Physics of the Electron-Ion Collider in China

Bo-Wen Xiao; Jian Zhou; Yuxiang Zhao

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 295 references

Physics of the Electron-Ion Collider in China

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Electron-Ion Collider in China is designed to make precision measurements of the sea-quark sector that no existing or planned higher-energy facility can match, including tenfold-helicity and odderon-sign tests.

desk verdict A competent, honest review of the EicC physics case that is worth serious refereeing, provided the pseudo-data projections are read as self-consistency checks under assumed accelerator parameters. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11712 v1 pith:3M5OIX6L submitted 2026-08-12 hep-ph hep-exnucl-exnucl-th

Bo-Wen Xiao , Yuxiang Zhao , Jian Zhou This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-exnucl-exnucl-th

keywords QCDHadronicstructureNucleonmassspinQuantumentanglementElectron-ioncolliderTMDsGPDs

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

The paper argues that the proposed Electron-Ion Collider in China (EicC)—a 15–20 GeV electron-ion collider with peak luminosity $(2\text{--}4)\times10^{33}$ cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$—would open a precision window in the moderate-$x$ sea-quark regime that no existing facility reaches. Its central quantitative claims come from pseudo-data impact studies: quark helicity uncertainties reduced by about a factor of ten for $x>0.01$, Sivers and worm-gear TMD constraints improved by up to an order of magnitude, and a roughly $3\sigma$ separation between $D^0$ and $\bar{D}^0$ Sivers asymmetries that would test the odderon-induced sign change in the Sivers function. If the facility performs at design parameters, these measurements would materially sharpen the nucleon spin budget, three-dimensional tomography, proton mass decomposition, and quantum-information probes. The review deliberately devotes substantial space to newer connections—nucleon mass studies, energy-energy correlators, quantum entanglement in deep inelastic scattering, and AI/ML extraction methods—alongside the traditional TMD and GPD agenda. Every quantitative projection scales with the assumed luminosity and polarization, parameters the paper itself flags as still under active development.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the EicC design point: center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=15$–$20$ GeV, peak luminosity $(2\text{--}4)\times10^{33}$ cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$, beam polarizations above 70%, and integrated luminosities near $107$ fb$^{-1}$ for $e$–$p$ collisions. These parameters place the collider in the moderate-$x$ sea-quark window $0.005\lesssim x\lesssim 0.3$, where spin-dependent asymmetries are sizable and the large-$Q^2$ Sudakov suppression that weakens signals at higher-energy colliders is less severe. The quantitative machinery is the pseudo-data impact study: simulated EicC measurements are appended to current global fits of helicity PDFs, TMDs, and GPDs, and the quoted physics gain is the shrinkage of the resulting uncertainty bands.

What would settle it

If EicC runs at design luminosity but real SIDIS data do not shrink quark helicity uncertainty bands by roughly an order of magnitude for $x>0.01$, or if the $D^0$ and $\bar{D}^0$ Sivers asymmetries do not show the predicted opposite-sign separation, the review's central promises would be falsified. A cheaper test is to rerun the same pseudo-data impact studies at the lower integrated luminosities listed as design variants and check whether the advertised improvements collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that EicC will be the first facility able to make precision measurements across the moderate-$x$ sea-quark sector of nucleon structure, not only because of its high luminosity but because its energy and acceptance sit where sea-quark spin signals are large and Sudakov suppression is mild. The headline projections are roughly tenfold reductions in quark helicity uncertainty for $x>0.01$, order-of-magnitude improvements in Sivers and worm-gear transverse-momentum-dependent distributions, and a $\sim3\sigma$ separation between the $D^0$ and $\bar{D}^0$ Sivers asymmetries in open-charm production, which the review presents as a decisive test of the odderon-induced sign change. The same kinematic window is argued to be ideal for constraining chiral-odd GPDs through transverse-photon-dominated exclusive meson production, and for probing gluonic gravitational form factors through near-threshold heavy quarkonium production. As a review, it assembles existing impact studies and theoretical predictions rather than reporting new data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that EicC will actually be built and operated at the design parameters used in every projection—beam energies around 3.5 GeV electrons on 20 GeV protons, polarization above 70%, and integrated luminosities near 107 fb$^{-1}$ per year for e-p—parameters the paper itself cautions are still under active development.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

EicC semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering with proton and $^3$He beams would yield flavor-separated quark helicity distributions with roughly tenfold smaller uncertainties for $x>0.01$ than current world data.
The same data set would provide the first significant constraints on strange-quark and sea-quark TMDs, including the Sivers and worm-gear functions.
Open-charm SIDIS at about 200 fb$^{-1}$ could distinguish $D^0$ and $\bar{D}^0$ Sivers asymmetries at roughly $3\sigma$, giving a decisive test of the odderon-induced sign change.
Transverse-photon-dominated deeply virtual meson production at EicC energies would sharpen constraints on chiral-odd GPDs and provide a direct probe of canonical quark orbital angular momentum.
Near-threshold $J/\psi$ production at high luminosity would constrain gluonic gravitational form factors and the trace-anomaly contribution to proton mass, complementing fixed-target measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

My inference: if EicC reaches its design luminosity, its largest legacy may be the first complete flavor-separated tomography of the sea-quark sector, since no other planned machine covers $0.005<x<0.3$ with comparable spin-sensitive statistics.
My inference: the $D^0$/$\bar{D}^0$ Sivers test is only as clean as the assumption that intrinsic charm Sivers contributions are negligible; a null or mixed-sign result would require a dedicated uncertainty analysis of intrinsic charm before the odderon picture could be ruled out.
My inference: the review's quantum-information chapter suggests EicC's lower boost is advantageous for measuring spin correlations in threshold heavy-quark and hyperon-pair production, but the paper itself notes that dedicated detector-level simulations are still needed; that is a near-term, testable extension.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper. First, it is exactly what it says it is: a review of the EicC physics potential, not a new result. Second, within that genre it is genuinely good—better than most—because it is transparent about where its quantitative claims come from and where they are soft. The EicC-specific numbers (factor-of-10 helicity improvements, order-of-magnitude Sivers and worm-gear gains, 3-sigma D0/Dbar0 separation) are all inherited from prior impact studies, and the paper says so. It also flags the contested premises that a less careful review would bury: the uniqueness debate around Ji's mass decomposition, the Sun et al. challenge to the J/psi-GFF connection, and the energy-scale mismatch in fragmentation-function data. That is honest scholarship.

The genuinely useful part is the coverage of newer topics—NEECs, quantum information in DIS, and AI/ML applications—which most existing EIC reviews treat only in passing. The formalism reported there is standard and accurately described, and the entanglement results from the cited literature are reproduced with enough detail to be checked. If you want a single entry point to the modern EicC physics case, this is it.

The soft spots are real but not hidden. The load-bearing projections scale with pseudo-data impact studies that refit the same parametrizations used to generate the pseudo-data, so they test statistical constraining power under the assumption that the true distributions live inside the chosen parametrization families. They do not validate the model choice or systematics. The paper also notes that the machine parameters are "under active development," and the 3-sigma odderon claim assumes the signal is present with a particular size. These are disclosed, genre-standard caveats, not sleights of hand, but they mean the quantitative payload should be read as conditional. The paper itself says detector-level simulations are required.

My overall take: the central argument—that EicC would be a complementary, high-luminosity window into moderate-x sea-quark structure—holds up. The citation pattern is healthy, the formalism is dependable, and the authors clearly engaged with the literature. Who is this for? Anyone working on nucleon spin, TMDs, GPDs, or the EIC program more broadly; it is the kind of review you hand to a new student. It deserves a serious referee, not because it is groundbreaking, but because it is a reliable, fairly complete map of the field with its caveats intact. I would accept it for peer review and ask the authors to keep the contextual framing of the projections prominent.

Recommendation: engage with it; cite it as the current EicC baseline; do not treat its projections as promises.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a comprehensive review of the physics case for the Electron-Ion Collider in China (EicC), a proposed polarized electron-ion collider operating at center-of-mass energies of 15-20 GeV with luminosities of (2-4)x10^33 cm^-2 s^-1. The review covers one-dimensional spin structure via helicity distributions, three-dimensional tomography through TMDs and GPDs, nucleon energy-energy correlators, the origin of proton mass via gravitational form factors and Ji's decomposition, quantum information in DIS, and AI/ML applications. Its central quantitative payload is a set of impact-study projections: quark helicity uncertainties reduced by roughly a factor of 10 for x>0.01 (Section 2.2), order-of-magnitude improvements in Sivers and worm-gear TMDs (Section 3.1.2), a projected 3-sigma separation between D0 and Dbar0 Sivers asymmetries that is claimed to test the odderon-induced sign change (Section 3.1.2), and a 27% DVCS acceptance for pion tomography (Section 3.2.2). The manuscript is transparent that the machine parameters are under active development and honestly reports several theoretical controversies, including the uniqueness debate for Eq. (4.5) and the Sun et al. challenge to the J/psi-GFF connection.

Significance. If the EicC is constructed as described, the review makes a credible case that it will occupy a unique kinematic niche in the moderate-x sea-quark region, complementary to the US-EIC and JLab. The manuscript is a valuable one-stop reference: the formal material on TMDs, GPDs, mass decomposition, and entanglement in DIS is standard and accurately reported, and the authors include honest caveats about the uniqueness of Eq. (4.5) and the model-dependence of the J/psi-GFF connection. The compilation of quantitative impact studies from cited works is useful and gives the community a compact summary of expected statistical reach. The review does not introduce new derivations, which is appropriate for a review article, but its headline numbers are inherited projections rather than independently validated results. Credit is due for explicitly flagging, in Section 2.2, that the gluon-helicity improvement outside the EicC kinematic coverage is driven by parametrization assumptions, and for noting in Table 1.1 that the design parameters are still evolving.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.2, Fig. 2.1] The central quantitative claim that quark helicity uncertainties will be reduced by a factor of about 10 for x>0.01 is presented without the caveat that this projection is obtained by adding pseudo-data generated from current global parametrizations (DSSV14) and refitting the same parametrization family. Such an impact study tests the statistical constraining power of assumed EicC data under the hypothesis that the true distributions lie inside the fitted functional forms; it does not validate the model choice or the treatment of systematic uncertainties. The manuscript already acknowledges this limitation for the gluon helicity reduction in the last sentence of Section 2.2, but the quark statement is left unqualified, which is internally inconsistent and invites over-reading.
[Section 3.1.2, Fig. 3.3] The statement that EicC can 'decisively test the odderon-induced sign change in the Sivers distribution' overstates the reach of the presented projection. The approximately 3-sigma separation between D0 and Dbar0 asymmetries is a statistical projection that assumes the signal is present with the magnitude and sign predicted by the CGC/odderon model used to generate the pseudo-data (Ref. [93]). A 3-sigma separation would be evidence favoring the sign change, but it is not by itself decisive in the usual statistical sense, and the projection does not incorporate model uncertainty in the expected asymmetry. The text should explicitly state the conditional nature of this claim.
[Table 1.1 and Sections 1.4, 2.2, 3.1.2] Every quantitative projection in the review scales with the assumed beam energies, polarizations, and integrated luminosities listed in Table 1.1, which the table itself notes 'remian under active development as the project design evolves.' This caveat appears only in the table caption and in one sentence in Section 1.4. Because the review's headline numbers (factor-of-10 helicity improvement, order-of-magnitude TMD improvements, 3-sigma odderon separation, 27% DVCS acceptance) all inherit this premise, the paper should include a general disclaimer in the abstract and at each place where a quantitative projection is quoted, so that readers do not mistake design-target projections for established capabilities.

minor comments (5)

[Table 1.1] There are typos in the table caption: 'remian' should be 'remain' and 'Be noted' should be 'Note'. The column header 'C. o. M. energy' also lists values in GeV/u for ions without a consistent notation across the table.
[Section 1.4] The text contains typographical errors: 'facilicy' should be 'facility' and 'avaialbe' should be 'available'. These should be corrected.
[Section 3.3] The final sentence 'Dedicated detector-level simulations will be required to determine the achievable precision, which is the beyond the scope this review' contains two grammatical errors and should read '... which is beyond the scope of this review.' The placement of this limitation at the end of the section is appropriate, but the same caveat should be reflected in the section's opening claims about what EicC 'could measure.'
[Section 4.2] The sentence introducing the spinors reads 'with spin eigenvalues=±1/2'; this is garbled and should be rewritten, for example as 'with spin eigenvalues s = ±1/2'.
[Figure 1.1] The axis labels in the reproduced figure text are partially garbled (e.g., 'Fraction of Momentum x' followed by broken superscripts). The figure itself may be fine, but the caption or the surrounding text should be checked for rendering errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's impact-study projections are explicitly conditional and not derived from their own inputs.

full rationale

This review contains no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs. The quantitative projections in Secs. 2.2 and 3.1.2 are explicitly presented as impact studies: pseudo-data are generated from current global parametrizations (DSSV14; the TMD fits of Refs. [85,86,87]) and then refit with more flexible parametrizations. This is a conditional statistical projection, not a prediction of the underlying distributions from the fit; the projected uncertainty reductions are genuine Fisher-information estimates given the assumed model and luminosity. The paper is transparent about the conditionality: Table 1.1 states the parameters 'remain under active development,' and Sec. 2.2 admits that uncertainty reduction in regions not covered by EicC is 'mainly due to the assumptions for the parameterizations embedded in the DSSV14 PDF sets.' The 3-sigma D0–Dbar0 separation is likewise a statistical projection under an assumed signal, framed as a capability test of the odderon sign change rather than as evidence for it. Self-citations to the EicC White Paper and CDR are normal in a facility review and are not used as a uniqueness argument. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation is shown to equal its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review introduces no new entities or parameters of its own; its quantitative payload rests on (a) assumed facility parameters that the paper itself flags as under development (Table 1.1), (b) inherited pseudo-data impact-study assumptions, and (c) contested theoretical premises that the paper honestly reports, notably the uniqueness of Ji's decomposition (Section 4.1) and the J/psi-to-GFF connection challenged by Sun et al. (Section 4.2). The free parameters listed are the main hand-chosen inputs of the projections.

free parameters (2)

Assumed integrated luminosity for impact studies = 50 fb^-1 (helicity, Sivers, worm-gear, pion F2); 100 fb^-1 (gluon helicity); 200 fb^-1 (D0 Sivers)
Chosen by hand in the cited impact studies, not fitted. Every projected uncertainty band in the review scales with these assumed integrated luminosities, which in turn assume the Table 1.1 machine luminosity of (2-4)x10^33 cm^-2 s^-1.
Kinematic acceptance cuts and detector assumptions = Q2 > 2 GeV^2 and x < 0.1 for the D0 study; 0.005 < x < 0.3 and 1 < Q2 < 30 GeV^2 for the TMD program
Selected to define EicC acceptance in the impact studies; the projected signals (for example, the roughly 3-sigma D0/Dbar0 separation in the 1.1 < p_hT/z < 2 GeV/c bin) depend on these cuts and on assumed PID and tracking performance.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption TMD, GPD, and collinear QCD factorization applies at EicC kinematics (moderate x and Q2 from a few to about 30 GeV^2)
Invoked throughout Section 3 to convert measured asymmetries into TMDs and GPDs. The text itself notes JLab's lower Q2 suffers sizable higher-twist effects (Section 3.1.1) and treats EicC's higher Q2 as an advantage claim rather than a proven fact of factorization.
domain assumption Ji's four-term proton mass decomposition (Eq. 4.5) is the physically meaningful partition
Frames all of Section 4. The review reports the decomposition 'is debated' and may depend on the renormalization scheme (Section 4.1), so the mass program rests on a contested framework.
domain assumption Near-threshold J/psi photoproduction probes gluon gravitational form factors
Central to the EicC mass program (Section 4.4). Section 4.2 reports Sun et al. [170] concluding 'there is no direct connection' between this process and gluon GFFs, a direct challenge the paper itself documents.
domain assumption Fragmentation functions extracted at higher energy scales transfer to EicC's low Q2
Section 2.2 flags the open energy-scale mismatch between e+e- FF data (Q > 10 GeV) and SIDIS (low Q), so flavor-tagged helicity and TMD projections inherit fragmentation-function uncertainty.
domain assumption Pseudo-data impact studies are a valid forecast of real experimental precision
All quantitative claims in Sections 2 and 3 use pseudo-data generated from current parametrizations and refit them; Section 3.3 concedes detector-level simulations are required, so these are self-consistency checks of current models, not validated forecasts.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics of the Electron-Ion Collider in China." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3M5OIX6L

@misc{pith2026260811712,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics of the Electron-Ion Collider in China},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3M5OIX6L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11712}
}

abstract

The Electron-Ion Collider in China (EicC), a cutting-edge facility under development, aims to unveil the internal structure of nucleons and nuclei by leveraging collisions of high-intensity polarized electrons and ions (polarized protons, polarized deuterons, polarized $^{3}$He, and unpolarized heavy ions up to Uranium) at center-of-mass energies of 15-20 GeV and luminosity of (2-4)$\times 10^{33}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$. Its primary physics objectives include 3D tomography of nucleon spin and momentum structure, fundamental questions regarding the origin of nucleon mass, partonic structure of nuclei and parton interactions with the nuclear environment, and exploration of exotic hadronic states. In this paper, we review the physics potential of the EicC and highlight its unique capabilities for advancing precision nucleon structure studies by combining its specialized kinematic coverage and high luminosity. Since traditional topics like 3D nucleon structure have already been well-covered by several extensive reviews, we have deliberately dedicated significant space to recent progress in nucleon mass decomposition, nucleon energy-energy correlation, quantum information, and artificial intelligence applications in high-energy nuclear physics, which have been emerging rapidly and attracted a tremendous amount of attention in the community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11712 by the authors.

**Figure 1.1.** Kinematic coverage of deep inelastic scattering process for different beam energy configurations at two proposed electron-ion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.1.** Helicity distributions for different partons. Impact study shows that the precision of quark helicity distributions in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.2.** Impact on the NNPDFpol1.1 [50] singlet ∆Σ and gluon ∆g PDFs for the e-p collision energies 5 GeV × 25 GeV (left) and 3.5 GeV × 20 GeV (right) at EicC with integrated luminosity of 100 fb−1 respectively. The hashed bands show the impact of the pseudo-data on the distributions’ uncertainties, whereas the solid bands show the original uncertainty. The bottom plots show the ratio of ∆g(x)/g(x) plotted as a function of t… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (14 more)

**Figure 2.3.** Figure 2.3: Theoretical predictions for the K0 S and K± yield ratio in SIDIS process on a proton target with two scenarios: 1. K0 S yield is calculated by the K0 S fragmentation functions extracted via global data fits to K0 S productions; 2. K0 S yield is calculated by using K±…

**Figure 3.1.** Figure 3.1: Eight quark TMDs at leading twist. The introduction of T-odd TMDs, posed a profound theoretical puzzle regarding time-reversal invariance. For years, these functions were widely believed to vanish due to naive time-reversal symmetry [70]. This paradigm was shattered …

**Figure 3.2.** Figure 3.2: The transverse momentum distribution of the Sivers functions at different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3_2.png]

**Figure 3.3.** Figure 3.3: The projected single spin asymmetry for D0 and D¯ 0 production in SIDIS process at EicC. The figure is adapted from Ref. [93] (CC BY 4.0). Similarly, extensive impact studies have been performed for the trans-helicity worm-gear function g ⊥ 1T . Projections incorpora…

**Figure 3.4.** Figure 3.4: The impact on the constraint of d quark worm gear function with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3_4.png]

**Figure 3.5.** Figure 3.5: EicC projection on the tensor charge gT along with results from lattice QCD calculations, and phenomenological extractions. The figure is adapted from Ref. [86] (CC BY 4.0). The impact study was assumed with 50 fb−1 of ep and e 3He collisions, separately. EicC enable…

**Figure 3.6.** Figure 3.6: DVCS process(left panel), TCS process(middle panel) and DVMP process(right panel). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3_6.png]

**Figure 3.7.** Figure 3.7: The statistics errors of the projected A cos ϕ LL asymmetry (left) and A sin 2ϕ UL asymmetry (right) for π 0 production in DVMP process at the EicC. The figure is adapted from Ref. [36] (CC BY 4.0). The π 0 channel further provides a direct probe of canonical quark O…

**Figure 3.8.** Figure 3.8: (Left) The unpolarized cross section for US-EIC kinematics with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3_8.png]

**Figure 3.9.** Figure 3.9: The projected pion structure function F π 2 (left panel), and the kaon structure function F K 2 (right panel). Both cases assume an integrated luminosity of 50 fb−1 and 3.5 × 20 GeV2 energy setting. Error bars show the statistical uncertainty, while color boxes show …

**Figure 4.1.** Figure 4.1: The leading order Feynman diagram contributing to exclusive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_4_1.png]

**Figure 5.1.** Figure 5.1: Cartoon for the entropy production in DIS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_5_1.png]

**Figure 5.2.** Figure 5.2: Density plots of the concurrence C[ρT ] associated with the transverse photon polarization state at EICs [200], presented as functions of the quark velocity β and z = cos θ for representative values of the virtuality parameter α. The solid and dashed contour lines in…

**Figure 6.1.** Figure 6.1: Illustration of the application of NN on the extraction of PDFs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_6_1.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

295 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

[93]

S. Zhu, D. Zheng, L. Xia, Y. Zhang, Charm Sivers function at the EicC, Phys. Rev. D 111 (7) (2025) 076024. arXiv:2409.00653,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.076024. 68

arXiv 2025
[1]

Hofstadter, Electron scattering and nuclear structure, Rev

R. Hofstadter, Electron scattering and nuclear structure, Rev. Mod. Phys. 28 (1956) 214–254.doi:10.1103/ RevModPhys.28.214

1956
[2]

Gell-Mann, A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons, Phys

M. Gell-Mann, A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons, Phys. Lett. 8 (1964) 214–215.doi:10.1016/ S0031-9163(64)92001-3

1964
[3]

Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking

G. Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking. Version 1 (1 1964).doi:10.17181/ CERN-TH-401. 62

1964
[4]

E. D. Bloom, D. H. Coward, H. C. DeStaebler, J. Drees, G. Miller, L. W. Mo, R. E. Taylor, M. Breidenbach, J. I. Friedman, G. C. Hartmann, et al., High-Energy InelasticepScattering at 6-Degrees and 10-Degrees, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (1969) 930–934.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.930

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.23.930 1969
[5]

Breidenbach, J

M. Breidenbach, J. I. Friedman, H. W. Kendall, E. D. Bloom, D. H. Coward, H. C. DeStaebler, J. Drees, L. W. Mo, R. E. Taylor, Observed behavior of highly inelastic electron-proton scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (1969) 935–939. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.935

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.23.935 1969
[6]

H. D. Politzer, Reliable Perturbative Results for Strong Interactions?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30 (1973) 1346–1349. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.30.1346

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.30.1346 1973
[7]

D. J. Gross, F. Wilczek, Asymptotically Free Gauge Theories - I, Phys. Rev. D 8 (1973) 3633–3652.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.8.3633

1973

Show all 295 references

[8]

Jaffe, E

A. Jaffe, E. Witten, Quantum Yang-Mills theory, Clay Mathematics Institute Millennium Prize ProblemsAvailable athttp://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/yangmills.pdf(2000)

2000
[9]

V. N. Gribov, L. N. Lipatov, Deep inelastic e p scattering in perturbation theory, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15 (1972) 438–450.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(72)90279-9

1972 doi
[10]

Altarelli, G

G. Altarelli, G. Parisi, Asymptotic Freedom in Parton Language, Nucl. Phys. B 126 (1977) 298–318.doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(77)90384-4

1977
[11]

Y. L. Dokshitzer, Calculation of the Structure Functions for Deep Inelastic Scattering and e+ e- Annihilation by Perturbation Theory in Quantum Chromodynamics., Sov. Phys. JETP 46 (1977) 641–653.doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(77)90384-4

1977
[12]

K. J. Golec-Biernat, M. Wusthoff, Saturation effects in deep inelastic scattering at low Q**2 and its implications on diffraction, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1998) 014017.arXiv:hep-ph/9807513,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.014017

1998 arXiv
[13]

A. M. Stasto, K. J. Golec-Biernat, J. Kwiecinski, Geometric scaling for the totalγ∗pcross-section in the lowx region, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 596–599.arXiv:hep-ph/0007192,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.596

2001 arXiv
[14]

Iancu, K

E. Iancu, K. Itakura, S. Munier, Saturation and BFKL dynamics in the HERA data at small x, Phys. Lett. B 590 (2004) 199–208.arXiv:hep-ph/0310338,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.02.040

2004 arXiv
[15]

K. J. Golec-Biernat, M. Wusthoff, Saturation in diffractive deep inelastic scattering, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 114023. arXiv:hep-ph/9903358,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.114023

1999 arXiv
[16]

Gelis, E

F. Gelis, E. Iancu, J. Jalilian-Marian, R. Venugopalan, The Color Glass Condensate, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 463–489.arXiv:1002.0333,doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.010909.083629

2010 arXiv
[17]

B. I. Abelev, et al., Longitudinal double-spin asymmetry and cross section for inclusive neutral pion production at midrapidity in polarized proton collisions at√s= 200GeV, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 111108.arXiv:0911.2773, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.111108

2009 arXiv
[18]

Adare, et al., Event Structure and Double Helicity Asymmetry in Jet Production from Polarizedp+pCollisions at√s= 200~GeV, Phys

A. Adare, et al., Event Structure and Double Helicity Asymmetry in Jet Production from Polarizedp+pCollisions at√s= 200~GeV, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 012006.arXiv:1009.4921,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.84.012006. 63

2011 arXiv
[19]

Adamczyk, et al., Precision Measurement of the Longitudinal Double-spin Asymmetry for Inclusive Jet Produc- tion in Polarized Proton Collisions at√s= 200GeV, Phys

L. Adamczyk, et al., Precision Measurement of the Longitudinal Double-spin Asymmetry for Inclusive Jet Produc- tion in Polarized Proton Collisions at√s= 200GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (9) (2015) 092002.arXiv:1405.5134, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.092002

2015 arXiv
[20]

Adare, et al., Charged-pion cross sections and double-helicity asymmetries in polarized p+p collisions at√s=200 GeV, Phys

A. Adare, et al., Charged-pion cross sections and double-helicity asymmetries in polarized p+p collisions at√s=200 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 91 (3) (2015) 032001.arXiv:1409.1907,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.032001

2015
[21]

Adam, et al., Longitudinal double-spin asymmetry for inclusive jet and dijet production in pp collisions at √s= 510GeV, Phys

J. Adam, et al., Longitudinal double-spin asymmetry for inclusive jet and dijet production in pp collisions at √s= 510GeV, Phys. Rev. D 100 (5) (2019) 052005.arXiv:1906.02740,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.052005

2019
[22]

Acharya, et al., Measurement of Direct-Photon Cross Section and Double-Helicity Asymmetry at s=510 GeV in⃗ p+⃗ pCollisions, Phys

U. Acharya, et al., Measurement of Direct-Photon Cross Section and Double-Helicity Asymmetry at s=510 GeV in⃗ p+⃗ pCollisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (25) (2023) 251901.arXiv:2202.08158,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130. 251901

2023
[23]

Ji, A QCD analysis of the mass structure of the nucleon, Phys

X.-D. Ji, A QCD analysis of the mass structure of the nucleon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 1071–1074.arXiv: hep-ph/9410274,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.1071

1995 arXiv
[24]

Ji, Breakup of hadron masses and energy - momentum tensor of QCD, Phys

X.-D. Ji, Breakup of hadron masses and energy - momentum tensor of QCD, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 271–281. arXiv:hep-ph/9502213,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.271

1995 arXiv
[25]

Ashman, et al., A Measurement of the Spin Asymmetry and Determination of the Structure Function g(1) in Deep Inelastic Muon-Proton Scattering, Phys

J. Ashman, et al., A Measurement of the Spin Asymmetry and Determination of the Structure Function g(1) in Deep Inelastic Muon-Proton Scattering, Phys. Lett. B 206 (1988) 364.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88)91523-7

1988 doi
[26]

R. L. Jaffe, A. Manohar, Theg1 Problem: Fact and Fantasy on the Spin of the Proton, Nucl. Phys. B 337 (1990) 509–546.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90506-9

1990 doi
[27]

Boer, et al., Gluons and the quark sea at high energies: Distributions, polarization, tomography (8 2011)

D. Boer, et al., Gluons and the quark sea at high energies: Distributions, polarization, tomography (8 2011). arXiv:1108.1713

2011 arXiv
[28]

Accardi, et al., Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all, Eur

A. Accardi, et al., Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (9) (2016) 268.arXiv:1212.1701,doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16268-9

2016 arXiv
[29]

URLhttps://www.nap.edu/catalog/25171/an-assessment-of-us-based-electron-ion-collider-science

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, An assessment of u.s.-based electron-ion collider science (2018).doi:10.17226/25171. URLhttps://www.nap.edu/catalog/25171/an-assessment-of-us-based-electron-ion-collider-science

2018 doi
[30]

Abdul Khalek, et al., Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report, Nucl

R. Abdul Khalek, et al., Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report, Nucl. Phys. A 1026 (2022) 122447.arXiv:2103.05419,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2022.122447

2022 arXiv
[31]

E. C. Aschenauer, S. Fazio, J. H. Lee, H. Mantysaari, B. S. Page, B. Schenke, T. Ullrich, R. Venugopalan, P. Zurita, The electron–ion collider: assessing the energy dependence of key measurements, Rept. Prog. Phys. 82 (2) (2019) 024301.arXiv:1708.01527,doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aaf216

2019 arXiv
[32]

V. D. Burkert, et al., Precision studies of QCD in the low energy domain of the EIC, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 131 (2023) 104032.arXiv:2211.15746,doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104032

2023 arXiv
[33]

Alexandrou, et al., Precision QCD with the Electron-Ion Collider, 2026.arXiv:2604.04765

C. Alexandrou, et al., Precision QCD with the Electron-Ion Collider, 2026.arXiv:2604.04765. 64

2026 arXiv
[34]

Abbott, et al., ePIC Early Science Report (8 2026).arXiv:2608.05377

D. Abbott, et al., ePIC Early Science Report (8 2026).arXiv:2608.05377

2026
[35]

CAO, et al., Electron ion collider in China, Nucl

X. CAO, et al., Electron ion collider in China, Nucl. Tech. 43 (2) (2024) 020001.doi:10.11889/j.0253-3219. 2020.hjs.43.020001

2024 doi
[36]

D. P. Anderle, et al., Electron-ion collider in China, Front. Phys. (Beijing) 16 (6) (2021) 64701.arXiv:2102.09222, doi:10.1007/s11467-021-1062-0

2021 arXiv
[37]

I. I. Strakovsky, W. J. Briscoe, L. Pentchev, A. Schmidt, Threshold Upsilon-meson photoproduction at the EIC and EicC, Phys. Rev. D 104 (7) (2021) 074028.arXiv:2108.02871,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.074028

2021 arXiv
[38]

Koppenburg, New particles discovered at the LHC, accessed: 2025 (2025)

P. Koppenburg, New particles discovered at the LHC, accessed: 2025 (2025). URLhttps://www.koppenburg.ch/particles.html

2025
[39]

URLhttps://english.ihep.cas.cn/bes/re/pu/NewParticles/

BESIII Collaboration, New Particles Discovered by BESIII, accessed: 2025 (2025). URLhttps://english.ihep.cas.cn/bes/re/pu/NewParticles/

2025
[40]

H. Cao, X. Liu, H. X. Zhu, Toward precision measurements of nucleon energy correlators in lepton-nucleon collisions, Phys. Rev. D 107 (11) (2023) 114008.arXiv:2303.01530,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.114008

2023 arXiv
[41]

Chen, F.-K

X. Chen, F.-K. Guo, C. D. Roberts, R. Wang, Selected Science Opportunities for the EicC, Few Body Syst. 61 (4) (2020) 43.arXiv:2008.00102,doi:10.1007/s00601-020-01574-0

2020 arXiv
[42]

de Florian, R

D. de Florian, R. Sassot, M. Stratmann, W. Vogelsang, Extraction of Spin-Dependent Parton Densities and Their Uncertainties, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 034030.arXiv:0904.3821,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.034030

2009 arXiv
[43]

C. A. Aidala, S. D. Bass, D. Hasch, G. K. Mallot, The Spin Structure of the Nucleon, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85 (2013) 655–691.arXiv:1209.2803,doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.85.655

2013 arXiv
[44]

Altarelli, G

G. Altarelli, G. G. Ross, The Anomalous Gluon Contribution to Polarized Leptoproduction, Phys. Lett. B 212 (1988) 391–396.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88)91335-4

1988 doi
[45]

R. D. Carlitz, J. C. Collins, A. H. Mueller, The Role of the Axial Anomaly in Measuring Spin Dependent Parton Distributions, Phys. Lett. B 214 (1988) 229–236.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88)91474-8

1988 doi
[46]

D. P. Anderle, T.-J. Hou, H. Xing, M. Yan, C. P. Yuan, Y. Zhao, Determining the helicity structure of the nucleon at the Electron Ion Collider in China, JHEP 08 (2021) 034.arXiv:2103.10276,doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2021)034

2021 arXiv
[47]

Hekhorn, M

F. Hekhorn, M. Stratmann, Next-to-Leading Order QCD Corrections to Inclusive Heavy-Flavor Production in Po- larized Deep-Inelastic Scattering, Phys. Rev. D 98 (1) (2018) 014018.arXiv:1805.09026,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 98.014018

2018 arXiv
[48]

A. Metz, A. Vossen, Parton Fragmentation Functions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 91 (2016) 136–202.arXiv:1607. 02521,doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.08.003

2016 doi
[49]

Khanpour, M

H. Khanpour, M. Soleymaninia, M. Azizi, M. Klasen, H. Hashamipour, M. Salajegheh, U.-G. Meißner, Toward precision helicity PDFs from global DIS and SIDIS fits with projected EIC measurements, Phys. Rev. D 113 (11) (2026) 114010.arXiv:2602.17298,doi:10.1103/wc54-mnfh. 65

2026 arXiv
[50]

E. R. Nocera, R. D. Ball, S. Forte, G. Ridolfi, J. Rojo, A first unbiased global determination of polarized PDFs and their uncertainties, Nucl. Phys. B 887 (2014) 276–308.arXiv:1406.5539,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2014.08. 008

2014 arXiv
[51]

R. D. Ball, et al., Parton distributions with LHC data, Nucl. Phys. B 867 (2013) 244–289.arXiv:1207.1303, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.10.003

2013 arXiv
[52]

D. P. Anderle, A. Guo, F. Hekhorn, Y. Liang, Y. Ma, L. Xia, H. Xing, Y. Zhao, Probing gluon distributions with D0 production at the EicC, Phys. Rev. D 109 (3) (2024) 034021.arXiv:2307.16135,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 109.034021

2024 arXiv
[53]

T. Khan, T. Liu, R. S. Sufian, Gluon helicity in the nucleon from lattice QCD and machine learning, Phys. Rev. D 108 (7) (2023) 074502.arXiv:2211.15587,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.074502

2023 arXiv
[54]

S. Xu, C. Mondal, X. Zhao, Y. Li, J. P. Vary, Quark and gluon spin and orbital angular momentum in the proton, Phys. Rev. D 108 (9) (2023) 094002.arXiv:2209.08584,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.094002

2023 arXiv
[55]

Ablikim, et al., Measurements of Normalized Differential Cross Sections of Inclusiveπ0 and KS0 Production in e+e- Annihilation at Energies from 2.2324 to 3.6710 GeV, Phys

M. Ablikim, et al., Measurements of Normalized Differential Cross Sections of Inclusiveπ0 and KS0 Production in e+e- Annihilation at Energies from 2.2324 to 3.6710 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (23) (2023) 231901.arXiv: 2211.11253,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.231901

2023
[56]

Ablikim, et al., Measurements of Normalized Differential Cross Sections of InclusiveηProduction in e+e- Annihilation at Energy from 2.0000 to 3.6710 GeV, Phys

M. Ablikim, et al., Measurements of Normalized Differential Cross Sections of InclusiveηProduction in e+e- Annihilation at Energy from 2.0000 to 3.6710 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2) (2024) 021901.arXiv:2401.17873, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.021901

2024
[57]

Ablikim, et al., Single Inclusiveπ± andK ± Production ine +e− Annihilation at center-of-mass Energies from 2.000 to 3.671GeV, Phys

M. Ablikim, et al., Single Inclusiveπ± andK ± Production ine +e− Annihilation at center-of-mass Energies from 2.000 to 3.671GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (2025) 151901.arXiv:2502.16084,doi:10.1103/5kxw-3mbw

2025
[58]

J. Gao, X. Shen, H. Xing, Y. Zhao, B. Zhou, Fragmentation Functions of Charged Hadrons at Next-to-Next-to- Leading Order and Constraints on the Proton Parton Distribution Functions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (4) (2025) 041902.arXiv:2502.17837,doi:10.1103/mcwy-b221

2025 arXiv
[59]

J. Gao, C. Liu, M. Li, X. Shen, H. Xing, Y. Zhao, Y. Zhou, Global analysis of fragmentation functions to light neutral hadrons, Phys. Rev. D 112 (5) (2025) 054045.arXiv:2503.21311,doi:10.1103/t5ds-vvc4

2025
[60]

Boussarie, et al., TMD Handbook (4 2023).arXiv:2304.03302

R. Boussarie, et al., TMD Handbook (4 2023).arXiv:2304.03302

2023 arXiv
[61]

Mueller, D

D. Mueller, D. Robaschik, B. Geyer, F. M. Dittes, J. Horejsi, Wave functions, evolution equations and evolution kernels from light ray operators of QCD, Fortsch. Phys. 42 (1994) 101–141.arXiv:hep-ph/9812448,doi:10.1002/ prop.2190420202

1994 arXiv
[62]

Ji, Gauge-Invariant Decomposition of Nucleon Spin, Phys

X.-D. Ji, Gauge-Invariant Decomposition of Nucleon Spin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 610–613.arXiv:hep-ph/ 9603249,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.610

1997 doi
[63]

Diehl, Generalized parton distributions, Phys

M. Diehl, Generalized parton distributions, Phys. Rept. 388 (2003) 41–277.arXiv:hep-ph/0307382,doi:10.1016/ j.physrep.2003.08.002. 66

2003 arXiv
[64]

Ji, Viewing the proton through ’color’ filters, Phys

X.-d. Ji, Viewing the proton through ’color’ filters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 062001.arXiv:hep-ph/0304037, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.062001

2003 arXiv
[65]

J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, Back-To-Back Jets in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 193 (1981) 381, [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 213, 545 (1983)].doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90339-4

1981 doi
[66]

J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, G. F. Sterman, Transverse Momentum Distribution in Drell-Yan Pair and W and Z Boson Production, Nucl. Phys. B 250 (1985) 199–224.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90479-1

1985 doi
[67]

P. J. Mulders, R. D. Tangerman, The Complete tree level result up to order 1/Q for polarized deep inelastic leptoproduction, Nucl. Phys. B 461 (1996) 197–237, [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 484, 538–540 (1997)].arXiv:hep-ph/ 9510301,doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00632-X

1996 doi
[68]

D. Boer, P. J. Mulders, Time reversal odd distribution functions in leptoproduction, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 5780–5786.arXiv:hep-ph/9711485,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.5780

1998 arXiv
[69]

D. W. Sivers, Hard scattering scaling laws for single spin production asymmetries, Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 261–263. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.43.261

1991 doi
[70]

J. C. Collins, Fragmentation of transversely polarized quarks probed in transverse momentum distributions, Nucl. Phys. B 396 (1993) 161–182.arXiv:hep-ph/9208213,doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90262-N

1993 arXiv
[71]

S. J. Brodsky, D. S. Hwang, I. Schmidt, Final state interactions and single spin asymmetries in semiinclusive deep inelastic scattering, Phys. Lett. B 530 (2002) 99–107.arXiv:hep-ph/0201296,doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02) 01320-5

2002 arXiv
[72]

J. C. Collins, Leading twist single transverse-spin asymmetries: Drell-Yan and deep inelastic scattering, Phys. Lett. B 536 (2002) 43–48.arXiv:hep-ph/0204004,doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01819-1

2002 arXiv
[73]

K. Yang, T. Liu, P. Sun, Y. Zhao, B.-Q. Ma, First Extraction of Transverse-Momentum Dependent Helicity Distri- butions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (12) (2025) 121902.arXiv:2409.08110,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.121902

2025 arXiv
[74]

Qian, et al., Single Spin Asymmetries in Charged Pion Production from Semi-Inclusive Deep Inelastic Scattering on a Transversely Polarized3He Target, Phys

X. Qian, et al., Single Spin Asymmetries in Charged Pion Production from Semi-Inclusive Deep Inelastic Scattering on a Transversely Polarized3He Target, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 072003.arXiv:1106.0363,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.107.072003

2011 arXiv
[75]

Adolph, et al., Collins and Sivers asymmetries in muonproduction of pions and kaons off transversely polarised protons, Phys

C. Adolph, et al., Collins and Sivers asymmetries in muonproduction of pions and kaons off transversely polarised protons, Phys. Lett. B 744 (2015) 250–259.arXiv:1408.4405,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.03.056

2015 arXiv
[76]

Adolph, et al., II – Experimental investigation of transverse spin asymmetries inµ-p SIDIS processes: Sivers asymmetries, Phys

C. Adolph, et al., II – Experimental investigation of transverse spin asymmetries inµ-p SIDIS processes: Sivers asymmetries, Phys. Lett. B 717 (2012) 383–389.arXiv:1205.5122,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.09.056

2012 arXiv
[77]

A. Airapetian, et al., Azimuthal single- and double-spin asymmetries in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic lepton scatter- ing by transversely polarized protons, JHEP 12 (2020) 010.arXiv:2007.07755,doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2020)010

2020 arXiv
[78]

Airapetian, et al., Observation of the Naive-T-odd Sivers Effect in Deep-Inelastic Scattering, Phys

A. Airapetian, et al., Observation of the Naive-T-odd Sivers Effect in Deep-Inelastic Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 152002.arXiv:0906.3918,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.152002. 67

2009 arXiv
[79]

Huang, et al., Beam-Target Double Spin AsymmetryALT in Charged Pion Production from Deep Inelastic Scattering on a Transversely Polarized3He Target at 1.4<Q 2 <2.7 GeV 2, Phys

J. Huang, et al., Beam-Target Double Spin AsymmetryALT in Charged Pion Production from Deep Inelastic Scattering on a Transversely Polarized3He Target at 1.4<Q 2 <2.7 GeV 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 052001. arXiv:1108.0489,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.052001

2012 arXiv
[80]

Aghasyan, et al., First measurement of transverse-spin-dependent azimuthal asymmetries in the Drell-Yan process, Phys

M. Aghasyan, et al., First measurement of transverse-spin-dependent azimuthal asymmetries in the Drell-Yan process, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (11) (2017) 112002.arXiv:1704.00488,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.112002

2017 arXiv
[81]

Abe, et al., Measurement of azimuthal asymmetries in inclusive production of hadron pairs in e+ e- annihilation at Belle, Phys

K. Abe, et al., Measurement of azimuthal asymmetries in inclusive production of hadron pairs in e+ e- annihilation at Belle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 232002.arXiv:hep-ex/0507063,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.232002

2006 arXiv
[82]

Vossen, et al., Observation of transverse polarization asymmetries of charged pion pairs ine+e− annihilation near √s= 10.58GeV, Phys

A. Vossen, et al., Observation of transverse polarization asymmetries of charged pion pairs ine+e− annihilation near √s= 10.58GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 072004.arXiv:1104.2425,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.072004

2011 arXiv
[83]

Accardi, T

A. Accardi, T. Hobbs, W. Melnitchouk, Hadron mass corrections in semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering, JHEP 11 (2009) 084.arXiv:0907.2395,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/11/084

2009 arXiv
[84]

M.Boglione, J.Collins, L.Gamberg, J.O.Gonzalez-Hernandez, T.C.Rogers, N.Sato, KinematicsofCurrentRegion Fragmentation in Semi-Inclusive Deeply Inelastic Scattering, Phys. Lett. B 766 (2017) 245–253.arXiv:1611.10329, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.01.021

2017 arXiv
[85]

C. Zeng, T. Liu, P. Sun, Y. Zhao, Toward three-dimensional nucleon structures at the Electron-Ion Collider in China: A study of the Sivers function, Phys. Rev. D 106 (9) (2022) 094039.arXiv:2208.14620,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.106.094039

2022 arXiv
[86]

C. Zeng, H. Dong, T. Liu, P. Sun, Y. Zhao, Role of sea quarks in the nucleon transverse spin, Phys. Rev. D 109 (5) (2024) 056002.arXiv:2310.15532,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.056002

2024 arXiv
[87]

K. Yang, T. Liu, P. Sun, Y. Zhao, B.-Q. Ma, Extraction of transhelicity worm-gear distributions and opportunities at the Electron-Ion Collider in China, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3) (2024) 034036.arXiv:2403.12795,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.110.034036

2024 arXiv
[88]

Zheng, E

L. Zheng, E. C. Aschenauer, J. H. Lee, B.-W. Xiao, Z.-B. Yin, Accessing the gluon Sivers function at a future electron-ion collider, Phys. Rev. D 98 (3) (2018) 034011.arXiv:1805.05290,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.034011

2018 arXiv
[89]

Zhou, Transverse single spin asymmetries at small x and the anomalous magnetic moment, Phys

J. Zhou, Transverse single spin asymmetries at small x and the anomalous magnetic moment, Phys. Rev. D 89 (7) (2014) 074050.arXiv:1308.5912,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.074050

2014 arXiv
[90]

D. Boer, M. G. Echevarria, P. Mulders, J. Zhou, Single spin asymmetries from a single Wilson loop, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (12) (2016) 122001.arXiv:1511.03485,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.122001

2016 arXiv
[91]

H.Dong, D.-X.Zheng, J.Zhou, SeaquarkSiversdistribution, Phys.Lett.B788(2019)401–408.arXiv:1805.09479, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.11.010

2019 arXiv
[92]

D. Boer, Y. Hagiwara, J. Zhou, Y.-j. Zhou, Scale evolution of T-odd gluon TMDs at small x, Phys. Rev. D 105 (9) (2022) 096017.arXiv:2203.00267,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.096017

2022 arXiv
[94]

Cocuzza, A

C. Cocuzza, A. Metz, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, N. Sato, R. Seidl, Transversity Distributions and Tensor Charges of the Nucleon: Extraction from Dihadron Production and Their Universal Nature, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (9) (2024) 091901.arXiv:2306.12998,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.091901

2024 arXiv
[95]

Ji, X.-Y

Z. Ji, X.-Y. Zhao, A.-Q. Guo, Q.-H. Xu, J.-L. Zhang, Lambda polarization at the Electron-ion collider in China, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 34 (10) (2023) 155.arXiv:2308.15998,doi:10.1007/s41365-023-01317-w

2023 arXiv
[96]

M. A. Ebert, I. W. Stewart, Y. Zhao, Determining the Nonperturbative Collins-Soper Kernel From Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 99 (3) (2019) 034505.arXiv:1811.00026,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.034505

2019 arXiv
[97]

Zhang, et al., Lattice-QCD Calculations of TMD Soft Function Through Large-Momentum Effective Theory, Phys

Q.-A. Zhang, et al., Lattice-QCD Calculations of TMD Soft Function Through Large-Momentum Effective Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (19) (2020) 192001.arXiv:2005.14572,doi:10.22323/1.396.0477

2020 arXiv
[98]

He, M.-H

J.-C. He, M.-H. Chu, J. Hua, X. Ji, A. Schäfer, Y. Su, W. Wang, Y.-B. Yang, J.-H. Zhang, Q.-A. Zhang, Unpolarized transverse momentum dependent parton distributions of the nucleon from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 109 (11) (2024) 114513.arXiv:2211.02340,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.114513

2024 arXiv
[99]

Chu, et al., Transverse-momentum-dependent wave functions of the pion from lattice QCD, Phys

M.-H. Chu, et al., Transverse-momentum-dependent wave functions of the pion from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 109 (9) (2024) L091503.arXiv:2302.09961,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L091503

2024 arXiv
[100]

B. U. Musch, P. Hagler, M. Engelhardt, J. W. Negele, A. Schafer, Sivers and Boer-Mulders observables from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 094510.arXiv:1111.4249,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.094510

2012 arXiv
[101]

B. Yoon, M. Engelhardt, R. Gupta, T. Bhattacharya, J. R. Green, B. U. Musch, J. W. Negele, A. V. Pochin- sky, A. Schäfer, S. N. Syritsyn, Nucleon Transverse Momentum-dependent Parton Distributions in Lattice QCD: Renormalization Patterns and Discretization Effects, Phys. Rev. ...

2017 arXiv
[102]

Engelhardt, P

M. Engelhardt, P. Hägler, B. Musch, J. Negele, A. Schäfer, Lattice QCD study of the Boer-Mulders effect in a pion, Phys. Rev. D 93 (5) (2016) 054501.arXiv:1506.07826,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.054501

2016 arXiv
[103]

Liang, X.-N

Z.-t. Liang, X.-N. Wang, J. Zhou, The Transverse-momentum-dependent Parton Distribution Function and Jet Transport in Medium, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 125010.arXiv:0801.0434,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.125010

2008 arXiv
[104]

Schäfer, J

A. Schäfer, J. Zhou, Process dependent nucleark⊥ broadening effect, Phys. Rev. D 88 (7) (2013) 074012.arXiv: 1305.5042,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.074012

2013 arXiv
[105]

Ru, Z.-B

P. Ru, Z.-B. Kang, E. Wang, H. Xing, B.-W. Zhang, Global extraction of the jet transport coefficient in cold nuclear matter, Phys. Rev. D 103 (3) (2021) L031901.arXiv:1907.11808,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L031901

2021 arXiv
[106]

Ru, Z.-B

P. Ru, Z.-B. Kang, E. Wang, H. Xing, B.-W. Zhang, Probing the jet transport coefficient of cold nuclear matter in electron-ion collisions (2 2023).arXiv:2302.02329

2023 arXiv
[107]

Ji, Deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys

X.-D. Ji, Deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 7114–7125.arXiv:hep-ph/9609381,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.7114

1997 arXiv
[108]

A. V. Radyushkin, Nonforward parton distributions, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 5524–5557.arXiv:hep-ph/9704207, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.5524. 69

1997 arXiv
[109]

Burkardt, Impact parameter dependent parton distributions and off forward parton distributions for zeta — >0, Phys

M. Burkardt, Impact parameter dependent parton distributions and off forward parton distributions for zeta — >0, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 071503, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 66, 119903 (2002)].arXiv:hep-ph/0005108,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.071503

2000 arXiv
[110]

Burkardt, Impact parameter space interpretation for generalized parton distributions, Int

M. Burkardt, Impact parameter space interpretation for generalized parton distributions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 18 (2003) 173–208.arXiv:hep-ph/0207047,doi:10.1142/S0217751X03012370

2003 arXiv
[111]

M. V. Polyakov, Generalized parton distributions and strong forces inside nucleons and nuclei, Phys. Lett. B 555 (2003) 57–62.arXiv:hep-ph/0210165,doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00036-4

2003 arXiv
[112]

Moutarde, P

H. Moutarde, P. Sznajder, J. Wagner, Border and skewness functions from a leading order fit to DVCS data, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (11) (2018) 890.arXiv:1807.07620,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6359-y

2018 arXiv
[113]

Kumerički, D

K. Kumerički, D. Mueller, Deeply virtual Compton scattering at smallxB and the access to the GPD H, Nucl. Phys. B 841 (2010) 1–58.arXiv:0904.0458,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.07.015

2010 arXiv
[114]

Y. Guo, X. Ji, M. G. Santiago, K. Shiells, J. Yang, Generalized parton distributions through universal moment parameterization: non-zero skewness case, JHEP 05 (2023) 150.arXiv:2302.07279,doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2023) 150

2023 arXiv
[115]

Bertone, H

V. Bertone, H. Dutrieux, C. Mezrag, H. Moutarde, P. Sznajder, Deconvolution problem of deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys. Rev. D 103 (11) (2021) 114019.arXiv:2104.03836,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.114019

2021 arXiv
[116]

Moffat, A

E. Moffat, A. Freese, I. Cloët, T. Donohoe, L. Gamberg, W. Melnitchouk, A. Metz, A. Prokudin, N. Sato, Shedding light on shadow generalized parton distributions, Phys. Rev. D 108 (3) (2023) 036027.arXiv:2303.12006,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.036027

2023 arXiv
[117]

Lin, Nucleon helicity generalized parton distribution at physical pion mass from lattice QCD, Phys

H.-W. Lin, Nucleon helicity generalized parton distribution at physical pion mass from lattice QCD, Phys. Lett. B 824 (2022) 136821.arXiv:2112.07519,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136821

2022 arXiv
[118]

S. V. Goloskokov, P. Kroll, An Attempt to understand exclusive pi+ electroproduction, Eur. Phys. J. C 65 (2010) 137–151.arXiv:0906.0460,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-009-1178-9

2010 arXiv
[119]

S. V. Goloskokov, P. Kroll, Transversity in hard exclusive electroproduction of pseudoscalar mesons, Eur. Phys. J. A 47 (2011) 112.arXiv:1106.4897,doi:10.1140/epja/i2011-11112-6

2011 arXiv
[120]

S. V. Goloskokov, Y.-P. Xie, X. Chen, Study of transversity GPDs from pseudoscalar mesons production at EIC of China, Commun. Theor. Phys. 75 (6) (2023) 065201.arXiv:2209.14493,doi:10.1088/1572-9494/acc793

2023 arXiv
[121]

J. C. Collins, L. Frankfurt, M. Strikman, Factorization for hard exclusive electroproduction of mesons in QCD, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 2982–3006.arXiv:hep-ph/9611433,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.2982

1997 arXiv
[122]

S. V. Goloskokov, P. Kroll, Transversity in exclusive vector-meson leptoproduction, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2725. arXiv:1310.1472,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2725-6

2014 arXiv
[123]

S. V. Goloskokov, Y.-P. Xie, X. Chen, Exclusiveπ0 production at EIC of China within handbag approach*, Chin. Phys. C 46 (12) (2022) 123101.arXiv:2206.06547,doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac878c. 70

2022 arXiv
[124]

Bhattacharya, D

S. Bhattacharya, D. Zheng, J. Zhou, Probing the Quark Orbital Angular Momentum at Electron-Ion Colliders Using Exclusiveπ0 Production, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (5) (2024) 051901.arXiv:2312.01309,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 133.051901

2024 arXiv
[125]

Hatta, B.-W

Y. Hatta, B.-W. Xiao, F. Yuan, J. Zhou, Azimuthal angular asymmetry of soft gluon radiation in jet production, Phys. Rev. D 104 (5) (2021) 054037.arXiv:2106.05307,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.054037

2021 arXiv
[126]

Hatta, B.-W

Y. Hatta, B.-W. Xiao, F. Yuan, J. Zhou, Anisotropy in Dijet Production in Exclusive and Inclusive Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (14) (2021) 142001.arXiv:2010.10774,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.142001

2021 arXiv
[127]

Bhattacharya, D

S. Bhattacharya, D. DeAngelo, L. Yang, D. Zheng, J. Zhou, Gluon Generalized TMD signatures at the EIC from exclusive heavy (axial-)vector meson production (1 2026).arXiv:2601.17506

2026 arXiv
[128]

Bhattacharya, D

S. Bhattacharya, D. Zheng, J. Zhou, Accessing the gluon GTMD F1,4 in exclusiveπ0 production in ep collisions, Phys. Rev. D 109 (9) (2024) 096029.arXiv:2304.05784,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.096029

2024 arXiv
[129]

Z.Lu, Z.Yu, T.Lin, Y.-T.Liang, R.Wang, W.Chang, W.Xiong, Feasibilitystudyofpionandkaonstructureviathe Sullivan process at the EicC, Phys. Rev. D 113 (11) (2026) 114002.arXiv:2512.01720,doi:10.1103/1s8f-9cny

2026 arXiv
[130]

J. D. Sullivan, One pion exchange and deep inelastic electron - nucleon scattering, Phys. Rev. D 5 (1972) 1732–1737. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.5.1732

1972 doi
[131]

Holtmann, G

H. Holtmann, G. Levman, N. N. Nikolaev, A. Szczurek, J. Speth, How to measure the pion structure function at HERA, Phys. Lett. B 338 (1995) 393.arXiv:hep-ph/9602229

1995 arXiv
[132]

S.-X. Qin, C. Chen, C. Mezrag, C. D. Roberts, Off-shell persistence of composite pions and kaons, Phys. Rev. C 97 (1) (2018) 015203.arXiv:1702.06100,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.97.015203

2018 arXiv
[133]

Amrath, M

D. Amrath, M. Diehl, J.-P. Lansberg, Deeply virtual Compton scattering on a virtual pion target, Eur. Phys. J. C 58 (2008) 179–192.arXiv:0807.4474,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0769-1

2008 arXiv
[134]

J. M. M. Chávez, V. Bertone, F. De Soto Borrero, M. Defurne, C. Mezrag, H. Moutarde, J. Rodríguez-Quintero, J. Segovia, Accessing the Pion 3D Structure at US and China Electron-Ion Colliders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (20) (2022) 202501.arXiv:2110.09462,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.202501

2022 arXiv
[135]

J. P. Lansberg, B. Pire, L. Szymanowski, Exclusive meson pair production in gamma* gamma scattering at small momentum transfer, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 074014.arXiv:hep-ph/0602195,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.074014

2006 arXiv
[136]

A. R. Castro, C. Mezrag, J. M. Morgado Chávez, B. Pire, Backward DVCS in a Sullivan process, Phys. Rev. D 112 (3) (2025) 034009.arXiv:2504.02657,doi:10.1103/y9rw-b2xj

2025 arXiv
[137]

C. L. Basham, L. S. Brown, S. D. Ellis, S. T. Love, Energy Correlations in electron - Positron Annihilation: Testing QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41 (1978) 1585.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.41.1585

1978 doi
[138]

L. J. Dixon, I. Moult, H. X. Zhu, Collinear limit of the energy-energy correlator, Phys. Rev. D 100 (1) (2019) 014009.arXiv:1905.01310,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.014009

2019 arXiv
[139]

X. Liu, H. X. Zhu, Nucleon Energy Correlators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (9) (2023) 091901.arXiv:2209.02080, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.091901. 71

2023 arXiv
[140]

Chen, J.-P

K.-B. Chen, J.-P. Ma, X.-B. Tong, The connection between nucleon energy correlators and fracture functions, JHEP 08 (2024) 227.arXiv:2406.08559,doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)227

2024 arXiv
[141]

Z.-B. Kang, K. Lee, D. Y. Shao, F. Zhao, Collins-type Energy-Energy Correlators and Nucleon Structure, in: 30th International Workshop on Deep-Inelastic Scattering and Related Subjects, 2023.arXiv:2307.06935

2023 arXiv
[142]

J. Gao, H. T. Li, Y. J. Zhu, Energy correlators resolving proton spin, Phys. Rev. D 113 (3) (2026) 034028.arXiv: 2509.17596,doi:10.1103/b8gn-wlg2

2026 arXiv
[143]

Bhattacharya, Z.-B

S. Bhattacharya, Z.-B. Kang, D. Padilla, J. Penttala, Probing the Sivers Asymmetry with Transverse Energy-Energy Correlators in the Small-xRegime (4 2025).arXiv:2504.10475

2025 arXiv
[144]

Mäntysaari, Y

H. Mäntysaari, Y. Tawabutr, X.-B. Tong, Nucleon energy correlators for the odderon, Phys. Rev. D 112 (11) (2025) 114027.arXiv:2503.20157,doi:10.1103/rmzx-tgm2

2025 arXiv
[145]

Song, S.-Y

Y.-K. Song, S.-Y. Wei, L. Yang, J. Zhou, Gluon Polarimetry with Energy-Energy Correlators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136 (13) (2026) 131901.arXiv:2509.14960,doi:10.1103/j24j-ydvy

2026
[146]

H. Chen, I. Moult, H. X. Zhu, Spinning gluons from the QCD light-ray OPE, JHEP 08 (2022) 233.arXiv: 2104.00009,doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)233

2022 arXiv
[147]

Y. Fu, B. Müller, C. Sirimanna, Modification of the Jet Energy-Energy Correlator in Cold Nuclear Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (11) (2025) 112302.arXiv:2411.04866,doi:10.1103/qxdv-cmrg

2025 arXiv
[148]

Englert, R

F. Englert, R. Brout, Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 321–323. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321

1964 doi
[149]

P. W. Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 508–509.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508

1964 doi
[150]

Brack, VIRIAL THEOREMS FOR RELATIVISTIC SPIN 1/2 AND SPIN 0 PARTICLES, Phys

M. Brack, VIRIAL THEOREMS FOR RELATIVISTIC SPIN 1/2 AND SPIN 0 PARTICLES, Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983) 1950–1953.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.27.1950

1983 doi
[151]

S. L. Adler, J. C. Collins, A. Duncan, Energy-Momentum-Tensor Trace Anomaly in Spin 1/2 Quantum Electrody- namics, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 1712.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.1712

1977 doi
[152]

N. K. Nielsen, The Energy Momentum Tensor in a Nonabelian Quark Gluon Theory, Nucl. Phys. B 120 (1977) 212–220.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90040-2

1977 doi
[153]

J. C. Collins, A. Duncan, S. D. Joglekar, Trace and Dilatation Anomalies in Gauge Theories, Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 438–449.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.438

1977 doi
[154]

Rodini, A

S. Rodini, A. Metz, B. Pasquini, Mass sum rules of the electron in quantum electrodynamics, JHEP 09 (2020) 067. arXiv:2004.03704,doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2020)067

2020
[155]

Hatta, D.-L

Y. Hatta, D.-L. Yang, HolographicJ/ψproduction near threshold and the proton mass problem, Phys. Rev. D 98 (7) (2018) 074003.arXiv:1808.02163,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.074003. 72

2018 arXiv
[156]

L. Chen, Z. Li, M. Niggetiedt, On-shell matrix elements of the EMT trace in gauge theories and heavy quark masses, Phys. Lett. B 871 (2025) 139935.arXiv:2509.03580,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139935

2025
[157]

Ahmed, L

T. Ahmed, L. Chen, M. Czakon, A note on quark and gluon energy-momentum tensors, JHEP 01 (2023) 077. arXiv:2208.01441,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2023)077

2023 arXiv
[158]

Ji, Proton mass decomposition: naturalness and interpretations, Front

X. Ji, Proton mass decomposition: naturalness and interpretations, Front. Phys. (Beijing) 16 (6) (2021) 64601. arXiv:2102.07830,doi:10.1007/s11467-021-1065-x

2021 arXiv
[159]

Lorcé, On the hadron mass decomposition, Eur

C. Lorcé, On the hadron mass decomposition, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2) (2018) 120.arXiv:1706.05853,doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5561-2

2018 arXiv
[160]

Hatta, A

Y. Hatta, A. Rajan, K. Tanaka, Quark and gluon contributions to the QCD trace anomaly, JHEP 12 (2018) 008. arXiv:1810.05116,doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2018)008

2018 arXiv
[161]

Tanaka, Three-loop formula for quark and gluon contributions to the QCD trace anomaly, JHEP 01 (2019) 120

K. Tanaka, Three-loop formula for quark and gluon contributions to the QCD trace anomaly, JHEP 01 (2019) 120. arXiv:1811.07879,doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2019)120

2019 arXiv
[162]

A. Metz, B. Pasquini, S. Rodini, Revisiting the proton mass decomposition, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 114042. arXiv:2006.11171,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.114042

2020 arXiv
[163]

Y. Guo, X. Ji, F. Yuan, Proton’s gluon GPDs at large skewness and gravitational form factors from near threshold heavy quarkonium photoproduction, Phys. Rev. D 109 (1) (2024) 014014.arXiv:2308.13006,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.109.014014

2024 arXiv
[164]

Duran, et al., Determining the gluonic gravitational form factors of the proton, Nature 615 (7954) (2023) 813–816

B. Duran, et al., Determining the gluonic gravitational form factors of the proton, Nature 615 (7954) (2023) 813–816. arXiv:2207.05212,doi:10.1038/s41586-023-05730-4

2023 arXiv
[165]

Adhikari, et al., Measurement of the J/ψphotoproduction cross section over the full near-threshold kinematic region, Phys

S. Adhikari, et al., Measurement of the J/ψphotoproduction cross section over the full near-threshold kinematic region, Phys. Rev. C 108 (2) (2023) 025201.arXiv:2304.03845,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.108.025201

2023 arXiv
[166]

J. R. Pybus, et al., First Measurement of Near-Threshold and Subthreshold J/ψPhotoproduction off Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (20) (2025) 201903.arXiv:2409.18463,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.201903

2025 arXiv
[167]

Hagiwara, X.-B

Y. Hagiwara, X.-B. Tong, B.-W. Xiao, Understanding gravitational form factors with the Weizsäcker-Williams method, Phys. Rev. D 111 (5) (2025) L051503.arXiv:2401.12840,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.L051503

2025 arXiv
[168]

D. A. Pefkou, D. C. Hackett, P. E. Shanahan, Gluon gravitational structure of hadrons of different spin, Phys. Rev. D 105 (5) (2022) 054509.arXiv:2107.10368,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.054509

2022 arXiv
[169]

Y. Guo, F. Yuan, W. Zhao, Bayesian Inferring Nucleon Gravitational Form Factors via Near-Threshold J/ψPho- toproduction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (11) (2025) 111902.arXiv:2501.10532,doi:10.1103/3x7r-ythq

2025 arXiv
[170]

Sun, X.-B

P. Sun, X.-B. Tong, F. Yuan, Near threshold heavy quarkonium photoproduction at large momentum transfer, Phys. Rev. D 105 (5) (2022) 054032.arXiv:2111.07034,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.054032

2022 arXiv
[171]

Cao, F.-K

X.-H. Cao, F.-K. Guo, Q.-Z. Li, D.-L. Yao, Dispersive determination of nucleon gravitational form factors, Nature Commun. 16 (2025) 6979.arXiv:2411.13398,doi:10.1038/s41467-025-62278-9. 73

2025 arXiv
[172]

Y.-B. Yang, J. Liang, Y.-J. Bi, Y. Chen, T. Draper, K.-F. Liu, Z. Liu, Proton Mass Decomposition from the QCD Energy Momentum Tensor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (21) (2018) 212001.arXiv:1808.08677,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.121.212001

2018 arXiv
[173]

Alexandrou, S

C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, M. Constantinou, J. Finkenrath, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, G. Koutsou, H. Panagopoulos, G. Spanoudes, Complete flavor decomposition of the spin and momentum fraction of the proton using lattice QCD simulations at physical pion mass, Phys. Rev. D 1...

2020 arXiv
[174]

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

2023 arXiv
[175]

M. V. Polyakov, Hard exclusive electroproduction of two pions and their resonances, Nucl. Phys. B 555 (1999) 231. arXiv:hep-ph/9809483,doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00314-4

1999 arXiv
[176]

J. M. M. Chavez, V. Bertone, F. De Soto Borrero, M. Defurne, C. Mezrag, H. Moutarde, J. Rodríguez-Quintero, J. Segovia, Pion generalized parton distributions: A path toward phenomenology, Phys. Rev. D 105 (9) (2022) 094012.arXiv:2110.06052,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.094012

2022 arXiv
[177]

Hatta, J

Y. Hatta, J. Schoenleber, Sullivan Process near Threshold and the Pion Gravitational Form Factors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (25) (2025) 251901.arXiv:2502.12061,doi:10.1103/y9fq-y84c

2025 arXiv
[178]

Horn, et al., Determination of the charged pion form factor at Q**2 = 1.60-GeV**2 and 2.45-GeV**2, Phys

T. Horn, et al., Determination of the charged pion form factor at Q**2 = 1.60-GeV**2 and 2.45-GeV**2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 192001.arXiv:nucl-ex/0607005,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.192001

2006 arXiv
[179]

G. M. Huber, et al., Charged pion form-factor between Q**2 = 0.60-GeV**2 and 2.45-GeV**2. II. Determination of, and results for, the pion form-factor, Phys. Rev. C 78 (2008) 045203.arXiv:0809.3052,doi:10.1103/PhysRevC. 78.045203

2008 arXiv
[180]

X. Guo, X. Ji, Y. Liu, Quantum phase-space distributions in the nucleon, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) L031504. arXiv:2112.01145,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.L031504

2022 arXiv
[181]

A. Ali, A. Y. Parkhomenko, Near-threshold heavy quarkonium photoproduction at large momentum transfer, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 609.arXiv:1904.06788,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7071-2

2019 arXiv
[182]

Benenti, G

G. Benenti, G. Casati, D. Rossini, G. Strini, Principles of Quantum Computation and Information, WSP, 2019. doi:10.1142/10909

2019 doi
[183]

M. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, 2012. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511976667

2012 doi
[184]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81 (2009) 865–942.arXiv:quant-ph/0702225,doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865

2009 arXiv
[185]

A. J. Barr, M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, L. Marzola, Quantum entanglement and Bell inequality violation at colliders, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 139 (2024) 104134.arXiv:2402.07972,doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2024. 104134. 74

2024 arXiv
[186]

Afik, et al., Quantum information meets high-energy physics: input to the update of the European strat- egy for particle physics, Eur

Y. Afik, et al., Quantum information meets high-energy physics: input to the update of the European strat- egy for particle physics, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 140 (9) (2025) 855.arXiv:2504.00086,doi:10.1140/epjp/ s13360-025-06752-9

2025
[187]

C. E. P. Robin, M. J. Savage, Quantum Complexity and New Directions in Nuclear Physics and High-Energy Physics Phenomenology (4 2026).arXiv:2604.26376

2026 arXiv
[188]

Aad, et al., Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector, Nature 633 (8030) (2024) 542–547.arXiv:2311.07288,doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07824-z

G. Aad, et al., Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector, Nature 633 (8030) (2024) 542–547.arXiv:2311.07288,doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07824-z

2024 arXiv
[189]

Hayrapetyan, et al., Observation of quantum entanglement in top quark pair production in proton–proton collisions at√s= 13TeV, Rept

A. Hayrapetyan, et al., Observation of quantum entanglement in top quark pair production in proton–proton collisions at√s= 13TeV, Rept. Prog. Phys. 87 (11) (2024) 117801.arXiv:2406.03976,doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ ad7e4d

2024 arXiv
[190]

B. E. Aboona, et al., Measuring spin correlation between quarks during QCD confinement, Nature 650 (8100) (2026) 65–71.arXiv:2506.05499,doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09920-0

2026
[191]

G.W.Semenoff, EntanglementandtheInfrared, SpringerProc.Math.Stat.335(2019)151–166.arXiv:1912.03187, doi:10.1007/978-981-15-7775-8_10

2019 arXiv
[192]

D. E. Kharzeev, E. M. Levin, Deep inelastic scattering as a probe of entanglement, Phys. Rev. D 95 (11) (2017) 114008.arXiv:1702.03489,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.114008

2017 arXiv
[193]

Hagiwara, Y

Y. Hagiwara, Y. Hatta, B.-W. Xiao, F. Yuan, Classical and quantum entropy of parton distributions, Phys. Rev. D 97 (9) (2018) 094029.arXiv:1801.00087,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.094029

2018 arXiv
[194]

Hentschinski, D

M. Hentschinski, D. E. Kharzeev, K. Kutak, Z. Tu, QCD evolution of entanglement entropy, Rept. Prog. Phys. 87 (12) (2024) 120501.arXiv:2408.01259,doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ad910b

2024 arXiv
[195]

Hentschinski, H

M. Hentschinski, H. Jung, K. Kutak, Entanglement entropy, Monte Carlo event generators, and soft gluon discovery, Phys. Rev. D 113 (5) (2026) 054024.arXiv:2509.03400,doi:10.1103/q8s9-kd9s

2026 arXiv
[196]

Hentschinski, K

M. Hentschinski, K. Kutak, W. Placzek, M. Rohrmoser, Deep inelastic scattering as a probe of entanglement: the complete QCD dipole cascade (7 2026).arXiv:2607.18464

2026 arXiv
[197]

Hatta, J

Y. Hatta, J. Montgomery, Maximally entangled gluons for any x, Phys. Rev. D 111 (1) (2025) 014024.arXiv: 2410.16082,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.014024

2025 arXiv
[198]

Z. Tu, D. E. Kharzeev, T. Ullrich, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Quantum Entanglement at Subnucleonic Scales, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (6) (2020) 062001.arXiv:1904.11974,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.062001

2020 arXiv
[199]

Hentschinski, D

M. Hentschinski, D. E. Kharzeev, K. Kutak, Z. Tu, Probing the Onset of Maximal Entanglement inside the Proton in Diffractive Deep Inelastic Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (24) (2023) 241901.arXiv:2305.03069,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.131.241901

2023 arXiv
[200]

W. Qi, Z. Guo, B.-W. Xiao, Studying maximal entanglement and Bell nonlocality at an electron-ion collider, Phys. Rev. D 113 (5) (2026) 054048.arXiv:2506.12889,doi:10.1103/6ycn-x3yj. 75

2026
[201]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, Violating Bell inequality by mixed spin-1/2 states: Necessary and sufficient condition, Phys. Lett. A 200 (5) (1995) 340–344.doi:10.1016/0375-9601(95)00214-N

1995 doi
[202]

Fucilla, Y

M. Fucilla, Y. Hatta, Spin-spin entanglement in diffractive heavy-quark production, Phys. Rev. D 113 (3) (2026) L031504.arXiv:2509.05267,doi:10.1103/gbk8-z3dd

2026
[203]

Hatta, J

Y. Hatta, J. Schoenleber, Probing quantum entanglement with Generalized Parton Distributions at the Electron-Ion Collider (11 2025).arXiv:2511.04537

2025
[204]

Cheng, T

K. Cheng, T. Han, S. Trifinopoulos, Quantum Information at the Electron-Ion Collider (10 2025).arXiv:2510. 23773

2025
[205]

M.Fucilla, Y.Hatta, B.-W.Xiao, Quantumentanglementinelectron-nucleuscollisions: Roleofthelinearlypolarized gluon distribution (4 2026).arXiv:2604.11697

2026 arXiv
[206]

J. S. Bell, On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Physics Physique Fizika 1 (1964) 195–200.doi:10.1103/ PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

1964
[207]

Bravyi, A

S. Bravyi, A. Kitaev, Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas, Phys. Rev. A 71 (2) (2005) 022316.arXiv:quant-ph/0403025,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.71.022316

2005 arXiv
[208]

Emerson, D

J. Emerson, D. Gottesman, S. A. H. Mousavian, V. Veitch, The resource theory of stabilizer quantum computation, New J. Phys. 16 (1) (2014) 013009.arXiv:1307.7171,doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/1/013009

2014 arXiv
[209]

H.Bloss, T.J.Hobbs, N.McGinnis, Hadron StructurefromtheHierarchyofQuantumCorrelationsinDeep-Inelastic Scattering (7 2026).arXiv:2607.28724

2026 arXiv
[210]

Liu, L.-T

Y.-X. Liu, L.-T. He, B.-W. Xiao, Polarization, Maximal Concurrence, and Pure States in High-Energy Collisions (4 2026).arXiv:2604.17756

2026 arXiv
[211]

Zhang, Y.-X

C.-J. Zhang, Y.-X. Gong, Y.-S. Zhang, G.-C. Guo, Observable estimation of entanglement for arbitrary finite- dimensional mixed states, Phys. Rev. A 78 (2008) 042308.arXiv:0806.2598,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.78.042308

2008 arXiv
[212]

Guest, K

D. Guest, K. Cranmer, D. Whiteson, Deep Learning and its Application to LHC Physics, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68 (2018) 161–181.arXiv:1806.11484,doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-101917-021019

2018 arXiv
[213]

Carleo, I

G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, L. Zdeborová, Machine learning and the physical sciences, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91 (4) (2019) 045002.arXiv:1903.10563,doi:10.1103/RevModPhys. 91.045002

2019 arXiv
[214]

Shanahan, et al., Snowmass 2021 Computational Frontier CompF03 Topical Group Report: Machine Learning (2022).arXiv:2209.07559

P. Shanahan, et al., Snowmass 2021 Computational Frontier CompF03 Topical Group Report: Machine Learning (2022).arXiv:2209.07559

2022 arXiv
[215]

Feickert, B

M. Feickert, B. Nachman, A Living Review of Machine Learning for Particle Physics (2 2021).arXiv:2102.02770

2021 arXiv
[216]

Forte, L

S. Forte, L. Garrido, J. I. Latorre, A. Piccione, Neural network parametrization of deep inelastic structure functions, JHEP 05 (2002) 062.arXiv:hep-ph/0204232,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2002/05/062. 76

2002 arXiv
[217]

R. D. Ball, et al., Parton distributions for the LHC Run II, JHEP 04 (2015) 040.arXiv:1410.8849,doi:10.1007/ JHEP04(2015)040

2015 arXiv
[218]

Z. Gao, Y. Shi, B.-W. Xiao, H.-Z. Zhang, Extracting Essential Non-perturbative Information in Jet Invariant Mass via the Bayesian Analysis (7 2025).arXiv:2507.15945

2025 arXiv
[219]

Astrand, et al., Perspective on machine learning for real-time analysis at the Large Hadron Collider experiments ALICE, ATLAS, CMS and LHCb, Mach

S. Astrand, et al., Perspective on machine learning for real-time analysis at the Large Hadron Collider experiments ALICE, ATLAS, CMS and LHCb, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech. 7 (1) (2026) 013001.arXiv:2506.14578,doi:10.1088/ 2632-2153/ae35cc

2026 arXiv
[220]

A. J. Larkoski, I. Moult, B. Nachman, Jet Substructure at the Large Hadron Collider: A Review of Recent Advances in Theory and Machine Learning, Phys. Rept. 841 (2020) 1–63.arXiv:1709.04464,doi:10.1016/j.physrep. 2019.11.001

2020 arXiv
[221]

A. J. Larkoski, QCD masterclass lectures on jet physics and machine learning, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (10) (2024) 1117. arXiv:2407.04897,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13341-0

2024 arXiv
[222]

Mondal, L

S. Mondal, L. Mastrolorenzo, Machine learning in high energy physics: a review of heavy-flavor jet tag- ging at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. ST 233 (15-16) (2024) 2657–2686.arXiv:2404.01071,doi:10.1140/epjs/ s11734-024-01234-y

2024 arXiv
[223]

Ł. K. Graczykowski, M. Jakubowska, K. R. Deja, M. Kabus, Using machine learning for particle identification in ALICE, JINST 17 (07) (2022) C07016.arXiv:2204.06900,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/07/C07016

2022 arXiv
[224]

Karwowska, M

M. Karwowska, M. Jakubowska, Ł. Graczykowski, K. Deja, M. Kasak, Particle identification with machine learning in ALICE Run 3, EPJ Web Conf. 295 (2024) 09029.arXiv:2309.07768,doi:10.1051/epjconf/202429509029

2024 arXiv
[225]

Kasak, K

M. Kasak, K. Deja, M. Karwowska, M. Jakubowska, Ł. Graczykowski, M. Janik, Machine-learning-based particle identification with missing data, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (7) (2024) 691.arXiv:2401.01905,doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-024-13047-3

2024 arXiv
[226]

Karwowska, Ł

M. Karwowska, Ł. Graczykowski, K. Deja, M. Kasak, M. Janik, Particle identification with machine learning from incomplete data in the ALICE experiment, JINST 19 (07) (2024) C07013.arXiv:2403.17436,doi:10.1088/ 1748-0221/19/07/C07013

2024 arXiv
[227]

Hayrapetyan, et al., Full event interpretation with machine-learning-based particle-flow reconstruction in the CMS detector (1 2026).arXiv:2601.17554

A. Hayrapetyan, et al., Full event interpretation with machine-learning-based particle-flow reconstruction in the CMS detector (1 2026).arXiv:2601.17554

2026
[228]

Aad, et al., Search for New Phenomena in Two-Body Invariant Mass Distributions Using Unsupervised Machine Learning for Anomaly Detection at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Phys

G. Aad, et al., Search for New Phenomena in Two-Body Invariant Mass Distributions Using Unsupervised Machine Learning for Anomaly Detection at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (8) (2024) 081801. arXiv:2307.01612,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.081801

2024 arXiv
[229]

Chekhovsky, et al., Model-agnostic search for dijet resonances with anomalous jet substructure in proton–proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV, Rept

V. Chekhovsky, et al., Model-agnostic search for dijet resonances with anomalous jet substructure in proton–proton collisions at√s= 13 TeV, Rept. Prog. Phys. 88 (6) (2025) 067802.arXiv:2412.03747,doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ add762

2025 arXiv
[230]

Allaire, et al., Artificial Intelligence for the Electron Ion Collider (AI4EIC), Comput

C. Allaire, et al., Artificial Intelligence for the Electron Ion Collider (AI4EIC), Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 8 (2024) 5. arXiv:2307.08593,doi:10.1007/s41781-024-00113-4. 77

2024
[231]

Giroux, M

J. Giroux, M. Martinez, C. Fanelli, Generative models for fast simulation of Cherenkov detectors at the electron–ion collider, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech. 6 (4) (2025) 040501.arXiv:2504.19042,doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ae0f72

2025 arXiv
[232]

J. Y. Araz, V. Mikuni, F. Ringer, N. Sato, F. T. Acosta, R. Whitehill, Point cloud-based diffusion models for the Electron-Ion Collider, Phys. Lett. B 868 (2025) 139694.arXiv:2410.22421,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025. 139694

2025 arXiv
[233]

Gardner, R

S. Gardner, R. Tyson, D. Glazier, K. Livingston, Object condensation for track building in a backward electron tagger at the EIC, JINST 19 (05) (2024) C05052.doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/C05052

2024 doi
[234]

G.Gavalian, Real-timechargedtrackreconstructionforCLAS12, JINST19(05)(2024)C05050.arXiv:2403.04020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/C05050

2024 arXiv
[235]

Matousek, A

G. Matousek, A. Vossen, Photon classification with Gradient Boosted Trees at CLAS12, JINST 19 (06) (2024) C06006.arXiv:2402.13105,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/06/C06006

2024 arXiv
[236]

C. Fanelli, Design of detectors at the electron ion collider with artificial intelligence, JINST 17 (04) (2022) C04038, [Erratum: JINST 17, E08003 (2022)].arXiv:2203.04530,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/04/C04038

2022 arXiv
[237]

Diefenthaler, et al., AI-assisted detector design for the EIC (AID(2)E), JINST 19 (07) (2024) C07001.arXiv: 2405.16279,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/07/C07001

M. Diefenthaler, et al., AI-assisted detector design for the EIC (AID(2)E), JINST 19 (07) (2024) C07001.arXiv: 2405.16279,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/07/C07001

2024 arXiv
[238]

Fanelli, et al., AI-assisted optimization of the ECCE tracking system at the Electron Ion Collider, Nucl

C. Fanelli, et al., AI-assisted optimization of the ECCE tracking system at the Electron Ion Collider, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1047 (2023) 167748.arXiv:2205.09185,doi:10.1016/j.nima.2022.167748

2023
[239]

Kelleher, A

R. Kelleher, A. Vossen, Y. Ilieva, W. W. Jacobs, P. Nadel-Turonski, S. Schneider, G. Visser, Design and performance studies of a granular thin HCAL–MuID detector for the EIC optimized for AI-based reconstruction, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 1092 (2026) 171820.arXiv:2511.08432,doi:1...

2026 arXiv
[240]

Jeske, D

T. Jeske, D. McSpadden, N. Kalra, T. Britton, N. Jarvis, D. Lawrence, AI for Experimental Controls at Jefferson Lab, JINST 17 (03) (2022) C03043.arXiv:2203.05999,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/03/C03043

2022 arXiv
[241]

Jeske, T

T. Jeske, T. Britton, D. Lawrence, K. Rajput, Hydra: Computer Vision for Online Data Quality Monitoring, EPJ Web Conf. 295 (2024) 02008.doi:10.1051/epjconf/202429502008

2024
[242]

Britton, M

T. Britton, M. Goodrich, N. Jarvis, T. Jeske, N. Kalra, D. Lawrence, D. McSpadden, K. Rajput, ML-based calibration and control of the GlueX Central Drift Chamber, JINST 19 (11) (2024) C11012.arXiv:2403.13823, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/11/C11012

2024 arXiv
[243]

Aarts, K

G. Aarts, K. Fukushima, T. Hatsuda, A. Ipp, S. Shi, L. Wang, K. Zhou, Physics-driven learning for in- verse problems in quantum chromodynamics, Nature Rev. Phys. 7 (3) (2025) 154–163.arXiv:2501.05580, doi:10.1038/s42254-024-00798-x

2025 arXiv
[244]

Hou, et al., New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC, Phys

T.-J. Hou, et al., New CTEQ global analysis of quantum chromodynamics with high-precision data from the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 103 (1) (2021) 014013.arXiv:1912.10053,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.014013. 78

2021 arXiv
[245]

Cocuzza, W

C. Cocuzza, W. Melnitchouk, A. Metz, N. Sato, Bayesian Monte Carlo extraction of the sea asymmetry with SeaQuest and STAR data, Phys. Rev. D 104 (7) (2021) 074031.arXiv:2109.00677,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104. 074031

2021 arXiv
[246]

Cocuzza, N

C. Cocuzza, N. T. Hunt-Smith, W. Melnitchouk, N. Sato, A. W. Thomas, Global QCD analysis of spin PDFs in the proton with high-x and lattice constraints, Phys. Rev. D 112 (11) (2025) 114017.arXiv:2506.13616, doi:10.1103/6fn9-1wqb

2025
[247]

Del Debbio, S

L. Del Debbio, S. Forte, J. I. Latorre, A. Piccione, J. Rojo, Unbiased determination of the proton structure function F(2)**p with faithful uncertainty estimation, JHEP 03 (2005) 080.arXiv:hep-ph/0501067,doi:10. 1088/1126-6708/2005/03/080

2005 arXiv
[248]

R. D. Ball, et al., A Determination of parton distributions with faithful uncertainty estimation, Nucl. Phys. B 809 (2009) 1–63.arXiv:0808.1231,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.09.037

2009 arXiv
[249]

R. D. Ball, et al., Parton distributions from high-precision collider data, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 663.arXiv: 1706.00428,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5

2017 arXiv
[250]

R. D. Ball, et al., The path to proton structure at 1% accuracy, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 428.arXiv:2109.02653, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10328-7

2022 arXiv
[251]

R. D. Ball, et al., Reweighting NNPDFs: the W lepton asymmetry, Nucl. Phys. B 849 (2011) 112–143.arXiv: 1012.0836,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.03.017

2011 arXiv
[252]

R. D. Ball, et al., Reweighting and Unweighting of Parton Distributions and the LHC W lepton asymmetry data, Nucl. Phys. B 855 (2012) 608–638.arXiv:1108.1758,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2011.10.018

2012 arXiv
[253]

Kumericki, D

K. Kumericki, D. Mueller, A. Schafer, Neural network generated parametrizations of deeply virtual Compton form factors, JHEP 07 (2011) 073.arXiv:1106.2808,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2011)073

2011 arXiv
[254]

Kumericki, S

K. Kumericki, S. Liuti, H. Moutarde, GPD phenomenology and DVCS fitting: Entering the high-precision era, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (6) (2016) 157.arXiv:1602.02763,doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16157-3

2016 arXiv
[255]

Dutrieux, H

H. Dutrieux, H. Dutrieux, O. Grocholski, O. Grocholski, H. Moutarde, H. Moutarde, P. Sznajder, P. Sznajder, Artificial neural network modelling of generalised parton distributions, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (3) (2022) 252, [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 82, 389 (2022)].arXiv:2112.10528,doi:1...

2022 arXiv
[256]

Liuti, et al., AI for nuclear physics: the EXCLAIM project, JINST 20 (08) (2025) C08011.arXiv:2408.00163, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/08/C08011

S. Liuti, et al., AI for nuclear physics: the EXCLAIM project, JINST 20 (08) (2025) C08011.arXiv:2408.00163, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/20/08/C08011

2025 arXiv
[257]

Calero Diaz, D

L. Calero Diaz, D. Keller, Global deep neural network modeling of Compton form factors constrained from localχ2 maps fits, Phys. Rev. D 112 (9) (2025) 096001.arXiv:2509.18331,doi:10.1103/sb63-sfdt

2025
[258]

Watkins, D

D. Watkins, D. Keller, Direct Deep Neural-network Extraction of Generalized Parton Distributions (12 2025). arXiv:2512.21761

2025 arXiv
[259]

I. P. Fernando, D. Keller, Extraction of the Sivers function with deep neural networks, Phys. Rev. D 108 (5) (2023) 054007.arXiv:2304.14328,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.054007. 79

2023 arXiv
[260]

Bacchetta, V

A. Bacchetta, V. Bertone, C. Bissolotti, M. Cerutti, M. Radici, S. Rodini, L. Rossi, Neural-Network Extraction of Unpolarized Transverse-Momentum-Dependent Distributions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135 (2) (2025) 021904.arXiv: 2502.04166,doi:10.1103/csc2-bj91

2025 arXiv
[261]

I. P. Fernando, D. Keller, Deep Neural Network extraction of Unpolarized Transverse Momentum Distributions (10 2025).arXiv:2510.17243

2025 arXiv
[262]

I. P. Fernando, D. Keller, Toward selective quantum advantage in hadronic tomography:explicit cases from Compton form factors, GPDs, TMDs, and GTMDs (4 2026).arXiv:2604.10025

2026 arXiv
[263]

I. I. Balitsky, L. N. Lipatov, The Pomeranchuk Singularity in Quantum Chromodynamics, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 28 (1978) 822–829

1978
[264]

J. L. Albacete, C. Marquet, Gluon saturation and initial conditions for relativistic heavy ion collisions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 76 (2014) 1–42.arXiv:1401.4866,doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2014.01.004

2014 arXiv
[265]

Jalilian-Marian, A

J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov, H. Weigert, The BFKL equation from the Wilson renormalization group, Nucl. Phys. B 504 (1997) 415–431.arXiv:hep-ph/9701284,doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00440-9

1997 arXiv
[266]

Jalilian-Marian, A

J. Jalilian-Marian, A. Kovner, A. Leonidov, H. Weigert, The Wilson renormalization group for low x physics: Towardsthehighdensityregime, Phys.Rev.D59(1998)014014.arXiv:hep-ph/9706377,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 59.014014

1998 arXiv
[267]

Iancu, A

E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, L. D. McLerran, Nonlinear gluon evolution in the color glass condensate. 1., Nucl. Phys. A 692 (2001) 583–645.arXiv:hep-ph/0011241,doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(01)00642-X

2001 arXiv
[268]

Ferreiro, E

E. Ferreiro, E. Iancu, A. Leonidov, L. McLerran, Nonlinear gluon evolution in the color glass condensate. 2., Nucl. Phys. A 703 (2002) 489–538.arXiv:hep-ph/0109115,doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(01)01329-X

2002 arXiv
[269]

Balitsky, Operator expansion for high-energy scattering, Nucl

I. Balitsky, Operator expansion for high-energy scattering, Nucl. Phys. B 463 (1996) 99–160.arXiv:hep-ph/ 9509348,doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00638-9

1996 doi
[270]

Y. V. Kovchegov, Small-x F2 structure function of a nucleus including multiple pomeron exchanges, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 034008.arXiv:hep-ph/9901281,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.034008

1999 arXiv
[271]

Marquet, Forward inclusive dijet production and azimuthal correlations in pA collisions, Nucl

C. Marquet, Forward inclusive dijet production and azimuthal correlations in pA collisions, Nucl. Phys. A 796 (2007) 41–60.arXiv:0708.0231,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.09.001

2007 arXiv
[272]

Dominguez, B.-W

F. Dominguez, B.-W. Xiao, F. Yuan,kt-factorization for Hard Processes in Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 022301.arXiv:1009.2141,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.022301

2011 arXiv
[273]

Dominguez, C

F. Dominguez, C. Marquet, B.-W. Xiao, F. Yuan, Universality of Unintegrated Gluon Distributions at small x, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 105005.arXiv:1101.0715,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.105005

2011 arXiv
[274]

Dai, F.-P

S.-W. Dai, F.-P. Li, L.-G. Pang, G.-Y. Qin, S.-Y. Wei, H.-Z. Zhang, W. Zhao, Physics-Informed Global Extraction of the Universal Small-xDipole Amplitude (3 2026).arXiv:2603.08008

2026 arXiv
[275]

J. Birk, A. Hallin, G. Kasieczka, OmniJet-α: the first cross-task foundation model for particle physics, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech. 5 (3) (2024) 035031.arXiv:2403.05618,doi:10.1088/2632-2153/ad66ad. 80

2024 arXiv
[276]

A.Einstein, B.Podolsky, N.Rosen, Canquantummechanicaldescriptionofphysicalrealitybeconsideredcomplete?, Phys. Rev. 47 (1935) 777–780.doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

1935 doi
[277]

J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, R. A. Holt, Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (1969) 880–884.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880

1969 doi
[278]

Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys

A. Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 1413–1415.arXiv:quant-ph/ 9604005,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1413

1996 doi
[279]

Horodecki, P

M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, On the necessary and sufficient conditions for separability of mixed quantum states, Phys. Lett. A 223 (1996) 1.arXiv:quant-ph/9605038,doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(96)00706-2

1996 arXiv
[280]

W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 2245– 2248.arXiv:quant-ph/9709029,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2245

1998 arXiv
[281]

S. Hill, W. K. Wootters, Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 5022–5025.arXiv: quant-ph/9703041,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.5022

1997 arXiv
[282]

B. S. Cirelson, QUANTUM GENERALIZATIONS OF BELL’S INEQUALITY, Lett. Math. Phys. 4 (1980) 93–100. doi:10.1007/BF00417500

1980 doi
[283]

N. D. Mermin, Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory, Physics Today 38 (4) (1985) 38–47.doi:10.1063/1.880968

1985 doi
[284]

D. Bohm, Y. Aharonov, Discussion of Experimental Proof for the Paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky, Phys. Rev. 108 (1957) 1070–1076.doi:10.1103/PhysRev.108.1070

1957 doi
[285]

Aspect, J

A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, G. Roger, Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time varying analyzers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 1804–1807.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804

1982 doi
[286]

Weihs, T

G. Weihs, T. Jennewein, C. Simon, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 5039–5043.arXiv:quant-ph/9810080,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 81.5039

1998 arXiv
[287]

J. J. Sakurai, J. Napolitano, Modern Quantum Mechanics, 3rd Edition, Quantum physics, quantum information and quantum computation, Cambridge University Press, 2020.doi:10.1017/9781108587280

2020 doi
[288]

R. F. Werner, Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, Phys. Rev. A 40 (1989) 4277–4281.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.40.4277

1989 doi
[289]

Gurvits, Classical deterministic complexity of Edmonds’ problem and Quantum Entanglement (3 2003).arXiv: quant-ph/0303055

L. Gurvits, Classical deterministic complexity of Edmonds’ problem and Quantum Entanglement (3 2003).arXiv: quant-ph/0303055

2003 arXiv
[290]

Gu, S.-J

J. Gu, S.-J. Lin, D. Y. Shao, L.-T. Wang, S.-X. Yang, Decoherence in high energy collisions as renormalization group flow (10 2025).arXiv:2510.13951

2025
[291]

Is the moon there when nobody looks?

S. Agrawal, M. Zahoor, R. Abir, Soft-Radiation-Induced Decoherence of Heavy-Quark Spin Entanglement at the Electron-Ion Collider (6 2026).arXiv:2606.29944. 81 A. Fundamentals of quantum information theory This appendix provides a self-contained introduction to the key concepts...

2026 arXiv
[292]

Taking into account the spin flip for each Pauli matrix, one finds ˜ρ=1 4  I4− 3X i=1 B+ i σi⊗I 2− 3X j=1 B− j I2⊗σj + 3X i,j=1 Cijσi⊗σj  .(A.32)

Compute the spin-flipped density matrix after the time reversal operation: ˜ρ= (σy⊗σy)ρ∗(σy⊗σy),(A.31) whereρ∗ denotes complex conjugation ofρ. Taking into account the spin flip for each Pauli matrix, one finds ˜ρ=1 4  I4− 3X i=1 B+ i σi⊗I 2− 3X j=1 B− j I2⊗σj + 3X i,j=1 Cij...
[293]

Construct the auxiliary Hermitian matrix: R= q√ρ˜ρ√ρ.(A.33) It is important to note that˜ρbecomes the sameρ, thusRreduces toρwhen the Bloch polarization vectorsB± = 0 inρ. This is expected since Bloch vector components change sign (reflecting the reversal of spin angular momen...
[294]

Compute the eigenvaluesλ1≥λ 2≥λ 3≥λ 4≥0ofR(or equivalently, the square roots of the eigenvalues ofρ˜ρ)
[295]

The concurrence is defined as follows: C(ρ) = max(0,λ 1−λ 2−λ 3−λ 4).(A.34) The concurrence ranges fromC= 0for separable states toC= 1for maximally entangled states. The appearance of the spin-flip operation˜ρin this formula is a direct generalization of the time-reversal inte...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [93]

S. Zhu, D. Zheng, L. Xia, Y. Zhang, Charm Sivers function at the EicC, Phys. Rev. D 111 (7) (2025) 076024. arXiv:2409.00653,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.076024. 68

arXiv 2025

[2] [1]

Hofstadter, Electron scattering and nuclear structure, Rev

R. Hofstadter, Electron scattering and nuclear structure, Rev. Mod. Phys. 28 (1956) 214–254.doi:10.1103/ RevModPhys.28.214

1956

[3] [2]

Gell-Mann, A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons, Phys

M. Gell-Mann, A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons, Phys. Lett. 8 (1964) 214–215.doi:10.1016/ S0031-9163(64)92001-3

1964

[4] [3]

Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking

G. Zweig, An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking. Version 1 (1 1964).doi:10.17181/ CERN-TH-401. 62

1964

[5] [4]

E. D. Bloom, D. H. Coward, H. C. DeStaebler, J. Drees, G. Miller, L. W. Mo, R. E. Taylor, M. Breidenbach, J. I. Friedman, G. C. Hartmann, et al., High-Energy InelasticepScattering at 6-Degrees and 10-Degrees, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (1969) 930–934.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.930

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.23.930 1969

[6] [5]

Breidenbach, J

M. Breidenbach, J. I. Friedman, H. W. Kendall, E. D. Bloom, D. H. Coward, H. C. DeStaebler, J. Drees, L. W. Mo, R. E. Taylor, Observed behavior of highly inelastic electron-proton scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (1969) 935–939. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.935

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.23.935 1969

[7] [6]

H. D. Politzer, Reliable Perturbative Results for Strong Interactions?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30 (1973) 1346–1349. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.30.1346

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.30.1346 1973

[8] [7]

D. J. Gross, F. Wilczek, Asymptotically Free Gauge Theories - I, Phys. Rev. D 8 (1973) 3633–3652.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.8.3633

1973