmetries in the same dataset offers a low-cost experimental check of the predicted order-of-magnitude enhancement before a dedicated transversity extraction is attempted.

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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a track-only observable, the transverse charge distribution of a fragmenting quark, defined through a charge-flow operator (Eq. 1). It argues that at leading twist the distribution decomposes into an unpolarized charge monopole and a chiral-odd transverse charge dipole (Eqs. 4-5). For b_T Λ_QCD << 1, the authors claim OPEs (Eqs. 9-10) mapping the monopole to the quark charge and the dipole to the charge-weighted Collins first moment D^⊥_j (Eq. 11). They then apply this to transversely polarized p↑p collisions at RHIC by factorizing the charge-flow cross section as in hadron-in-jet production (Eqs. 15-16), using TMD evolution and existing transversity/Collins fits, and predict single-spin asymmetries of 20-25% (Figs. 3-4). A supplement contains derivations of the OPE, including a direct charge-flow multipole expansion, and PYTHIA+StringSpinner simulations for SIDIS at COMPASS and EIC kinematics.

Significance. If the OPE and factorization statements hold, the paper proposes a genuinely new, calorimeter-free observable for transversity and the Collins effect. The charge-weighting mechanism is attractive: it suppresses the unpolarized monopole while making opposite-charge dipoles add coherently, and the resulting SSA predictions are concrete and falsifiable. The explicit connection to standard TMD FFs and the supplement's two complementary derivations are strengths. However, the central claim rests on the unproven identification of the dipole with the Collins moment once gauge links and twist-3 quark-gluon-quark terms are restored, and on the assumption that inclusive charge-flow factorization inherits standard TMD evolution. Both points are load-bearing for the numerical predictions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (9)-(11) and Supplemental Eqs. (S-20)-(S-22)] The identification D^⊥_j = Σ_h ∫ dz Q_h M_h H^{⊥(1)}_{1h/j} is made after suppressing gauge links and without evaluating the g_s ∫ F^{α+} term in Eq. (S-22). The main text explicitly defers 'a complete twist-3 collinear treatment' with quark-gluon-quark correlators. If those terms contribute at leading power in b_T Λ_QCD to the charge-weighted sum, Eq. (10) is incomplete and the Collins functions fitted in single-hadron processes cannot be used as the sole nonperturbative input in Eqs. (17)-(18). The authors should either complete the derivation, including the F^{α+}/qgq contributions, or show that they cancel in the charge-weighted sum. As written, the central claim 'the dipole is governed by the Collins effect' is an assumption, not a derivation.
  2. [Eqs. (15)-(18), main text after Eq. (16)] The factorization of the inclusive charge-flow cross section is asserted by analogy with hadron-in-jet production ('we can immediately show'), with the soft function absorbed into J_D and J_{1,⊥}. For a net-charge-weighted angular measurement, the all-order cancellation of soft gluons and the validity of the TMD evolution of Ref. [25] require proof; the operator-level relation in Eq. (S-11) does not by itself establish cross-section factorization. The 20-25% SSA predictions depend on the Sudakov exponents S_D^pert and S_Collins^pert, so the missing derivation directly blocks the numerical claim as it stands.
  3. [Eq. (11) and Figs. 3-4] The numerical estimates replace D^⊥_j by charged-pion Collins moments, but the observable in Eq. (11) involves an all-hadron sum. Contributions from kaons, protons, and heavier charged hadrons are not estimated, and their relative weight in the charge-weighted dipole is unknown. Since the size of the SSAs in Figs. 3-4 scales with D^⊥_j, the quoted 20-25% should be presented as an estimate for the pion-only subset or the all-hadron sum should be estimated from fits/measurements.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Notation, Eq. (1)] The light-cone vectors n and \bar n are used without defining \bar n·n=2; please state the convention explicitly at first use.
  2. [Figs. 3-4 captions] Captions refer to 'charged pions' while the text defines the jet-level sum over all charged hadrons. Clarify whether the plotted ZZ are pion-only or all-hadron, and whether the same hadronic content is used in Eq. (13).
  3. [Reference [51]] This entry is incomplete: it lists 'STAR Collaboration, (2026)' with no author list or title. Please provide a complete citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the transverse charge dipole is a new observable whose OPE coefficient is matched to the charge-weighted Collins moment, and the SSA estimates are conditional predictions from external global fits, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The observable is defined independently in Eq. (1) via the charge-flow operator, and the chiral-odd dipole structure in Eq. (5) follows from Lorentz/tensor decomposition and parity, not from the Collins function. The OPE in Eq. (10) is derived in the Supplemental Material by relating the charge-flow correlator to standard TMD FFs (Eqs. S-11, S-12) and by a direct multipole expansion of the charge-flow operator (Eqs. S-13 to S-23). Eq. (11) defines D^⊥_j as the charge-weighted Collins first moment, but identifying the computed OPE coefficient with that known moment is a matching calculation, not a definition of the observable in terms of the target result. The phenomenological estimates in Figs. 3-4 explicitly use Collins functions and transversity from global analyses (Refs. [25,27]) as inputs: the paper states 'we estimate its size from the charged-pion Collins functions available from global analyses.' These are conditional predictions for a new observable, not fits to the same observable being renamed as predictions. The paper also honestly flags a limitation: 'a complete twist-3 collinear treatment also contains contributions from quark-gluon-quark correlators ... deferred to future work.' This is an incompleteness in the derivation, not circularity. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [34,52]) are used for framework context and are not load-bearing for the new chiral-odd dipole claim. No step reduces by construction to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 8 axioms · 1 invented entities

The genuinely new content is the operator correspondence between the charge-flow dipole and the Collins moment plus the coherence argument. The quantitative output is not self-contained: the OPE identification is derived with suppressed gauge links, the factorization and evolution of the inclusive charge flow are inherited by assertion from the single-hadron case, and every nonperturbative input (transversity, Collins functions, Sudakov factors, Gaussian widths) comes from prior global fits. The new observable is thus a re-projection of known fitted physics through a new kernel; transparent, but it limits what the paper independently establishes.

free parameters (5)
  • Charge dipole D⊥j(μ) = not measured; estimated from KPSY16 and JAM3D-22 Collins-function fits
    Central input to Z^Q_UT (Eq. 16); by Eq. (11) it is the charge-weighted Collins first moment, so all SSA predictions inherit fitted values.
  • b_max in b*-prescription = 1.5 GeV^{-1}
    Chosen per standard TMD practice (Refs. 76-78); affects the Sudakov suppression and the large-θn behavior of the predictions.
  • Nonperturbative Sudakov factors = from Ref. [25] global fit
    Used in Eqs. (17)-(18) for TMD evolution; fitted in prior work, not derived here.
  • Transversity PDF h1(x) and Collins functions = KPSY16 / JAM3D-22 parametrizations
    The SSA numerator convolves h1, the hard spin-transfer, and the dipole; all nonperturbative functions are prior global fits.
  • JAM3D Gaussian widths ⟨P⊥²⟩ = fav ≈ 0.127 GeV², unfav ≈ 0.144 GeV²
    The paper attributes the large-θn JAM3D amplification to the broader unfavored width; these widths are fitted in Ref. [27].
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption TMD factorization for hadron-in-jet in p↑p collisions extends unchanged to the inclusive charge-flow cross section, with the soft function absorbed into the transverse charge distributions.
    Main text, before Eqs. (15)-(16): 'Given the connection between the transverse charge distribution and the TMD FFs, we can immediately show that...' — asserted, not proven.
  • standard math The electromagnetic Ward identity fixes the monopole's small-b_T limit to the parton charge Q_j.
    Eq. (9) and the surrounding text.
  • domain assumption Boost invariance in the collinear limit restricts the distribution to depend only on ω n̂_T.
    Supplemental Eqs. (S-3)-(S-5).
  • standard math Parity forbids a leading-twist longitudinal (helicity) charge-flow distribution.
    Main text after Eq. (5), cited to Ref. [12].
  • domain assumption Spectral completeness for the charge-flow operator insertion: the sum over all asymptotic out-states with the charge-weighted divergent sum is well-defined and gauge-invariant.
    Eq. (3) and Supplemental Eq. (S-13).
  • ad hoc to paper The dipole matrix element reduces to the Collins first moment with gauge links suppressed and twist-3 quark-gluon-quark correlators neglected.
    Supplemental Eq. (S-22): 'We suppress the gauge links for simplicity'; main text: 'a complete twist-3 collinear treatment also contains contributions from quark-gluon-quark correlators... deferred to future work.'
  • domain assumption The b* prescription with b_max = 1.5 GeV^{-1} regulates the Landau pole for TMD evolution.
    Phenomenology section, Eqs. (17)-(18), following Refs. [76-78].
  • domain assumption PYTHIA 8.3 + StringSpinner tuned to COMPASS data reproduces the qualitative spin-dependent charge flow in SIDIS.
    Supplemental SIDIS section; the authors note StringSpinner implements only pseudoscalar and vector mesons.
invented entities (1)
  • Transverse charge dipole D⊥j (intrinsic transverse charge dipole) independent evidence
    purpose: Quantifies the spin-dependent asymmetric displacement of positive vs negative charge during hadronization; supplies the chiral-odd final-state matrix element that couples fragmentation to transversity in the charge-flow observable.
    Predictions for the p↑p SSA (Figs. 3-4) and SIDIS sin(φn+φs) modulations (Fig. S-1) are falsifiable at RHIC/COMPASS/EIC; however, by Eq. (11) the dipole is defined as the charge-weighted Collins moment, so it is a re-parameterization of known fitted physics rather than an object with independent evidence of its own.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14606 in / 27029 out tokens · 218464 ms · 2026-08-01T21:05:52.795457+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We introduce the transverse charge distribution as a spin-sensitive charge-flow probe for fragmentation and nucleon tomography. By measuring the angular distribution of net electric charge around a fragmenting quark, this observable relies entirely on the tracking of charged-particle directions and charge signs, strictly bypassing the need for calorimetric energy measurements. At leading twist, the distribution decomposes into an unpolarized charge monopole and a chiral-odd transverse charge dipole. We derive the operator product expansion of these distributions onto charge-weighted collinear moments: the monopole is fixed by charge conservation, while the dipole is governed by the Collins effect and couples directly to transversity. Applying this formalism to transversely polarized $p^\uparrow p$ collisions at RHIC, we show that charge weighting suppresses the unpolarized monopole background and causes the spin-dependent dipoles from oppositely charged hadrons to add coherently. This coherence strongly enhances the resulting azimuthal asymmetries, establishing a theoretically clean and experimentally precise track-only avenue for extracting transversity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16392 by Ding Yu Shao, Wanchen Li, Xiaohui Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic illustration of the transverse charge dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Geometry of transverse charge-flow measurements [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The transverse charge distribution SSA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.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

89 extracted references · 72 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. P. Ralston and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys.B152, 109 (1979)

    1979

  2. [2]

    R. L. Jaffe and X.-D. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 552 (1991)

    1991

  3. [3]

    Barone, A

    V. Barone, A. Drago, and P. G. Ratcliffe, Phys. Rept. 359, 1 (2002), hep-ph/0104283

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  4. [4]

    J. D. Jackson, S. B. Treiman, and H. W. Wyld, Phys. Rev.106, 517 (1957)

    1957

  5. [5]

    H.-W. Lin, W. Melnitchouk, A. Prokudin, N. Sato, and H. Shows, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 152502 (2018), arXiv:1710.09858 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    X. Gao, A. D. Hanlon, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, Q. Shi, S. Syritsyn, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D109, 054506 (2024), arXiv:2310.19047 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    J. C. Collins, Nucl. Phys. B396, 161 (1993), arXiv:hep- ph/9208213

    arXiv 1993

  8. [8]

    J. C. Collins, S. F. Heppelmann, and G. A. Ladinsky, Nucl. Phys. B420, 565 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9305309

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  9. [9]

    Radici and A

    M. Radici and A. Bacchetta, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 192001 (2018), arXiv:1802.05212 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Cocuzza, A

    C. Cocuzza, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, N. Sato, and R. Seidl (JAM), Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 091901 (2024), arXiv:2306.12998 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Cocuzza, A

    C. Cocuzza, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, N. Sato, and R. Seidl (Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM)), Phys. Rev. D109, 034024 (2024), arXiv:2308.14857 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Bacchetta, M

    A. Bacchetta, M. Diehl, K. Goeke, A. Metz, P. J. Mul- ders, and M. Schlegel, JHEP02, 093 (2007), arXiv:hep- ph/0611265

    arXiv 2007

  13. [13]

    Airapetianet al.(HERMES), Phys

    A. Airapetianet al.(HERMES), Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 012002 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0408013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  14. [14]

    Airapetianet al.(HERMES), Phys

    A. Airapetianet al.(HERMES), Phys. Lett. B693, 11 (2010), arXiv:1006.4221 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  15. [15]

    Adolphet al.(COMPASS), Phys

    C. Adolphet al.(COMPASS), Phys. Lett. B717, 376 (2012), arXiv:1205.5121 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  16. [16]

    Adolphet al.(COMPASS), Phys

    C. Adolphet al.(COMPASS), Phys. Lett. B736, 124 (2014), arXiv:1401.7873 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [17]

    Yuan, Phys.Rev.Lett.100, 032003 (2008), arXiv:0709.3272 [hep-ph]

    F. Yuan, Phys.Rev.Lett.100, 032003 (2008), arXiv:0709.3272 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  18. [18]

    Z.-B. Kang, A. Prokudin, F. Ringer, and F. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B774, 635 (2017), arXiv:1707.00913 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    D’Alesio, F

    U. D’Alesio, F. Murgia, and C. Pisano, Phys. Lett. B 773, 300 (2017), arXiv:1707.00914 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D97, 032004 (2018), arXiv:1708.07080 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys

    M. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. D106, 072010 (2022), arXiv:2205.11800 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    D’Alesio, C

    U. D’Alesio, C. Flore, and M. Zaccheddu, Phys. Lett. B 6 871, 140024 (2025), arXiv:2506.21959 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Anselminoet al., Phys

    M. Anselminoet al., Phys. Rev.D75, 054032 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0701006 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  24. [24]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, J. O. Gonza- lez Hernandez, S. Melis, F. Murgia, and A. Prokudin, Phys. Rev. D92, 114023 (2015), arXiv:1510.05389 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  25. [25]

    Z.-B. Kang, A. Prokudin, P. Sun, and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D93, 014009 (2016), arXiv:1505.05589 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  26. [26]

    Cammarota, L

    J. Cammarota, L. Gamberg, Z.-B. Kang, J. A. Miller, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, T. C. Rogers, and N. Sato (Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum), Phys. Rev. D102, 054002 (2020), arXiv:2002.08384 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    Gamberg, M

    L. Gamberg, M. Malda, J. A. Miller, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, and N. Sato (Jefferson Lab Angular Mo- mentum (JAM), Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum), Phys. Rev. D106, 034014 (2022), arXiv:2205.00999 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Boglione, U

    M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, C. Flore, J. O. Gonzalez- Hernandez, F. Murgia, and A. Prokudin, Phys. Lett. B854, 138712 (2024), arXiv:2402.12322 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. Lett.41, 1585 (1978)

    1978

  30. [30]

    C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, and S. T. Love, Phys. Rev. D19, 2018 (1979)

    2018

  31. [31]

    Neill, G

    D. Neill, G. Vita, I. Vitev, and H. X. Zhu, inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.07113 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Z.-B. Kang, K. Lee, D. Y. Shao, and F. Zhao, in30th International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects(2023) arXiv:2307.06935 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Z.-B. Kang, K. Lee, D. Y. Shao, and F. Zhao, JHEP03, 153 (2024), arXiv:2310.15159 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Gao, Z.-B

    M.-S. Gao, Z.-B. Kang, W. Li, and D. Y. Shao, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 151902 (2026), arXiv:2509.15809 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Bhattacharya, Z.-B

    S. Bhattacharya, Z.-B. Kang, D. Padilla, and J. Pent- tala, (2025), arXiv:2504.10475 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Q.-H. Cao, Z. Yu, C. P. Yuan, S.-T. Zhang, and H. X. Zhu, JHEP02, 244 (2026), [Erratum: JHEP 04, 206 (2026)], arXiv:2509.18892 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Song, S.-Y

    Y.-K. Song, S.-Y. Wei, L. Yang, and J. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 131901 (2026), arXiv:2509.14960 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    J. Gao, H. T. Li, and Y. J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D113, 034028 (2026), arXiv:2509.17596 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Z.-B. Kang, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak, and C. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2604.28131 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    K. Lee, I. Moult, and W. J. Waalewijn, (2026), arXiv:2607.00087 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    Chang, M

    H.-M. Chang, M. Procura, J. Thaler, and W. J. Waalewijn, Phys. Rev.D88, 034030 (2013), arXiv:1306.6630 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  42. [42]

    Chang, M

    H.-M. Chang, M. Procura, J. Thaler, and W. J. Waalewijn, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 102002 (2013), arXiv:1303.6637 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  43. [43]

    H. Chen, I. Moult, X. Zhang, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D102, 054012 (2020), arXiv:2004.11381 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Y. Li, I. Moult, S. S. van Velzen, W. J. Waalewijn, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 182001 (2022), arXiv:2108.01674 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Jaarsma, Y

    M. Jaarsma, Y. Li, I. Moult, W. Waalewijn, and H. X. Zhu, JHEP06, 139 (2022), arXiv:2201.05166 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    H. Chen, M. Jaarsma, Y. Li, I. Moult, W. J. Waalewijn, and H. X. Zhu, JHEP07, 185 (2023), arXiv:2210.10058 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Jaarsma, Y

    M. Jaarsma, Y. Li, I. Moult, W. J. Waalewijn, and H. X. Zhu, JHEP12, 087 (2023), arXiv:2307.15739 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Lee and I

    K. Lee and I. Moult, (2023), arXiv:2308.00746 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    P. F. Monni, G. Vita, Z. Xu, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.137, 031901 (2026), arXiv:2508.00977 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Barata, R

    J. Barata, R. Jumanov, and A. V. Sadofyev, (2026), arXiv:2607.06667 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    STAR Collaboration, (2026), arXiv:2604.15543 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    H. Cao, X. Liu, and F. Petriello, (2026), arXiv:2605.15280 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    Accardiet al., Eur

    A. Accardiet al., Eur. Phys. J. A52, 268 (2016), arXiv:1212.1701 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  54. [54]

    Abdul Khaleket al., Nucl

    R. Abdul Khaleket al., Nucl. Phys. A1026, 122447 (2022), arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    D. P. Anderleet al., Front. Phys. (Beijing)16, 64701 (2021), arXiv:2102.09222 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [56]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, and M. E. Luke, Phys. Rev. D63, 014006 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0005275

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  57. [57]

    C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev.D63, 114020 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0011336 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  58. [58]

    C. W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Lett.B516, 134 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0107001 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  59. [59]

    C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D65, 054022 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0109045 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  60. [60]

    D. M. Hofman and J. Maldacena, JHEP05, 012 (2008), arXiv:0803.1467 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  61. [61]

    See Supplemental Material for more details on the boost- invariance constraint, two approaches to derive the op- erator product expansions of the transverse charge dis- tribution, and SIDIS simulations at COMPASS and EIC kinematics

  62. [62]

    Bacchetta, U

    A. Bacchetta, U. D’Alesio, M. Diehl, and C. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D70, 117504 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0410050

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  63. [63]

    The qqc jet function at n3lo,

    G. Vita, P. F. Monni, H. Zhu, and Z. Xu, “The qqc jet function at n3lo,” (2025)

    2025

  64. [64]

    Luo, T.-Z

    M.-x. Luo, T.-Z. Yang, H. X. Zhu, and Y. J. Zhu, JHEP 06, 115 (2021), arXiv:2012.03256 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  65. [65]

    Koike, J

    Y. Koike, J. Nagashima, and W. Vogelsang, Nucl. Phys. B744, 59 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602188

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  66. [66]

    Yuan and J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  67. [67]

    Bacchetta and A

    A. Bacchetta and A. Prokudin, Nucl. Phys. B875, 536 (2013), arXiv:1303.2129 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  68. [68]

    M. G. Echevarria, A. Idilbi, and I. Scimemi, Phys. Rev. D90, 014003 (2014), arXiv:1402.0869 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  69. [69]

    Kang, Phys.Rev.D83, 036006 (2011), arXiv:1012.3419 [hep-ph]

    Z.-B. Kang, Phys.Rev.D83, 036006 (2011), arXiv:1012.3419 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  70. [70]

    Metz and D

    A. Metz and D. Pitonyak, Phys. Lett. B723, 365 (2013), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 762, 549–549 (2016)], arXiv:1212.5037 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  71. [71]

    Scantamburlo and M

    D. Scantamburlo and M. Schlegel, Phys. Rev. D113, 114036 (2026), arXiv:2603.10628 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    Owens, Rev.Mod.Phys.59, 465 (1987)

    J. Owens, Rev.Mod.Phys.59, 465 (1987)

    1987

  73. [73]

    Z.-B. Kang, F. Yuan, and J. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B691, 243 (2010), arXiv:1002.0399 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  74. [74]

    Z.-B. Kang, X. Liu, F. Ringer, and H. Xing, JHEP11, 068 (2017), arXiv:1705.08443 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  75. [75]

    Z.-B. Kang, H. Xing, F. Zhao, and Y. Zhou, JHEP03, 142 (2024), arXiv:2311.00672 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. 7 Phys. B250, 199 (1985)

    1985

  77. [77]

    Qiu and X.-f

    J.-w. Qiu and X.-f. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 2724 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0012058

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  78. [78]

    Landry, R

    F. Landry, R. Brock, P. M. Nadolsky, and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev.D67, 073016 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212159

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  79. [79]

    P. Sun, J. Isaacson, C. P. Yuan, and F. Yuan, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1841006 (2018), arXiv:1406.3073 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  80. [80]

    Aboonaet al.(STAR), Phys

    B. Aboonaet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 261902 (2025), arXiv:2507.16355 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.