Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Kinematic power corrections to DVCS to twist-six accuracy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper computes the kinematic power corrections to nucleon DVCS through twist-six order and argues that they remove the frame dependence of the leading-twist approximation while restoring its electromagnetic gauge invariance.

desk verdict A real extension of DVCS power corrections to twist-6 with honest internal checks; the unverified conformal-tower input and unshown Ward identity are the points to push in review. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08185 v1 pith:7RH23QGL submitted 2025-01-14 hep-ph

V. M. Braun , Yao Ji , A. N. Manashov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords DVCSgeneralizedpartondistributionskinematicpowercorrectionstargetmasstwist-sixconformalfieldtheoryComptonformfactorshelicityamplitudes
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

Deeply virtual Compton scattering (DVCS) is the main exclusive process for imaging the proton through generalized parton distributions, but its leading-twist predictions depend on the reference frame used to define photon polarizations and violate electromagnetic Ward identities at subleading power. This paper computes the kinematic power corrections of order $(\sqrt{-t}/Q)^k$ and $(m/Q)^k$ with $k\le 4$ for a nucleon target, using only the leading-twist GPDs as nonperturbative input. Adding these corrections removes the frame dependence and restores gauge invariance up to $1/Q^5$ effects, and the authors show that the expansion is naturally organized in powers of $1/(Q^2+t)$ rather than $1/Q^2$. Target-mass corrections appear multiplied by powers of the skewness parameter, $\sim(\xi m/Q)^k$, so they remain under control and do not spoil QCD factorization for coherent DVCS on nuclei. If the calculation is right, it removes a major source of theoretical uncertainty in extracting GPDs from DVCS data.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the light-ray operator product expansion together with a conformal-field-theory resummation of descendant operators of the leading-twist twist-2 operators, previously applied to a scalar target and here extended to the nucleon. In the BMP convention the longitudinal plane is fixed by the two photon momenta, so the target momenta carry a transverse component $P_\perp$, and the helicity amplitudes are decomposed into vector and axial-vector pieces. The final coefficient functions are convolutions of the GPDs with a small set of functions $T_0, T_1, T_{10}, T_{11}, T_V, T_A, T_2, T_3$, together with derivatives $D_\xi=(-2\xi^2\partial_\xi)$ that generate the higher-power terms from the leading-twist expressions; the results are given both in a double-distribution representation and directly in terms of the GPDs.

What would settle it

Compute the twist-five and twist-six kinematic corrections for the nucleon with an independent explicit higher-twist operator basis and compare; any difference of order $1/Q^5$ or larger would show the descendant resummation is incomplete. A complementary check is to measure DVCS observables at $|t|/Q^2\approx0.4$, where the new terms are large, and verify that predictions in different photon-polarization frames agree only after the corrections are included.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a spin-1/2 target all kinematic power corrections to the DVCS helicity amplitudes through twist six — helicity-conserving amplitudes through $1/Q^4$, single-helicity-flip amplitudes through $1/Q^3$, and double-helicity-flip amplitudes through $1/Q^4$ — are expressible in closed form in terms of the same leading-twist GPDs $H$, $E$, $\tilde H$, $\tilde E$, with no new nonperturbative functions. The calculation reproduces the earlier twist-four results and extends them to twist five and six; the resulting amplitudes satisfy translation invariance and the electromagnetic Ward identity up to $1/Q^5$ corrections. Numerical evaluation with a GPD model shows the power series converges for $|t|/Q^2\lesssim 1/4$ for most observables when the expansion parameter is taken to be $1/(Q^2+t)$.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the conformal-field-theory resummation of descendant operators, which is exact in a conformal theory, gives the complete set of kinematic power corrections in real QCD, where conformal symmetry is broken by quantum corrections; the paper states this connection through the light-ray OPE but does not derive it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GPD fits to DVCS data can now include all kinematic corrections through twist six, removing an uncertainty that earlier studies estimated at about 10% for asymmetries and up to 100% for the cross section in some kinematics.
  • Because the expansion converges for $|t|/Q^2\lesssim 1/4$ when organized in $1/(Q^2+t)$, the usable momentum-transfer range for three-dimensional imaging can be extended with controlled theoretical error.
  • Target-mass corrections enter as $(\xi m/Q)^k$; for nuclear targets, where effectively $m\to Am$ and $\xi\to\xi/A$, they remain about the same size as for the proton, so coherent DVCS on nuclei stays factorizable away from large $x_B$.
  • The restored Ward identity and translation invariance mean that predictions agree between the BMP, KM, and BMJ photon-polarization conventions up to $1/Q^5$ effects, removing a convention dependence that is numerically large at accessible kinematics.
  • The helicity-flip amplitude $\mathcal{H}^{0+}$ receives twist-five corrections comparable to its leading twist-three term at $|t|/Q^2\sim0.3$ in the BMP frame, but these terms largely cancel in the KM frame, so the observable impact on cross sections is moderate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same conformal-descendant resummation should apply to other two-photon exclusive processes, such as timelike Compton scattering or double deeply virtual Compton scattering, providing their kinematic power corrections with no additional nonperturbative input; a calculation there would test the general method.
  • Frame independence of the final amplitudes offers a practical diagnostic for data analysis: fits performed in different photon-polarization conventions should agree once the twist-six terms are included, and the residual spread can be treated as a systematic uncertainty.
  • The convergence bound $|t|/Q^2\lesssim 1/4$ is demonstrated with one GPD model; repeating the numerical study with other parametrizations would show whether the bound is model-dependent and should set the kinematic cuts for future experiments.
  • The pattern that target-mass terms always bring a factor $\xi^k$ suggests the suppression is structural rather than numerical; a dedicated check at large $x_B$, where $\xi$ is not small, would map where the nuclear factorization argument actually breaks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. Using the conformal-field-theory technique developed in Refs. [33,34], the paper derives the vector and axial-vector contributions to the BMP helicity amplitudes for nucleon DVCS, keeping all kinematic power corrections (sqrt(-t)/Q)^k and (m/Q)^k with k <= 4. Explicit GPD-representation results are given for the helicity-conserving, helicity-flip, and double-helicity-flip amplitudes in Section II.C, with the double-distribution forms in Appendix A. These CFFs are then transformed to the KM/BMJ conventions to compute DVCS observables. Using the GK12 GPD model, the authors compare the hierarchy of twist-2, twist-4, and twist-6 contributions and confront selected JLab cross-section and beam-spin asymmetry data. The paper claims that the resulting expressions remove the frame dependence of the leading-twist approximation, restore electromagnetic Ward identities up to 1/Q^5 corrections, and that target mass corrections remain controlled for nuclear DVCS.

Significance. The result, if correct, is significant: it is the first calculation of kinematic power corrections through twist-6 for a spin-1/2 target, and it extends the previously available twist-4 framework of Ref. [24]. The derivation is parameter-free, with no free constants fitted to the data shown; the GPD model is an input and the data comparisons are illustrative. The consistency with the twist-4 results of Ref. [24] in the double-distribution representation is an important cross-check. The paper also offers a concrete quantitative argument that the series is naturally organized in 1/(Q^2+t) and that target mass corrections enter as powers of xi m/Q, which is useful for nuclear DVCS factorization. The main caveat is that the genuinely new twist-5/6 terms are not independently verified, and the advertised gauge-invariance restoration is not explicitly demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.B, Eqs. (15)-(16)] The entire calculation is built on the conformal-field-theory resummation of descendants of leading-twist operators imported from Refs. [33,34]. For the nucleon target, Eq. (16) (the axial-vector contribution) is stated as a new result without derivation, and the only verification reported is agreement with Ref. [24] after truncating to twist-4. The genuinely new twist-5 and twist-6 terms, in particular the m^2-dependent terms in Eqs. (27), (29), and (31) and the T_00/T_3 structures, are not checked against any independent construction. Since the paper's central claim is that all kinematic power corrections through twist-6 are now known for nucleon DVCS, I ask for at least one independent check of these new terms, or an explicit argument that the conformal-tower construction is exhaustive for massive spin-1/2 targets, before this claim is accepted as established.
  2. [Abstract, Section I, and Section II.A] The abstract and Introduction state that including these corrections restores the electromagnetic gauge invariance of the Compton amplitude up to 1/Q^5 effects, and translation invariance is introduced as a desired property in Section II.A. However, no explicit verification of q^mu A_mu nu = 0 and q'^nu A_mu nu = 0, or of the equivalent Ward identities, appears in the text, and no order-by-order statement is given for the residual violation. This is a load-bearing physical claim: it is the basis for asserting that the leading-twist frame dependence is removed. I request that the authors include the verification, even in a brief appendix, or explicitly state the order in 1/Q to which each identity is satisfied and why this follows from Eqs. (15)-(16).
  3. [Section IV and Section V] The convergence claim that the twist expansion is well convergent up to |t|/Q^2 <= 1/4 is supported only by numerical examples with the GK12 GPD model. Since this is one of the paper's main conclusions, the generalization to other GPD models is not warranted from the evidence shown. Please either soften the statement to a model-dependent observation or repeat the convergence test with a second, structurally different GPD model.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II.C.3, Eq. (31)] The sign discrepancy in A(3)_2 relative to Ref. [24, Eq. (A17)] is currently dismissed by saying that the DD representations agree. Please add a footnote that identifies which expression is correct or briefly shows the transformation that reconciles the two forms; as written, the reader cannot tell whether Eq. (31) or the corresponding expression in Ref. [24] contains a typo.
  2. [Section IV, Figures 5 and 6] The comparisons with Hall A and CLAS12 data do not show experimental uncertainties or goodness-of-fit indicators. Please state explicitly that these are illustrative model comparisons rather than fits, so that the absence of uncertainty bands cannot be misinterpreted.
  3. [References] Several bibliography entries (e.g., Refs. [12,13,14,17,18,19,20,25,26,27,28,29,33,34,43]) are missing publication years; please complete the metadata for the journal version.
  4. [General] Given the length and complexity of the amplitude expressions in Sections II.C and Appendix A, an ancillary file with a symbolic or numerical implementation would greatly aid reproducibility and verification by independent groups.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is parameter-free, uses the authors' prior conformal technique as a cited method rather than as a fitted input, and is cross-checked against independent twist-four results.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The kinematic power corrections are obtained from the light-ray OPE using conformal symmetry techniques from the authors' prior works [33,34]; these are cited derivations of a general method, not fitted parameters or empirical inputs. The present paper applies that method to a spin-1/2 target and states that the axial-vector contribution in Eq. (16) is new, while Eq. (15) is equivalent to the scalar-target result in [34]. Nothing in the text reduces any predicted amplitude to an input by construction: no constants are fitted to the shown DVCS data, the GK12 GPD model is an external input, and the data comparisons are illustrative. The cross-checks against the twist-four results of Ref. [24] and the comments that leading terms agree in the DD representation provide independent anchors. The reliance on [33,34] is not load-bearing in a circular sense because those prior works are themselves parameter-free calculations with stated assumptions, and the cited technique is a mathematical expansion rather than an observation fitted to the present paper's target results. The unproven completeness of the conformal descendant resummation for a massive spin-1/2 target, and the lack of an explicit display of the Ward identities, are correctness or rigor concerns, not circularity. The sign discrepancy noted for A(3)_2 relative to [24, Eq.(A17)] is a concrete potential error that is explicitly acknowledged and said to disappear in the DD representation; it is a consistency issue, not a circular argument. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required here: the outputs are computed from stated premises, and the premises do not tacitly assume the outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on standard QCD factorization, the imported conformal-symmetry technique, and the chosen GPD model for numerics; it introduces no new particles, forces, or fitted constants.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Collinear QCD factorization for DVCS at leading twist
    The paper computes power corrections to the leading-twist factorized amplitude without re-justifying factorization; this is standard for the DVCS program and stated in the introduction.
  • domain assumption Conformal symmetry of the light-ray OPE constrains all descendants of leading-twist operators
    Invoked in Sect. II.B via Refs [33,34]; QCD is not conformal after quantization, and this step is cited rather than derived.
  • standard math The leading-twist projection formula of Eq. (14) is valid
    Taken from Balitsky and Braun [38] and used to extract twist-2 operators.
  • domain assumption The GK12 GPD model adequately represents nucleon GPDs for the numerical illustration
    Used in Sec. IV to produce the figures and convergence statements; the authors note it is not fitted to the largest-xB data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinematic power corrections to DVCS to twist-six accuracy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7RH23QGL

@misc{pith2026250108185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinematic power corrections to DVCS to twist-six accuracy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7RH23QGL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08185}
}
abstract

We calculate $(\sqrt{-t}/Q)^k $ and $(m/Q)^k$ power corrections with $k\le 4$, where $m$ is the target mass and $t$ is the momentum transfer, to several key observables in Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering (DVCS). We find that the power expansion is well convergent up to $|t|/Q^2\lesssim 1/4$ for most of the observables, but is naturally organized in terms of $1/(Q^2+t)$ rather than the nominal hard scale $1/Q^2$. We also argue that target mass corrections remain under control and do not endanger QCD factorization for coherent DVCS on nuclei. These results remove an important source of uncertainties due to the frame dependence and violation of electromagnetic Ward identities in the QCD predictions for the DVCS amplitudes in the leading-twist approximation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08185 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Kinematic power corrections to the absolute value and phase of the BMP Compton Form Factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Kinematic power corrections to the absolute value and phase of the KM Compton Form Factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Real (upper panels) and imaginary (lower panels) parts of the helicity-flip BMP Compton Form Factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Real (upper panels) and imaginary (lower panels) parts of the helicity-flip KM Compton Form Factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spin-averaged cross sections from Jefferson Lab HallA [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Beam spin asymmetries from Jefferson Lab CLAS12 10.6 GeV data set [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Assessing the impact of the electron ion collider in China on Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Projected EicC DVCS asymmetry data would substantially reduce uncertainties on all leading-order Compton form factors, most strongly in the sea-quark region.

  2. Three-dimensional imaging of hadrons with hard exclusive reactions: advances in experiment, theory, phenomenology, and lattice QCD

    hep-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A community white paper reviewing GPD-based 3D imaging of hadrons — experiment, theory, phenomenology, lattice QCD — and the roadmap toward precision tomography at JLab, COMPASS, J-PARC, and future electron-ion colliders.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [24]

    Hattawy et al

    M. Hattawy et al. (CLAS), First Exclusive Measurement of Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering off 4He: Toward the 3D Tomography of Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 202004 (2017), arXiv:1707.03361 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2017

  2. [1]

    (27) We have verified that the invariant amplitudes(V (1) 0 , V (2) 0 ) and (A(1) 0 , A(2) 0 ) coincide with (V2/2, V1) and (A2/2, A1) as de- fined in Ref

    Helicity-conserving (±, ±) amplitude We obtain A ±,± V = (vq′) (qq′)V (1) 0 + (vP) m2 V (2) 0 , A ±,± A = ± (aq′) (qq′)A(1) 0 ± (a∆) 2m2 A(2) 0 , (26) where V (1) 0 = − 1 + bt 4 M ⊗ T0 − bt 2 M ⊗ T10 + 1 4bt2 M ⊗ T11 − 1 2D2 ξ | bP⊥|2 M ⊗ T2 + 2bt TV + 1 8D3 ξ | bP⊥|4Dξ M ⊗ T3 , V (2) 0 = − 1 + bt 4 E ⊙ T0 − bt 2 E ⊙ T10 + bt2 4 E ⊙ T11 − 1 2Dξ | bP⊥|2Dξ ...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Helicity-flip (0, ±) amplitude This is a subleading-power amplitude that starts at the twist- 3 level. We obtain A 0,± V = Q (qq′) v±V (1) 1 + (vq′)P± (qq′) V (2) 1 + (vP)P± m2 V (3) 1 , A 0,± A = ± Q (qq′) a± A(1) 1 + (aq′)P± (qq′) A(2) 1 + (a∆)P± 2m2 A(3) 1 (28) with V (1) 1 = − 1 + bt 2 (M ⊗ T10) +bt (M ⊗ T1) − 1 2D2 ξ | bP⊥|2 (M ⊗ TV ) , V (2) 1 = −Dξ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    to- mographic

    Double-helicity-flip (∓, ±) amplitude A ∓± V = v±P± (qq′) V (1) 2 + (vq′) (qq′) V (2) 2 + (vP) m2 V (3) 2 , A ∓± A = ±a±P± (qq′) A(1) 2 ± (aq′) (qq′) A(2) 2 ± (a∆) 2m2 A(3) 2 . (30) We get V (1) 2 = 2 1 + bt 4 Dξ M ⊗ T11 − 1 2D3 ξ | bP⊥|2 M ⊗ TV , V (2) 2 = −1 4 | bP⊥|2DξV (1) 2 , V (3) 2 = −1 2 | bP⊥|2D2 ξ 1 + bt 4 E ⊙ T11 − 1 4Dξ | bP⊥|2Dξ E ⊙ TV − 1 2 ...

    work page

  5. [4]

    M ¨uller, D

    D. M ¨uller, D. Robaschik, B. Geyer, F. M. Dittes, and J. Hoˇrejˇsi, Wave functions, evolution equations and evolution kernels from light ray operators of QCD, Fortsch. Phys. 42, 101 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9812448

    arXiv 1994

  6. [5]

    Ji, Deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys

    X.-D. Ji, Deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys. Rev. D 55, 7114 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9609381

    arXiv 1997

  7. [6]

    A. V . Radyushkin, Nonforward parton distributions, Phys. Rev. D 56, 5524 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9704207

    arXiv 1997

  8. [7]

    Abdul Khalek et al

    R. Abdul Khalek et al. , Science Requirements and Detec- tor Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Re- port, Nucl. Phys. A 1026, 122447 (2022), arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 46 references
  1. [8]

    Abdul Khalek et al

    R. Abdul Khalek et al. , Snowmass 2021 White Paper: Elec- tron Ion Collider for High Energy Physics, in 2022 Snowmass Summer Study (2022) arXiv:2203.13199 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Ji and J

    X.-D. Ji and J. Osborne, One loop corrections and all order fac- torization in deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys. Rev. D 58, 094018 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9801260

    1998 arXiv

  3. [10]

    A. V . Belitsky, A. Freund, and D. M ¨uller, Evolution kernels of skewed parton distributions: Method and two loop results, Nucl. Phys. B 574, 347 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9912379

    2000 arXiv

  4. [11]

    A. V . Belitsky and D. M¨uller, Broken conformal invariance and spectrum of anomalous dimensions in QCD, Nucl. Phys. B537, 397 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9804379

    1999 arXiv

  5. [12]

    J. D. Noritzsch, Heavy quarks in deeply virtual Compton scat- tering, Phys. Rev. D69, 094016 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0312137

    2004 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Kumericki, D

    K. Kumericki, D. M ¨uller, K. Passek-Kumericki, and A. Sch¨afer, Deeply virtual Compton scattering beyond next-to-leading or- der: the flavor singlet case, Phys. Lett. B 648, 186 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0605237

    2007 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Kumericki, D

    K. Kumericki, D. M ¨uller, and K. Passek-Kumericki, Towards a fitting procedure for deeply virtual Compton scattering at next- to-leading order and beyond, Nucl. Phys. B 794, 244 (2008), arXiv:hep-ph/0703179

    2008 arXiv

  8. [15]

    V . M. Braun, A. N. Manashov, S. Moch, and M. Strohmaier, Three-loop evolution equation for flavor-nonsinglet operators in 13 off-forward kinematics, JHEP 06, 037, arXiv:1703.09532 [hep- ph]

    arXiv

  9. [16]

    V . M. Braun, A. N. Manashov, S. Moch, and J. Schoenle- ber, Two-loop coefficient function for DVCS: vector contri- butions, JHEP 09, 117, [Erratum: JHEP 02, 115 (2022)], arXiv:2007.06348 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    V . M. Braun, A. N. Manashov, S. Moch, and J. Schoenle- ber, Axial-vector contributions in two-photon reactions: Pion transition form factor and deeply-virtual Compton scatter- ing at NNLO in QCD, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094007 (2021), arXiv:2106.01437 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [18]

    J. Gao, T. Huber, Y . Ji, and Y .-M. Wang, Next-to-Next-to- Leading-Order QCD Prediction for the Photon-Pion Form Fac- tor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 062003 (2022), arXiv:2106.01390 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    V . M. Braun, K. G. Chetyrkin, and A. N. Manashov, NNLO anomalous dimension matrix for twist-two flavor-singlet opera- tors, Phys. Lett. B834, 137409 (2022), arXiv:2205.08228 [hep- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [20]

    V . M. Braun, Y . Ji, and J. Schoenleber, Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering at Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 172001 (2022), arXiv:2207.06818 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Y . Ji, A. Manashov, and S.-O. Moch, Evolution kernels of twist-two operators, Phys. Rev. D 108, 054009 (2023), arXiv:2307.01763 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Ji and J

    Y . Ji and J. Schoenleber, Two-loop coefficient functions in deeply virtual Compton scattering: flavor-singlet axial-vector and transversity case, JHEP 01, 053, arXiv:2310.05724 [hep- ph]

    arXiv

  16. [23]

    Schoenleber, Resummation of threshold logarithms in deeply-virtual Compton scattering, JHEP 02, 207, arXiv:2209.09015 [hep-ph]

    J. Schoenleber, Resummation of threshold logarithms in deeply-virtual Compton scattering, JHEP 02, 207, arXiv:2209.09015 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Dupr ´e et al

    R. Dupr ´e et al. (CLAS), Measurement of deeply virtual Comp- ton scattering off4He with the CEBAF Large Acceptance Spec- trometer at Jefferson Lab, Phys. Rev. C 104, 025203 (2021), arXiv:2102.07419 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    V . M. Braun, A. N. Manashov, D. M ¨uller, and B. Pir- nay, Resolving kinematic ambiguities in QCD predictions for Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering, PoSDIS2014, 225 (2014), arXiv:1407.0815 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    V . M. Braun, A. N. Manashov, D. M ¨uller, and B. M. Pirnay, Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering to the twist-four accuracy: Impact of finite-t and target mass corrections, Phys. Rev. D 89, 074022 (2014), arXiv:1401.7621 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Y . Guo, X. Ji, and K. Shiells, Higher-order kinematical ef- fects in deeply virtual Compton scattering, JHEP 12, 103, arXiv:2109.10373 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Braun and A

    V . Braun and A. Manashov, Kinematic power corrections in off- forward hard reactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 202001 (2011), arXiv:1108.2394 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Braun and A

    V . Braun and A. Manashov, Operator product expansion in QCD in off-forward kinematics: Separation of kinematic and dynamical contributions, JHEP 01, 085, arXiv:1111.6765 [hep- ph]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Braun, A

    V . Braun, A. Manashov, and B. Pirnay, Finite-t and target mass corrections to DVCS on a scalar target, Phys. Rev. D86, 014003 (2012), arXiv:1205.3332 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Braun, A

    V . Braun, A. Manashov, and B. Pirnay, Finite-t and target mass corrections to deeply virtual Compton scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 242001 (2012), arXiv:1209.2559 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Defurne et al

    M. Defurne et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A), E00-110 experi- ment at Jefferson Lab Hall A: Deeply virtual Compton scat- tering off the proton at 6 GeV, Phys. Rev. C92, 055202 (2015), arXiv:1504.05453 [nucl-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Defurne et al., A glimpse of gluons through deeply virtual compton scattering on the proton, Nature Commun

    M. Defurne et al., A glimpse of gluons through deeply virtual compton scattering on the proton, Nature Commun. 8, 1408 (2017), arXiv:1703.09442 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Georges et al

    F. Georges et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A), Deeply Virtual Comp- ton Scattering Cross Section at High Bjorken xB, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 252002 (2022), arXiv:2201.03714 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    V . M. Braun, Y . Ji, and A. N. Manashov, Two-photon pro- cesses in conformal QCD: Resummation of the descendants of leading-twist operators, JHEP 51, 51, arXiv:2011.04533 [hep- ph]

    2011 arXiv

  29. [37]

    V . M. Braun, Y . Ji, and A. N. Manashov, Next-to-leading-power kinematic corrections to DVCS: a scalar target, JHEP 01, 078, arXiv:2211.04902 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Diehl, Generalized parton distributions, Phys

    M. Diehl, Generalized parton distributions, Phys. Rept. 388, 41 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0307382

    2003 arXiv

  31. [39]

    I. I. Balitsky and V . M. Braun, Evolution Equations for QCD String Operators, Nucl. Phys. B 311, 541 (1989)

    1989

  32. [40]

    A. V . Belitsky, D. M¨uller, and Y . Ji, Compton scattering: from deeply virtual to quasi-real, Nucl. Phys. B 878, 214 (2014), arXiv:1212.6674 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    I. I. Balitsky and V . M. Braun, The Nonlocal operator expansion for inclusive particle production in e+ e- annihilation, Nucl. Phys. B 361, 93 (1991)

    1991

  34. [42]

    [29] there is a sign error in the in-line equation after Eq.(7), it is corrected in [24, Eq.(A11)]

    In Ref. [29] there is a sign error in the in-line equation after Eq.(7), it is corrected in [24, Eq.(A11)]

  35. [43]

    A. V . Belitsky, D. Mueller, and A. Kirchner, Theory of deeply virtual Compton scattering on the nucleon, Nucl. Phys. B 629, 323 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0112108

    2002 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Kroll, H

    P. Kroll, H. Moutarde, and F. Sabatie, From hard exclusive meson electroproduction to deeply virtual Compton scattering, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2278 (2013), arXiv:1210.6975 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Christiaens et al

    G. Christiaens et al. (CLAS), First CLAS12 Measurement of Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering Beam-Spin Asymmetries in the Extended Valence Region, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 211902 (2023), arXiv:2211.11274 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    O. V . Teryaev, Crossing and radon tomography for generalized parton distributions, Phys. Lett. B 510, 125 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0102303

    2001

Pith tools

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