Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Strange-antistrange and charm-anticharm asymmetries of pion in 't Hooft model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives rigorous first-order-in-$1/N_c$ expressions for the strange and antistrange parton distribution functions of a charged pion in the 't Hooft model, and finds percent-level $s$-$\bar{s}$ and $c$-$\bar{c}$ asymmetries in…

desk verdict A solid analytic extension for strange/antistrange PDFs in the 't Hooft model, but the advertised charm-sign discrepancy is not numerically certified and should be softened until convergence is shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.21152 v1 pith:3DP7ZAJY submitted 2024-12-30 hep-ph

Mingliang Zhu , Siwei Hu , Yu Jia , Zhewen Mo , Xiaonu Xiong This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords 'tHooftmodelpartondistributionfunctionsstrange-antistrangeasymmetryintrinsiccharmmesoncloudlight-frontquantizationlarge-Nclimitpionseaquarks
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 aims to establish what the intrinsic strange and charm content of a pion looks like in a solvable strong-interaction model, and whether a popular approximation called the meson cloud model (MCM) captures it. Working in the 't Hooft model—QCD in two spacetime dimensions with infinitely many colors—the authors derive rigorous first-order-in-$1/N_c$ formulas for the strange and antistrange parton distribution functions (PDFs) of a charged pion. These formulas express the sea quarks as coming from the pion's higher Fock component, an infinite tower of $K^-$ and $K^0$ mesons, which makes them a parameter-free benchmark for MCM. The numerical outcome for the first excited pion is that with $m_u/m_d = 1/2$, the $s$-$\bar{s}$ and $c$-$\bar{c}$ asymmetries both reach the percent level; MCM roughly agrees for strange quarks but has the opposite sign for charm. If that disagreement holds, the meson cloud picture would be reliable for light sea quarks but misleading for heavy ones.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the light-cone wave functions $\varphi_n(x)$ that solve the 't Hooft equation (11) and the triple-meson vertex function $\Gamma_{n,n_1,n_2}(x_1,x_2)$ of Eq. (20), which couples a $\pi^-$ to a $K^-$ and a $K^0$. The rigorous PDFs in Eq. (21) are formed by two powers of $\Gamma$ divided by meson energy denominators and summed over all three excitation towers $n_1,n_2,n_3$; these sums encode the resummation of planar gluon exchanges. The MCM prediction in Eq. (24) is exactly the diagonal subset of those sums—$n_3 = n_1$ for the strange PDF and $n_3 = n_2$ for the antistrange PDF—so the difference between the two approaches isolates the off-diagonal interference terms. The underlying physical mechanism is the higher Fock component $|\pi^-\rangle \to K^- K^0$, an $O(1/N_c)$ correction that generates the intrinsic sea.

What would settle it

Recompute $\delta_c(x)$ for the first excited $\pi^-$ with 150–200 states in the $n_1,n_2,n_3$ sums, or with an extrapolation to infinite truncation; if the sign of $\delta_c(x)$ flips or its magnitude falls below the truncation uncertainty, the claimed sign reversal between the rigorous calculation and the meson cloud model for charm would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Equation (21) is the major new result: rigorous expressions for the $s$ and $\bar{s}$ PDFs of the first excited $\pi^-$ at $O(1/N_c)$, written as triple sums over excited $K^-$ and $K^0$ towers built from two insertions of the triple-meson vertex $\Gamma_{n,n_1,n_2}(x_1,x_2)$ and the meson light-cone wave functions $\varphi_n(x)$. The $s$ and $\bar{s}$ formulas are not symmetric, so a nonzero asymmetry appears as soon as the $u$ and $d$ masses differ. With $m_u/m_d = 1/2$, the asymmetry $A_{s\bar{s}}$ reaches several percent, with an excess of $\bar{s}$ at low $x$ and an excess of $s$ at higher $x$, changing sign near $x \approx 0.4$. Repeating the calculation for charm quarks yields a $c$-$\bar{c}$ asymmetry of the same order of magnitude, but the MCM prediction has the opposite sign across the full range of $x$—the paper's 'severe discrepancy'.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim about the charm asymmetry depends on the numerical assumption that truncating the infinite tower sums at 60 excited states gives the correct sign of $\delta_c(x)$; the paper reports slower convergence and oscillatory small-$x$ artifacts for charm, and the $c$-$\bar{c}$ asymmetry is presented as an envelope average without a formal error estimate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The strange and antistrange PDFs of the first excited $\pi^-$ in this model are now determined, without free parameters, by the meson wave functions and the triple-meson vertex.
  • The $s$-$\bar{s}$ asymmetry is a real isospin-breaking effect at $O(1/N_c)$: with $m_u/m_d = 1/2$ it reaches the percent level and changes sign near $x \approx 0.4$.
  • MCM—understood as the diagonal approximation to the rigorous sum—is validated for strange quarks but fails for charm, giving the opposite sign of the asymmetry.
  • The charm-anticharm asymmetry remains at the percent level even though the intrinsic charm PDF itself is orders of magnitude smaller than the intrinsic strange PDF.
  • The ground-state pion cannot be used for this comparison because its coupling to the $K$ towers essentially vanishes for the chiral pion, so the first excited pion is the natural laboratory for sea-quark asymmetries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the paper's main numerical risk would be to increase the truncation well beyond 60 states: if the sign of $\delta_c(x)$ stabilizes, the severe MCM discrepancy for charm is robust; if it flips, only the strange-sector comparison would remain.
  • Because the full MCM and its naive lowest-meson variant are nearly indistinguishable numerically, the MCM's failure for charm is not fixed by adding more excited mesons—only by restoring the off-diagonal $n_1 \neq n_3$ interference terms.
  • If the pattern generalizes to four-dimensional QCD—meson-cloud picture adequate for the light sea but wrong for heavy sea—phenomenological intrinsic-charm estimates based on meson clouds would need to be treated with caution.
  • The paper's earlier scaling finding that intrinsic charm in QCD2 falls as $1/m_c^6$, much faster than the $1/m_c^2$ of realistic QCD, suggests the percent-level $c$-$\bar{c}$ asymmetry arises from a delicate cancellation that a fluctuation model would be unlikely to capture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies strange-antistrange and charm-anticharm asymmetries in the parton distribution functions of the first excited charged pion in the 't Hooft model at O(1/N_c). Using light-front quantization and bosonization, the authors derive rigorous expressions for the strange and antistrange PDFs as triple sums over towers of K^- and K^0 mesons [Eq. (21)], and note that the meson-cloud-model (MCM) predictions [Eq. (24)] are obtained from the same expressions by retaining only diagonal terms. With mu/md = 1/2 and quark masses fixed to external meson masses, they report per-cent-level s-bar-s asymmetry that is qualitatively reproduced by the MCM, but a charm-anticharm asymmetry whose sign is opposite between the rigorous result and the MCM. The paper concludes that there is a severe discrepancy between the two approaches for charm. The main unresolved issue is whether the charm sign discrepancy survives a controlled treatment of the truncation of the infinite sums.

Significance. If established, the result would provide a nonperturbative, solvable-model test of the meson cloud picture for sea-quark asymmetries, showing where MCM fails for heavy sea quarks. The analytic derivation is a strength: the PDFs are defined through gauge-invariant light-cone operators, the O(1/N_c) higher-Fock contribution is systematically included, and the comparison with MCM is transparent because MCM is identified as the diagonal subset of the same sums. The quark masses are fixed by external meson masses rather than fitted to the asymmetry, so the output asymmetry is a genuine prediction. However, the central charm discrepancy is not yet certified: the numerical evidence is limited to a 60-state truncation, the paper itself reports slower convergence and oscillatory small-x artifacts for charm, and the quoted asymmetry is an envelope average without a formal error estimate. Since the off-diagonal interference terms are precisely the source of the MCM discrepancy and also the most truncation-sensitive terms, the sign of delta_c(x) could be an artifact of the present numerical treatment.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V.C, Eq. (21), Figs. 5 and 6] The central claim that the rigorous result and the MCM predict opposite signs for the charm-anticharm asymmetry is not supported by the numerical evidence as presented. The charm calculation retains only 60 states in the triple infinite sums of Eq. (21); the text explicitly states that convergence is slower than in the strange case, and Fig. 5 shows oscillatory small-x behavior attributed to truncation error. The asymmetry in Fig. 6 is quoted as the average of an upper/lower envelope, with no convergence criterion, no tail estimate, and no error bar attached to the sign. Because the difference between the rigorous result and the MCM arises exclusively from the off-diagonal (n1 != n3 or n2 != n3) interference terms, which are exactly the quantities most affected by truncation, the present evidence does not exclude the possibility that the sign of delta_c(x) reverses once the truncation is controlled. Please provide a systematic Nmax study (for example, Nmax = 40, 80, 120, 160), an extrapolation or a tail bound, a definition of central value and uncertainty independent of the envelope procedure, and an explicit plot of delta_c(x) for each Nmax. If the sign is stable under these checks, the claimed severe discrepancy would be convincing; without them, the headline claim is not yet established.
  2. [Sec. V.B, Eq. (21), Fig. 4] The statement that retaining the first 60 excited states 'exhibits satisfactory convergence behavior' for the strange case is not quantified. Since Eq. (21) contains independent sums over n1, n2, and n3, and since the interference terms are the only place where the rigorous result differs from the MCM, the convergence of f_s(x), f_bar-s(x), and the ratio A_sbar-s should be demonstrated explicitly as a function of Nmax. A small table or plot showing, say, the integrated asymmetry for Nmax = 30, 40, 50, 60, together with an estimate of the truncation error, would make the strange-sector result robust and would also calibrate the confidence one can place in the slower-converging charm sector.
  3. [Sec. V.C, Eq. (26)] The definition of the asymmetry is incomplete, which matters for the interpretation of the reported 'per-cent level' and for the sign claim. Eq. (26) introduces A_sbar-s through delta_s(x)/<s>, but delta_s(x) is not defined in an equation; the text later refers to delta_s(x) = f_s(x) - f_bar-s(x). Please give this definition explicitly in the text or in Eq. (26), and specify whether the same definition with s replaced by c is used for the charm asymmetry. This is a presentation point, but it is also needed to make the sign comparison between the rigorous result and the MCM unambiguous.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (24)] Equation (24b) is typeset with f^{MCM}_{s/pi^-_n}(x) on the left-hand side, but the right-hand side is the antistrange distribution; the subscript should be bar-s/pi^-_n.
  2. [Sec. IV] The sentence beginning 'Similarly, one can obtain the s PDF provided that the strange quark PDF of the K^-...' should read 'the bar-s PDF of the pion' rather than 'the s PDF', since the replacement described produces the antistrange distribution.
  3. [Sec. V.B, Footnote 2] Footnote 2 mentions 'naive MCM' but the main text never defines what is meant by this variant; specify explicitly which states are retained in the naive MCM versus the full MCM.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical errors that should be corrected, including 'indictaing' in Sec. II, 'rigourous' in the introduction and Sec. VI, and the incomplete journal entry in Ref. [42].
  5. [Sec. V.C] The choice mc = 4.19 sqrt(2 lambda) is stated to match the lowest-lying charmonium mass, but no sensitivity to this choice is reported; a variation of mc would help establish that the charm asymmetry sign is not an artifact of the specific heavy-quark mass used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central s-sbar and c-cbar asymmetry results are computed outputs of an O(1/N_c) light-front Hamiltonian derivation, and the MCM comparison is explicitly identified as the diagonal-subset truncation of the same rigorous sums.

full rationale

The central new result, Eq. (21), is derived from the gauge-invariant operator definition (13), the bosonized expansion of the strange-quark bilinear (14), first-order perturbation theory in 1/N_c (15), and the three-meson vertex (20) built from solutions of the 't Hooft equation (11). Quark masses are fixed by external inputs (m_pi, m_K, and the charmonium-inspired charm mass), while the asymmetries are computed outputs rather than fitted quantities. The MCM expressions (24) are obtained from the rigorous sums by keeping only diagonal terms, as the paper states in Sec. IV: "these MCM predictions can be obtained from the rigourous results (21) by keeping only the diagonal terms in the sum." This makes the MCM comparison transparent rather than circular, since both approaches share the same vertex and wave functions and the difference is by construction the off-diagonal interference terms. The self-citations to the authors' preceding work [32] supply technical derivation details and numerical recipes, but the equations needed for the new result are presented in the paper, and that prior work itself uses standard 't Hooft-model bosonization plus the external Callan-Coote-Gross vertex. No load-bearing premise is defined in terms of the predicted asymmetry, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported to force the choice. The slower convergence and oscillatory small-x behavior reported for the charm sector in Sec. V.C and Fig. 5 are a numerical reliability concern, not a circularity, because they affect the accuracy of a genuinely computed output rather than reinserting the output as an input. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against the model's own equations, and the comparison with MCM is explicit and honest.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on the 't Hooft model expansion and on previous bosonization technology; the only numbers tuned to data are the quark masses and the coupling, all fixed to external meson masses. No new particles or forces are introduced. The numerical truncation parameter N=60 is the least controlled input.

free parameters (6)
  • u quark mass mu = 0.0285 sqrt(2 lambda)
    Chosen by requiring m_pi = 137 MeV with mu/md = 1/2 (Sec. V.A); not fitted to the asymmetry.
  • d quark mass md = 0.0570 sqrt(2 lambda)
    Set by mu/md = 1/2 (Sec. V.A).
  • strange quark mass ms = 0.791 sqrt(2 lambda)
    Set by requiring m_K- = 494 MeV (Sec. V.A).
  • charm quark mass mc = 4.19 sqrt(2 lambda)
    Set to match the lowest charmonium mass, following Ref. [46] (Sec. V.C).
  • 't Hooft coupling sqrt(2 lambda) = 340 MeV
    Chosen to match the string tension from 4D QCD (Sec. V.A); sets the overall scale and is not fitted to the asymmetry.
  • number of retained excited meson states = 60
    Truncation of the infinite sums in Eq. (21); the authors state satisfactory convergence for strange but slower convergence for charm.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Large-N_c limit with lambda = g^2 N_c / (4 pi) fixed
    Defines the 't Hooft model and justifies the 1/N_c expansion (Sec. II, Eq. 3).
  • domain assumption Light-front Fock space is spanned by color-singlet mesonic operators; bosonization maps quark bilinears to meson operators
    Used to diagonalize the Hamiltonian and to derive Eq. (14) (Sec. II, Eqs. 5-10).
  • domain assumption The physical pion state at O(1/N_c) is obtained by first-order perturbation theory with the three-meson vertex V (Eq. 15)
    Underlies Eq. (21); higher-order and nonplanar corrections are neglected.
  • domain assumption The strange/antistrange PDF is exhausted by K^- and K^0 intermediate meson towers
    The higher Fock component of pi^- is assumed to consist of K^- and K^0 pairs (Sec. III, Eqs. 19-21).
  • domain assumption The meson cloud model identifies the K meson PDF with the square of its LCWF
    This is the MCM postulate used in Eqs. (22)-(24), not derived from the Hamiltonian.
  • standard math Completeness and orthogonality of 't Hooft wave functions (Eq. 9)
    Used to evaluate vacuum matrix elements and to truncate the meson basis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strange-antistrange and charm-anticharm asymmetries of pion in 't Hooft model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3DP7ZAJY

@misc{pith2026241221152,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strange-antistrange and charm-anticharm asymmetries of pion in 't Hooft model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3DP7ZAJY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.21152}
}
abstract

As a sequel of our preceding work [S. Hu et al., Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 9, 094040], we investigate the strange-antistrange and charm-anticharm asymmetries in the parton distribution functions (PDFs) of a light flavored meson, exemplified by the first excited pion in the 't Hooft model, {\it viz.}, QCD in two spacetime dimensions with infinite number of colors. Counted as an ${\cal O}(1/N_c)$ effect, the intrinsic strange content necessarily originates from the higher Fock component of the light flavored meson, which entails infinite towers of $K$ and $\overline{K}$ mesons. Numerical studies reveal that, with $m_u/m_d=1/2$, the $s$-$\bar{s}$ and $c$-$\bar{c}$ asymmetries of the first excited $\pi^-$ can reach per cents level. While the $s$-$\bar{s}$ asymmetry predicted from the meson cloud model (MCM) grossly align with the rigorous approach, there exists severe discrepancy between two approaches on the $c$-$\bar{c}$ asymmetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.21152 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Pictorial illustration of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Schematic Feynman diagrams to illustrate the strange and antistrange PDFs of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Profiles of LCWFs of various mesons, exemplified by the chiral and physical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Strange and antistrange PDFs of the first excited [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Intrinsic charm PDF (left) and anticharm PDF (right) in the first excited [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C 63, 189-285 (2009) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-009- 1072-5 [arXiv:0901.0002 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    T. J. Hou, J. Gao, T. J. Hobbs, K. Xie, S. Dulat, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P. Nadolsky, J. Pumplin and C. Schmidt, et al. Phys. Rev. D 103, no.1, 014013 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.014013 [arXiv:1912.10053 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Ablat, A

    A. Ablat, A. Courtoy, S. Dulat, M. Guzzi, T. J. Hobbs, T. J. Hou, J. Huston, K. Mohan, H. W. Lin and P. Nadolsky, et al. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139, no.12, 1063 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05865-x [arXiv:2408.04020 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    R. D. Ball et al. [NNPDF], Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.5, 428 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10328-7 [arXiv:2109.02653 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    R. D. Ball et al. [NNPDF], Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.5, 517 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12772-z [arXiv:2401.10319 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    T. J. Hobbs, B. T. Wang, P. M. Nadolsky and F. I. Olness, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.9, 094040 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.094040 [arXiv:1904.00022 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Constantinou, A

    M. Constantinou, A. Courtoy, M. A. Ebert, M. Engelhardt, T. Giani, T. Hobbs, T. J. Hou, A. Kusina, K. Kutak and J. Liang, et al. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 121, 103908 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103908 [arXiv:2006.08636 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    X. Ji, Y. S. Liu, Y. Liu, J. H. Zhang and Y. Zhao, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, no.3, 035005 (2021) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93.035005 [arXiv:2004.03543 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    G. P. Zeller et al. [NuTeV], Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 091802 (2002) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 239902 (2003)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.091802 [arXiv:hep-ex/0110059 [hep-ex]]

    2002 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Goncharov et al

    M. Goncharov et al. [NuTeV], Phys. Rev. D 64, 112006 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.112006 [arXiv:hep-ex/0102049 [hep-ex]]

    2001 arXiv

  3. [11]

    G. P. Zeller et al. [NuTeV], Phys. Rev. D 65, 111103 (2002) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 67, 119902 (2003)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.111103 [arXiv:hep-ex/0203004 [hep-ex]]

    2002 arXiv

  4. [12]

    S. J. Brodsky and B. Q. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 381, 317-324 (1996) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(96)00597-7 [arXiv:hep-ph/9604393 [hep-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  5. [13]

    X. G. Wang, C. R. Ji, W. Melnitchouk, Y. Salamu, A. W. Thomas and P. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 94, no.9, 094035 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.094035 [arXiv:1610.03333 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Du and B

    X. Du and B. Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 95, no.1, 014029 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.014029 [arXiv:1701.04945 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Salajegheh, Phys

    M. Salajegheh, Phys. Rev. D 92, no.7, 074033 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.074033 [arXiv:1602.00154 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. Vega, I. Schmidt, T. Gutsche and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D 93, no.5, 056001 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.056001 [arXiv:1511.06476 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Catani, D

    S. Catani, D. de Florian, G. Rodrigo and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 152003 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.152003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0404240 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. D. Sullivan, Phys. Rev. D 5, 1732-1737 (1972) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.5.1732

    1972 doi

  11. [19]

    S. J. Brodsky, P. Hoyer, C. Peterson and N. Sakai, Phys. Lett. B 93, 451-455 (1980) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90364-0

    1980 doi

  12. [20]

    S. J. Brodsky, C. Peterson and N. Sakai, Phys. Rev. D 23, 2745 (1981) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.2745

    1981 doi

  13. [21]

    Franz, M

    M. Franz, M. V. Polyakov and K. Goeke, Phys. Rev. D 62, 074024 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.074024 [arXiv:hep- ph/0002240 [hep-ph]]

    2000

  14. [22]

    Aaij et al

    R. Aaij et al. [LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, no.8, 082001 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.082001 [arXiv:2109.08084 [hep-ex]]

    2022

  15. [23]

    R. D. Ball et al. [NNPDF], Nature 608, no.7923, 483-487 (2022) doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04998-2 [arXiv:2208.08372 [hep- ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    R. D. Ball et al.[NNPDF], Phys. Rev. D 109, no.9, L091501 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L091501 [arXiv:2311.00743 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 75, 461-470 (1974) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90088-1

    1974 doi

  18. [26]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., N. Coote and D. J. Gross, Phys. Rev. D 13, 1649 (1976) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.13.1649

    1976 doi

  19. [27]

    M. B. Einhorn, Phys. Rev. D 14, 3451 (1976) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3451

    1976 doi

  20. [28]

    M. B. Einhorn, S. Nussinov and E. Rabinovici, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2282 (1977) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2282

    1977 doi

  21. [30]

    R. C. Brower, J. R. Ellis, M. G. Schmidt and J. H. Weis, Nucl. Phys. B 128, 175-203 (1977) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(77)90304-2 12

    1977 doi

  22. [31]

    R. C. Brower, W. L. Spence and J. H. Weis, Phys. Rev. D 19, 3024 (1979) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.19.3024

    1979 doi

  23. [32]

    S. Hu, Y. Jia, Z. Mo, X. Xiong and M. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.9, 094040 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.094040 [arXiv:2211.16489 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Kikkawa, Annals Phys

    K. Kikkawa, Annals Phys. 135, 222 (1981) doi:10.1016/0003-4916(81)90154-8

    1981 doi

  25. [34]

    Nakamura and K

    A. Nakamura and K. Odaka, Phys. Lett. B 105, 392-396 (1981) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(81)90786-3

    1981 doi

  26. [35]

    S. G. Rajeev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 9, 5583-5624 (1994) doi:10.1142/S0217751X94002284 [arXiv:hep-th/9401115 [hep-th]]

    1994 arXiv

  27. [36]

    A. Dhar, G. Mandal and S. R. Wadia, Phys. Lett. B 329, 15-26 (1994) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)90511-8 [arXiv:hep- th/9403050 [hep-th]]

    1994

  28. [37]

    A. Dhar, P. Lakdawala, G. Mandal and S. R. Wadia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10, 2189-2224 (1995) doi:10.1142/S0217751X95001066 [arXiv:hep-th/9407026 [hep-th]]

    1995 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Cavicchi, Int

    M. Cavicchi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10, 167-198 (1995) doi:10.1142/S0217751X95000097 [arXiv:hep-th/9401086 [hep-th]]

    1995 arXiv

  30. [39]

    J. L. F. Barbon and K. Demeterfi, Nucl. Phys. B 434, 109-138 (1995) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)00442-H [arXiv:hep- th/9406046 [hep-th]]

    1995

  31. [40]

    Itakura, Phys

    K. Itakura, Phys. Rev. D 54, 2853-2862 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.2853 [arXiv:hep-th/9604032 [hep-th]]

    1996 arXiv

  32. [41]

    J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B 194, 445-492 (1982) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90021-9

    1982 doi

  33. [42]

    Koepf, E

    W. Koepf, E. M. Henley and M. A. Alberg, doi:10.1142/9789812831408 0024 [arXiv:nucl-th/9403014 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  34. [43]

    Paiva, M

    S. Paiva, M. Nielsen, F. S. Navarra, F. O. Duraes and L. L. Barz, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 13, 2715-2724 (1998) doi:10.1142/S0217732398002886 [arXiv:hep-ph/9610310 [hep-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  35. [44]

    T. J. Hobbs, J. T. Londergan and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. D 89, no.7, 074008 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.074008 [arXiv:1311.1578 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Melnitchouk and A

    W. Melnitchouk and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B 414, 134-139 (1997) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)01150-7 [arXiv:hep- ph/9707387 [hep-ph]]

    1997

  37. [46]

    Y. Jia, S. Liang, L. Li and X. Xiong, JHEP 11, 151 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2017)151 [arXiv:1708.09379 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Burkardt, Phys

    M. Burkardt, Phys. Rev. D 62, 094003 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.094003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0005209 [hep-ph]]

    2000 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Y. S. Kalashnikova and A. V. Nefediev, Phys. Lett. B 487, 371-378 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00828-5 [arXiv:hep- ph/0006070 [hep-ph]]

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.