Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 61 references

The Momentum Fraction, Helicity and Transversity Isovector Moments of Nucleons from \texorpdfstring{$2+1$}{2+1}-flavor Lattice QCD

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

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

Pith's one-line read Lattice QCD gives first-principles values for three nucleon moments, with transversity a prediction.

desk verdict A high-quality lattice QCD calculation of the three isovector moments with an honest but arguably optimistic excited-state systematic; the helicity and transversity central values sit near the lower edge of a data-viable bracket. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02836 v1 pith:ONREREP5 submitted 2026-08-03 hep-lat nucl-th

Santanu Mondal , Rajan Gupta , Sungwoo Park , Jun-sik Yoo , Tanmoy Bhattacharya , Boram Yoon , Bálint Joó , Frank Winter This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-latnucl-th PACS 11.15.Ha12.38.Gc
keywords nucleonstructuremomentumfractionhelicitymomenttransversitylatticeQCDisovectormomentsexcited-statecontaminationWilson-cloverfermions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish, directly from lattice QCD rather than from experimental fits, the first moments of the three quark spin distributions inside the proton: the momentum fraction, the helicity moment, and the transversity moment, all in the isovector u-d combination. Working with thirteen 2+1-flavor Wilson-clover ensembles that cover lattice spacings 0.053-0.117 fm, pion masses 135-310 MeV, and M_pi L up to about 6.2, a simultaneous chiral-continuum-finite-volume extrapolation gives _{u-d} = 0.154(10)(9), _{$\Delta$ u - $\Delta$ d} = 0.177(10)(15), and _{delta u - delta d} = 0.197(12)(18) in the MS-bar scheme at 2 GeV. The first two agree with phenomenological global fits, which is a nontrivial cross-check; the transversity moment is a first-principles prediction, since no experimental extraction of it exists. The claim matters because lattice QCD can supply parton-structure quantities that experiments do not measure directly, and because the transversity value can eventually be tested by new transverse-spin measurements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the truncated spectral decomposition of the two- and three-point functions, Eqs. (17) and (18), combined with three prescriptions for the first excited-state mass gap $\Delta$ M_1: the {4,3*} strategy takes the spectrum from a four-state two-point fit; the {4Npi,3*} strategy sets $\Delta$ M_1 to the non-interacting Npi (or Npipi) energy; and the {4,2 free} strategy fits $\Delta$ M_1 freely to the three-point data. The spread among these strategies becomes the excited-state systematic. Around this core sit the RI'-MOM nonperturbative renormalization with two discretization-error prescriptions, and the five-parameter CCFV ansatz of Eq. (19) used to reach a=0, physical pion and kaon masses, and infinite volume.

What would settle it

A future lattice calculation using a variational set of multiple nucleon interpolating operators, or data at source-sink separations large enough to isolate the N-pi plateau, that yields any of the three moments outside the total uncertainties quoted in Eq. (20) would refute the central claim; the same test would be provided by a future experimental extraction of the transversity moment that lands outside roughly 0.18-0.22 at 2 GeV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the isovector matrix elements of the one-derivative vector, axial-vector and tensor operators, computed on thirteen 2+1-flavor clover ensembles and extrapolated to a=0, M_pi=135 MeV, M_K=494 MeV and infinite volume, give the moments in the MS-bar scheme at 2 GeV as <x>_{u-d}=0.154(10)(9), <x>_{$\Delta$ u - $\Delta$ d}=0.177(10)(15), and <x>_{delta u - delta d}=0.197(12)(18), with the first error statistical and the second the quadrature sum of the excited-state, renormalization, discretization and finite-volume systematics. The paper argues that the momentum fraction and helicity moment are consistent with phenomenological global fits, while the transversity value is a genuine prediction because no experimental extraction exists. It also claims that the data show no significant finite-volume correction and that the largest remaining systematic is excited-state contamination.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation hinges on the assumption that the true excited-state contamination is captured by the three fitting strategies; the paper's own data show the two-point fits cannot distinguish the two excited-state spectra by chi-squared alone, and the three-point fits return first-excited mass gaps much larger than the two-point-derived values, so a spectrum outside the chosen bracket would shift all three central values by roughly the assigned systematics or more.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central values hold, the isovector momentum fraction and helicity moment become lattice cross-checks of unpolarized and polarized global PDF fits rather than inputs that need model assumptions.
  • The transversity moment, being a prediction, supplies a target for future experiments and for other lattice formulations to confirm; any disagreement would signal a physics or analysis issue.
  • Because every ensemble shows monotonic convergence from above, any residual excited-state contamination would lower all three moments relative to the quoted central values.
  • Resolving finite-volume effects will require additional ensembles that differ only in lattice volume; the current two volume-pairs do not fix the finite-volume term independently.
  • The excited-state systematic dominates the total error, so further precision on these moments will come primarily from more statistics at physical pion mass and better spectral control.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A variational analysis with several interpolating operators, which the paper does not attempt, would turn the three-strategy bracket into a measured spectrum; until then the ESC band has to be read as model-dependent.
  • A future transverse-spin measurement feeding a global extraction of the isovector transversity moment would test the 0.197 prediction directly; the paper leaves this experimental consequence implicit.
  • The monotonic approach from above suggests a one-sided prior could be used in future analyses: residual excited states bias the moments high, so the quoted values are upper bounds if the ESC removal is incomplete.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports lattice QCD calculations of the isovector momentum fraction <x>_{u-d}, helicity moment <x>_{Δu-Δd}, and transversity moment <x>_{δu-δd} at the physical point in the MS-bar scheme at 2 GeV, using thirteen 2+1-flavor Wilson-clover ensembles. The analysis combines three excited-state-contamination strategies ({4,3*}, {4Nπ,3*}, {4,2 free}), two RI'-MOM renormalization methods (A and B), three discretization ansätze (a, α_s a, a^2), and CCFV versus CC extrapolations, for a total of 36 model variants. The final results, Eq. (20), are <x>_{u-d}=0.154(10)(9), <x>_{Δu-Δd}=0.177(10)(15), and <x>_{δu-δd}=0.197(12)(18), where the first error is statistical and the second is the quadrature sum of ESC, renormalization, discretization, and finite-volume systematics. The momentum fraction and helicity results agree with global fits, and the transversity result is presented as a prediction.

Significance. If the quoted uncertainties are reliable, this is one of the most precise lattice determinations of these three moments and a genuinely predictive transversity moment from first principles. The paper is unusually thorough: it documents 36 analysis variants, full covariance-matrix fits, jackknife errors, an explicit decomposition of the error budget into ESC, renormalization, discretization, and finite-volume pieces, and comparisons with independent lattice and phenomenological determinations. The main weakness is that the largest systematic, ESC, is assigned as half the spread between two bracketing strategies while the chosen central model sits closer to one side of the bracket; for helicity and transversity the distance to the upper alternative exceeds the assigned ESC error. This is a correctness-risk concern for the central claim and should be addressed before acceptance.

major comments (2)
  1. [Secs. V and VII, Eq. (20), Table VII] The ESC systematic is not a conservative representation of the model bracket. From Table VII, the physical-point values for the helicity moment are 0.169 ({4Nπ,3*}), 0.177 ({4,3*}), and 0.196 ({4,2 free}); for transversity they are 0.184, 0.197, and 0.217. Equation (20) assigns ESC errors of 0.013 and 0.016, yet the upward distances to {4,2 free} are 0.019 and 0.020. Since Sec. V states that the three strategies are not distinguished by the χ2/dof of the fits and that a large flat region exists in the two-point fit parameter space, and since {4,2 free} is the only strategy in which the first-excited mass gap is determined by the three-point data themselves, the data do not exclude a true value near the upper end of the bracket. The use of half the bracket spread is therefore not justified when the chosen central model is not at the bracket midpoint. Please either quote the full bracketing spread as the ESC systematic, use an asymmetric error with the upper side equal to the full distance to {4,2 free}, or provide a quantitative model-selection criterion (for example, a defined AIC-based weighting over the strategies) that demonstrably excludes the upper end. This is load-bearing because ESC is the dominant systematic and because adopting the {4,2 free} values would shift the final helicity and transversity moments upward by roughly 11% and 10%, respectively.
  2. [Table V and Table XII, ensemble a067m135] On the physical-pion ensemble a067m135, the {4,3*} strategy returns values that are not bracketed by the two alternatives for the helicity moment: the bare value is 0.164(13) and the Method-A renormalized value is 0.179(14), while {4Nπ,3*} gives 0.189(13) and 0.206(14), and {4,2 free} gives 0.207(12) and 0.226(13), respectively. Because this ensemble sits at the chiral extrapolation endpoint, it has high leverage in the CCFV fit of Eq. (19), and the central values in Eq. (20) inherit this low side of the bracket. The paper's acknowledgment that the statistics on a067m135 need improvement does not address the fact that the preferred strategy is an outlier at the physical point; the ESC systematic should also cover the spread between strategies on this ensemble, or the outlier should be shown not to control the final result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. VI, paragraph after Eq. (19)] The text 'the small-volume a087m290 and a086m1890 data' should read 'a087m290 and a086m180'; a086m1890 is not an ensemble ID listed in the paper.
  2. [Appendix B and Sec. V B] The statement 'The values of τ used in the fits are given in Table I' should reference Table II, which is the table that lists τ/a for each ensemble.
  3. [Table XIII caption] The phrase 'given in the caption of Fig. XIII' should be 'given in the caption of Table XIII' or similar; there is no Fig. XIII, and the interpolation scheme is described in the table caption.
  4. [Eq. (20)] The notation '<x>_{u-d} = 0.154(10)(8)_ES(4)_Z(2)_a(1)_FV' is not fully self-explanatory; please state explicitly that the first parenthesis is statistical and that the four lettered components denote the separate systematic contributions before they are added in quadrature.
  5. [Table IX, a087m290L, {4Nπ,3*} row] The entry '-0.0012134(32)' appears to be a typesetting artifact; please check that the reported parameter and its error are formatted consistently with the other rows.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the final moments are outputs of a CCFV fit to lattice data, with no experimental input fitted and no self-citation used to force the result.

full rationale

This paper's derivation chain is self-contained against its own lattice data. The central results in Eq. (20) are obtained by (i) extracting bare matrix elements from simultaneous fits to two- and three-point correlation functions using Eq. (18), with spectral parameters taken from two-point fits or left free in the {4,2 free} strategy; (ii) nonperturbative RI'-MOM renormalization described in Appendix C; and (iii) a five-parameter CCFV fit of Eq. (19) to 13 renormalized lattice points per moment. No experimental or phenomenological value is used as an input in any of these steps, and the transversity moment is called a prediction precisely because no experimental extraction is used. The ESC systematic is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: it is an uncertainty assigned as half the spread between the {4Npi,3*} and {4,2 free} analyses, with the {4,3*} analysis chosen as central. The paper is transparent that the three ESC strategies are not distinguished by chi^2/dof (Sec. V A), and that the {4,2 free} fits return larger mass gaps for helicity and transversity; this is a stated limitation of the excited-state control and a possible underestimation of the ESC systematic, but it is not a circular reduction. Self-citations to Refs. [15-17] supply lattice scale/spectrum values and analysis methodology, not the target moments, and the paper carries out its own variation over ESC strategies, renormalization methods, and discretization ansatze. The final comparison with FLAG and global-fit values in Table VIII is a consistency check, not an input. No equation in the paper reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central values are the intercepts of a five-parameter fit (Eq. 19) applied to 13 renormalized ensemble values per moment and per analysis variant; the honest accounting is that c0 through c4 are all fitted to the same lattice data, with physical inputs (M_pi = 135 MeV, M_K = 494 MeV, sqrt(t0) from FLAG) entering only at the evaluation point. The two renormalization methods and three discretization ansaetze are hand-chosen schemes that shift the results at the 0.005 level. No new entities are postulated: the joint {Npi} label used in Sec. V is a bookkeeping device for physical QCD states, and disconnected diagrams cancel exactly in the isovector combination.

free parameters (7)
  • c0: CCFV intercept (physical-point moment) = 0.154 / 0.177 / 0.197 per moment
    Intercept of Eq. (19) fitted to 13 renormalized ensemble values per moment; this parameter is the final central value itself, so the claim rests on a 5-parameter fit to 13 points.
  • c1: chiral coefficient of M_pi^2 * t0
    Linear coefficient in the light-quark mass term of Eq. (19); fitted per model and drives the M_pi=135-310 MeV extrapolation to the physical pion mass.
  • c2: coefficient of (M_K^2 - M_pi^2) * t0
    Accounts for the approximate tuning of the strange quark mass; M_K varies from 475 to 614 MeV across the 13 ensembles (Table III).
  • c3: discretization coefficient
    Coefficient of f(a), with three fitted variants a/sqrt(t0), alpha_s a/sqrt(t0), and a^2/t0; model-averaged into the central value and the discretization systematic.
  • c4: finite-volume coefficient
    Coefficient of M_pi^2 t0 exp(-M_pi L)/sqrt(M_pi L) in Eq. (19); fixed mainly by the two small-volume ensembles a087m290 and a086m180, and set to zero in the CC variant.
  • Lambda = 3 GeV: center of the Method A Z-factor averaging window = 3 GeV
    Hand-chosen scale in Appendix C; the Z-factors are averaged over a 2 GeV^2 window about p-hat^2 = (Lambda/a)^2, and different windows change the renormalized moments at roughly the 0.005 level seen between Methods A and B.
  • Relative prior width for the Npi mass gap in {4Npi} fits = 10%
    The non-interacting Npi energy is input with a ~10% relative width in two-point fits (Sec. V A); this width sets how strongly the Npi hypothesis influences the three-point ESC fits.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Four-state truncation for two-point (Eq. 17) and three-state truncation with <2|O|2>=0 for three-point (Eq. 18) spectral decompositions
    The ESC removal assumes convergence of these truncations; the paper concedes a large flat region in the {Ai, Mi} parameter space (Sec. V A).
  • domain assumption Excited-state masses from two-point fits describe the spectrum in three-point functions for one-derivative operators
    Centers the {4,3*} and {4Npi,3*} strategies; contradicted in size for helicity and transversity by the {4,2 free} fits (Table IV, Sec. V B).
  • domain assumption Non-interacting N(1)pi(-1) and N(0)pi(0)pi(0) energies approximate the true multihadron excited-state energies
    Input for the {4Npi} prior at 10% width (Sec. V A); relies on Ref. [38] for 1/V suppression of multihadron amplitudes.
  • domain assumption CCFV ansatz of Eq. (19) truncated at leading order in a, M_pi^2, M_K^2 - M_pi^2, and M_pi L
    Single term in each variable, no curvature or cross-terms are fitted; the three f(a) choices bracket the discretization error, but the chiral and FV truncations are single-term.
  • domain assumption Three-loop RI'-MOM-to-MS matching and running (Ref. [58]) is accurate at the chosen scales
    Renormalization relies on perturbative matching factors; the residual perturbative uncertainty is not a separate entry in the error budget (Appendix C).
  • domain assumption Scale setting uses external inputs: sqrt(t0) = 0.14474(57) fm from FLAG 2024, plus w0/a and t0/a^2 from Ref. [15]
    The physical-point evaluation and the lattice spacing a for the continuum extrapolation depend on these external inputs; the paper warns ensemble IDs and scales differ from Ref. [16] for this reason.
  • domain assumption Frequentist errors from single-elimination jackknife on binned data, with no autocorrelation augmentation
    Statistical validation rests on the claim of negligible autocorrelation after binning (Sec. II).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Momentum Fraction, Helicity and Transversity Isovector Moments of Nucleons from \texorpdfstring{$2+1$}{2+1}-flavor Lattice QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ONREREP5

@misc{pith2026260802836,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Momentum Fraction, Helicity and Transversity Isovector Moments of Nucleons from \texorpdfstring$2+1$2+1-flavor Lattice QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ONREREP5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02836}
}
abstract

Results for the isovector momentum fraction, $\langle x \rangle_{u-d}$, helicity moment, $\langle x \rangle_{\Delta u-\Delta d}$, and the transversity moment, $\langle x\rangle_{\delta u-\delta d}$, of the nucleon are presented using high-statistics data on thirteen NME ensembles of gauge configurations generated by the JLab/W\&M/LANL/MIT/Marseille collaborations using $2+1$-flavors of dynamical Wilson-clover quarks. The much higher statistics facilitated better control over all systematics compared to our previous lattice calculation. The least controlled systematic---excited-state contamination---is quantified by studying the variation of the results as a function of three estimates of the mass gap of the first excited state, obtained from two- and three-point correlation functions. The final results are obtained using a simultaneous fit to extrapolate in the lattice spacing, $a$, pion and kaon masses, $M_\pi$ and $M_K$, and the finite volume parameter, $M_\pi L$. The data show no significant finite-volume correction, and some dependence on the lattice spacing and the renormalization factors. The largest systematic uncertainty is due to possible remaining excited states contributions. Our final results, in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme at 2~GeV, are $\langle x \rangle_{u-d} = 0.154(10)(9)$, $\langle x \rangle_{\Delta u-\Delta d} = 0.177(10)(15)$ and $\langle x \rangle_{\delta u-\delta d} = 0.197(12)(18)$, where the first error is the overall statistical uncertainty and the second represents the various systematic uncertainties added in quadrature. Results for the momentum fraction and helicity moment are consistent with phenomenological global fit values, while the transversity moment is a prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02836 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A pictorial description of the alignment of the direction of the spin of the quark (red arrow) with respect [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Data for the momentum fraction ⟨x⟩u−d (left panels), helicity moment ⟨x⟩∆u−∆d (middle panels), and transversity moment ⟨x⟩δu−δd (right panels) from the thirteen ensembles using strategy {4, 3 ∗ } to remove ESC, method A to renormalize moments in the MS scheme at µ = 2 GeV, and with the discretization ansatz f(a) = αsa. The pink band shows the result of the CCFV fit, defined in Eq. (19), versus a (top row), versus M2… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A comparison of results from lattice QCD calculations using 2 + 1 and 2 + 1 + 1-flavors of dynamical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Data for the ratio C 3pt O (τ ;t)/C2pt(τ ), scaled using Eq. (8) to give the momentum fraction ⟨x⟩u−d, are shown for the a087m230 (top row), a087m230X (second row), a086m180L (third row), and a067m230 (bottom row) ensembles. The three panels in each row show fits to th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Continuation of the data for the ratio C 3pt O (τ ;t)/C2pt(τ ), scaled using Eq. (8) to give ⟨x⟩u−d, and fits to remove excited-state contamination for the a067m175 (top row), a067m135 (second row), a053m290 (third row), and a053m230 (bottom row) ensembles. The rest is…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Data for the ratio C 3pt O (τ ;t)/C2pt(τ ), scaled using Eq. (9) to give the helicity moment ⟨x⟩∆u−∆d, and fits to remove excited-state contamination for the a087m230 (top row), a087m230X (second row), a086m180L (third row), and a067m230 (bottom row) ensembles. The fit…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Continuation of the data for the ratio C 3pt O (τ ;t)/C2pt(τ ), scaled using Eq. (9) to give the helicity moment ⟨x⟩∆u−∆d, and fits to remove excited-state contamination for the a067m175 (top row), a067m135 (second row), a053m290 (third row), and a053m230 (bottom row) …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Data for the ratio C 3pt O (τ ;t)/C2pt(τ ), scaled using Eq. (10) to give ⟨x⟩δu−δd, and fits to remove excited￾state contamination for the a087m230 (top row), a087m230X (second row), a086m180L (third row), and a067m230 (bottom row) ensembles. The fit parameters are lis…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Continuation of the data for the ratio C 3pt O (τ ;t)/C2pt(τ ), scaled using Eq. (10) to give ⟨x⟩δu−δd, and fits to remove excited-state contamination for the a067m175 (top row), a067m135 (second row), a053m290 (third row), and a053m230 (bottom row) ensembles. The fit …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Nonperturbative renormalization factors for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the results of the CCFV fits to 13 ensembles (red symbols) and 11 larger volume ensembles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the CCFV (left panels) with the CC (right panels) fits for the helicity moment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of the CCFV (left panels) with the CC (right panels) fits for the transversity moment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_13.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Accardiet al., Eur

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

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Dudeket al., Eur

    J. Dudeket al., Eur. Phys. J. A48, 187 (2012), arXiv:1208.1244 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2012

  3. [3]

    Brocket al.(CTEQ), Rev

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

    work page 1995

  4. [4]

    Large-Momentum Effective Theory,

    X. Ji, Y.-S. Liu, Y. Liu, J.-H. Zhang, and Y. Zhao, “Large-Momentum Effective Theory,” (2020), arXiv:2004.03543 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    B. Yoon, M. Engelhardt, R. Gupta, T. Bhat- tacharya, J. R. Green, B. U. Musch, J. W. Negele, A. V. Pochinsky, A. Schafer, and S. N. Syritsyn, Phys. Rev. D96, 094508 (2017), arXiv:1706.03406 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Diehl,Generalized parton distributions, Ph.D

    M. Diehl,Generalized parton distributions, Ph.D. thesis, DESY (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0307382

    arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    Cichy and M

    K. Cichy and M. Constantinou, Adv. High Energy Phys.2019, 3036904 (2019), arXiv:1811.07248 [hep- lat]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Lattice computations of PDF: Challenges and progress,

    N. Karthik, “Lattice computations of PDF: Challenges and progress,”https://indico. cern.ch/event/764552/contributions/3420535/ attachments/1864018/3064443/LatticeTalk19_ NK.pdf(2019), accessed: 2020-05-20

    work page arXiv 2019

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Linet al., Prog

    H.-W. Linet al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.100, 107 (2018), arXiv:1711.07916 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Parton distributions and lattice QCD calculations: toward 3D structure,

    M. Constantinouet al., “Parton distributions and lattice QCD calculations: toward 3D structure,” (2020), arXiv:2006.08636 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group), Eur

    S. Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 113 (2020), arXiv:1902.08191 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), Eur

    Y. Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), Eur. Phys. J. C82, 869 (2022), arXiv:2111.09849 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), Phys

    Y. Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), Phys. Rev. D113, 014508 (2026), arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gupta, Y.-C

    R. Gupta, Y.-C. Jang, B. Yoon, H.-W. Lin, V. Cirigliano, and T. Bhattacharya, Phys. Rev. D98, 034503 (2018), arXiv:1806.09006 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Yoo, J.-H

    J.-S. Yoo, J.-H. Ee, S. Park, R. Gupta, T. Bhattacharya, S. Mondal, B. Jo´ o, R. Ed- wards, K. Orginos, and F. Winter, (2026), arXiv:2601.10857 [hep-lat]

    2026

  8. [16]

    Mondal, R

    S. Mondal, R. Gupta, S. Park, B. Yoon, T. Bhat- tacharya, B. Jo´ o, and F. Winter (Nucleon Ma- trix Elements (NME)), JHEP21, 004 (2020), arXiv:2011.12787 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Mondal, R

    S. Mondal, R. Gupta, S. Park, B. Yoon, T. Bhat- tacharya, and H.-W. Lin, Phys. Rev. D102, 054512 (2020), arXiv:2005.13779 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, and A. Schafer, Comput.Phys.Commun.181, 1570 (2010), arXiv:0910.3970 [hep-lat]

    2010 arXiv

  11. [19]

    T. Blum, T. Izubuchi, and E. Shintani, Phys.Rev. D88, 094503 (2013), arXiv:1208.4349 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Morningstar and M

    C. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, Phys. Rev. D 69, 054501 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0311018

    2004 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Sheikholeslami and R

    B. Sheikholeslami and R. Wohlert, Nucl. Phys. B259, 572 (1985)

    1985

  14. [22]

    Luscher, S

    M. Luscher, S. Sint, R. Sommer, P. Weisz, and U. Wolff, Nucl. Phys. B491, 323 (1997), arXiv:hep- lat/9609035

    1997

  15. [23]

    Duane, A

    S. Duane, A. Kennedy, B. Pendleton, and D. Roweth, Phys. Lett. B195, 216 (1987)

    1987

  16. [24]

    Yoonet al., Phys

    B. Yoonet al., Phys. Rev. D95, 074508 (2017), arXiv:1611.07452 [hep-lat]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    G¨ usken, K

    S. G¨ usken, K. Schilling, R. Sommer, K. H. M¨ utter, and A. Patel, Phys. Lett.B212, 216 (1988)

    1988

  18. [26]

    Yoonet al., Phys

    B. Yoonet al., Phys. Rev.D93, 114506 (2016), arXiv:1602.07737 [hep-lat]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Babich, J

    R. Babich, J. Brannick, R. Brower, M. Clark, T. Manteuffel,et al., Phys.Rev.Lett.105, 201602 (2010), arXiv:1005.3043 [hep-lat]

    2010 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Clark, R

    M. Clark, R. Babich, K. Barros, R. Brower, and C. Rebbi, Comput.Phys.Commun.181, 1517 (2010), arXiv:0911.3191 [hep-lat]

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    M. A. Clark, B. Jo´ o, A. Strelchenko, M. Cheng, A. Gambhir, and R. C. Brower, inProceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, SC ’16 (IEEE Press, 2016) p. 68

    2016

  22. [30]

    Akaike, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Con- trol19, 716 (1974)

    H. Akaike, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Con- trol19, 716 (1974)

    1974

  23. [31]

    R. G. Edwards and B. Joo (SciDAC, LHPC, UKQCD), Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.140, 832 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0409003

    2005 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Gusken, U

    S. Gusken, U. Low, K. H. Mutter, R. Sommer, A. Patel, and K. Schilling, Phys. Lett.B227, 266 (1989)

    1989

  25. [33]

    Gockeler, R

    M. Gockeler, R. Horsley, E.-M. Ilgenfritz, H. Perlt, P. E. L. Rakow, G. Schierholz, and A. Schiller, Phys. Rev.D53, 2317 (1996), arXiv:hep- lat/9508004 [hep-lat]

    1996

  26. [34]

    Harris, G

    T. Harris, G. von Hippel, P. Junnarkar, H. B. Meyer, K. Ottnad, J. Wilhelm, H. Wittig, and L. Wrang, Phys. Rev.D100, 034513 (2019), arXiv:1905.01291 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bhattacharya, S

    T. Bhattacharya, S. D. Cohen, R. Gupta, A. Joseph, H.-W. Lin, and B. Yoon, Phys. Rev.D89, 094502 (2014), arXiv:1306.5435 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, B. Gl¨ aßle, M. G¨ ockeler, J. Na- jjar, R. H. R¨ odl, A. Sch¨ afer, R. W. Schiel, A. Stern- beck, and W. S¨ oldner, Phys. Rev.D90, 074510 (2014), arXiv:1408.6850 [hep-lat]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [37]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, M. Deka, B. Glassle, M. Gock- eler, J. Najjar, A. Nobile, D. Pleiter, A. Schafer, and A. Sternbeck, Phys. Rev.D86, 054504 (2012), arXiv:1207.1110 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bar, Phys

    O. Bar, Phys. Rev. D99, 054506 (2019), arXiv:1812.09191 [hep-lat]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Y.-C. Jang, R. Gupta, B. Yoon, and T. Bhat- tacharya, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 072002 (2020), arXiv:1905.06470 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Djukanovic, G

    D. Djukanovic, G. von Hippel, H. B. Meyer, K. Ot- tnad, and H. Wittig, Phys. Rev. D109, 074507 (2024), arXiv:2402.03024 [hep-lat]. 20

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Y.-B. Yang, J. Liang, Y.-J. Bi, Y. Chen, T. Draper, K.-F. Liu, and Z. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 212001 (2018), arXiv:1808.08677 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Alexandrouet al., Phys

    C. Alexandrouet al., Phys. Rev. D107, 054504 (2023), arXiv:2202.09871 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    S. Li, A. Accardi, M. Cerutti, I. P. Fernando, C. E. Keppel, W. Melnitchouk, P. Monaghan, G. Niculescu, M. I. Niculescu, and J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D109, 074036 (2024), arXiv:2309.16851 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Cocuzza, C

    C. Cocuzza, C. E. Keppel, H. Liu, W. Melnitchouk, A. Metz, N. Sato, and A. W. Thomas (Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM)), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 242001 (2021), arXiv:2104.06946 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC,

    T.-J. Houet al., “New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC,” (2019), arXiv:1912.10053 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Ethier, N

    J. Ethier, N. Sato, and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 132001 (2017), arXiv:1705.05889 [hep- ph]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    R. D. Ballet al.(NNPDF), Eur. Phys. J.C77, 663 (2017), arXiv:1706.00428 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Alekhin, J

    S. Alekhin, J. Bl¨ umlein, S. Moch, and R. Placakyte, Phys. Rev.D96, 014011 (2017), arXiv:1701.05838 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Accardi, L

    A. Accardi, L. T. Brady, W. Melnitchouk, J. F. Owens, and N. Sato, Phys. Rev.D93, 114017 (2016), arXiv:1602.03154 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Abramowiczet al.(H1, ZEUS), Eur

    H. Abramowiczet al.(H1, ZEUS), Eur. Phys. J. C75, 580 (2015), arXiv:1506.06042 [hep-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Dulat, T.-J

    S. Dulat, T.-J. Hou, J. Gao, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, C. Schmidt, D. Stump, and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev.D93, 033006 (2016), arXiv:1506.07443 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, P. Motylinski, and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J.C75, 204 (2015), arXiv:1412.3989 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  45. [53]

    E. R. Nocera, R. D. Ball, S. Forte, G. Ridolfi, and J. Rojo (NNPDF), Nucl. Phys.B887, 276 (2014), arXiv:1406.5539 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  46. [54]

    de Florian, R

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Stratmann, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev.D80, 034030 (2009), arXiv:0904.3821 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  47. [55]

    de Florian, R

    D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Stratmann, and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 072001 (2008), arXiv:0804.0422 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Gockeleret al., Phys

    M. Gockeleret al., Phys. Rev.D82, 114511 (2010), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D86,099903(2012)], arXiv:1003.5756 [hep-lat]

    2010 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Constantinou, M

    M. Constantinou, M. Costa, M. G¨ ockeler, R. Hors- ley, H. Panagopoulos, H. Perlt, P. E. L. Rakow, G. Schierholz, and A. Schiller, Phys. Rev.D87, 096019 (2013), arXiv:1303.6776 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J. A. Gracey, Nucl. Phys.B667, 242 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0306163 [hep-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Constantinou, R

    M. Constantinou, R. Horsley, H. Panagopoulos, H. Perlt, P. Rakow, G. Schierholz, A. Schiller, and J. Zanotti, Phys. Rev. D91, 014502 (2015), arXiv:1408.6047 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, M. Constantinou, J. Finkenrath, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, G. Koutsou, H. Panagopoulos, and G. Spanoudes, Phys. Rev. D101, 094513 (2020), arXiv:2003.08486 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bhattacharya, V

    T. Bhattacharya, V. Cirigliano, S. Cohen, R. Gupta, H.-W. Lin, and B. Yoon, Phys. Rev.D94, 054508 (2016), arXiv:1606.07049 [hep-lat]. 21 Appendix A: Plots of the RatioC 3pt O (τ;t)/C 2pt(τ) This appendix gives, in Figs. 4–9, plots for the ratio,C 3pt O (τ;t)/C 2pt(τ), multipli...

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

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