Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 52 references

QED nuclear medium effects at EIC energies

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

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

Pith's one-line read QED nuclear medium effects shift EIC cross sections by up to 10 percent.

desk verdict Useful first estimate of QED nuclear medium effects for EIC, but the screening model and resummation inputs need more care before the numbers enter systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06943 v2 pith:BQFBZQR6 submitted 2025-02-10 nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex

Shohini Bhattacharya , Oleksandr Tomalak , Ivan Vitev This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-exhep-phnucl-ex
keywords QEDnuclearmediumeffectsGlauberphotonselectron-ioncolliderdeepinelasticscatteringopacityexpansionCoulombscreeninglead-208radiativecorrections
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper predicts that soft electromagnetic re-scattering of electrons off the Coulomb field of a heavy nucleus will show up in electron-nucleus collisions at the future Electron-Ion Collider at the 0.1% to several percent level, reaching about 10% near phase-space edges. These corrections affect both elastic scattering on nucleons inside the nucleus and neutral-current inclusive deep inelastic scattering on lead-208. Because EIC analyses aim for percent-level precision, the authors argue these effects must be unfolded when extracting nucleon and nuclear structure from data. The work is the first to estimate these corrections for inelastic processes under EIC conditions, whereas earlier studies focused on elastic scattering.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the opacity expansion for soft QED rescattering, with Glauber photons—photons whose momentum is dominated by a large transverse component relative to the lepton’s direction—exchanged between the charged lepton and the nuclear Coulomb field. The interaction potential is $v(\vec{q}_\perp)=4\pi\alpha/(\vec{q}_\perp^2+\zeta^2)$ with screening scale $\zeta = m_e Z^{1/3}/192$, and the nuclear distribution is a Woods–Saxon density. First-order corrections are built from the difference between the hard cross section at shifted and unshifted transverse momentum, integrated along the incoming and outgoing lepton trajectories through the nucleus. Multiple re-scattering is resummed into a Molière-style transverse-momentum distribution, $dN/dp'_{\perp}=\int_0^\infty b\,p'_\perp J_0(0,b p'_\perp)\,e^{\chi[(\zeta b)K_1(\zeta b)-1]}db$, whose width is set by the mean number of QED interactions $\chi\sim Z^{1/3}/(m_e R_{\rm rms})^2$. The same machinery converts a single-nucleon DIS cross section into a nuclear-medium-corrected one.

What would settle it

A high-precision elastic electron-lead scattering measurement at $Q^2 \lesssim 0.2$ GeV$^2$ and small scattering angles should show the predicted 1–3% suppression of the broadened cross section relative to the kinematics-only expectation; its absence at percent-level precision would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Coulomb field of a heavy nucleus acts as a QED medium: an electron traversing $^{208}_{82}\mathrm{Pb}$ exchanges Glauber photons with protons before and after the hard scattering, and this soft rescattering modifies the measured cross section. At first order in the opacity expansion, the correction to neutral-current inclusive DIS ranges from a tenth of a percent to a few percent, reaching up to 10% at the edges of phase space, and it decreases with beam energy. For elastic scattering the one-interaction correction is energy-independent and reaches a percent level at low $Q^2$; after resumming multiple interactions, the broadening of the electron's transverse momentum suppresses the cross section by 1–3% at the lowest EIC energies and by a few percent in DIS at small $x$. These numbers are presented as evidence that QED nuclear medium effects need to be included in EIC extractions of structure functions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the nuclear Coulomb field can be represented by a static, screened potential with screening scale $\zeta = m_e Z^{1/3}/192$; if the true atomic screening scale is different, the size of the predicted corrections changes, and the paper brackets this uncertainty only by varying $\zeta$ by a factor of 36.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • EIC and EIcC data analyses must include QED nuclear medium corrections as a systematic uncertainty, or extracted nucleon and nuclear structure functions will be biased at the percent level.
  • One-interaction corrections for inclusive DIS grow near the edges of the Bjorken-$x$ phase space and at large $Q^2$, so those kinematic regions require the largest unfolding.
  • Resummed broadening corrections matter most at low momentum transfer, low $x$, and low beam energies, where they reach a few percent.
  • Elastic scattering on lead at low $Q^2$ receives an energy-independent percent-level correction, making it a clean kinematic window to probe the effect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the effect scales roughly with $Z^{1/3}$ and nuclear size, lighter nuclei such as iron or calcium should show smaller medium corrections; comparing lead with a lighter nucleus at identical kinematics would isolate the QED medium effect from other radiative corrections.
  • The same machinery extends naturally to polarized inclusive DIS, semi-inclusive DIS, and exclusive reactions, where the size of the effect may differ because the hard-scattering kinematics are more differential.
  • If the screening-scale uncertainty ($\zeta$ versus $36\zeta$) brackets the true atomic screening, then atomic-physics input becomes the dominant theoretical error for these corrections, so improved atomic screening calculations would directly sharpen EIC extractions.
  • A dedicated electron-lead run at the lowest EIcC energy, with recoil-energy tagging, could directly test the predicted few-percent dip in $\sigma_{\rm broad}/\sigma_{\rm exp}$ for inclusive DIS at $x\sim 10^{-2}$.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper estimates QED nuclear medium effects—soft Coulomb rescattering of the incoming and outgoing lepton inside the target nucleus—for elastic electron-nucleon scattering and neutral-current inclusive deep inelastic scattering on 208Pb at future EIC/EIcC energies. The formalism is the Glauber-photon opacity expansion: Eq. (2) for one rescattering and Eq. (4) for resummed multiple rescattering, with a Woods-Saxon nuclear density and an atomic screening scale ζ in the Coulomb potential. The numerical results show elastic corrections at the percent level for Q^2 ≲ 0.2 GeV^2, DIS corrections ranging from a tenth of a percent to a few percent, and corrections up to about 10% at kinematic boundaries. The authors conclude that these effects must be unfolded in EIC extractions of nucleon and nuclear structure.

Significance. If the numerical estimates are reliable, this is a useful first survey of an effect that is not part of the standard QED radiative-correction framework and that could matter at the percent-level precision goals of the EIC. The paper is transparent about the main input choices: it uses public form-factor and nPDF inputs, states the Woods-Saxon parameters, and explicitly identifies the atomic screening scale ζ as the dominant uncertainty. The main weaknesses are that the screening model is not derived from a realistic atomic or nuclear potential, that an important parameter χ of the resummed calculation is specified only up to a proportionality, and that the kinematic-edge predictions rest on an applicability assumption that is not demonstrated. Overall, the central claim is plausible but not yet nailed down tightly enough for the numbers to be used directly in experimental analyses.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (1)] The size of every numerical correction in this paper is controlled by the infrared cutoff ζ in Eq. (1), yet ζ = m_e Z^{1/3}/192 is taken from Ref. [20] without derivation, and the uncertainty estimate only rescales ζ by n^2 = 36. This is a one-sided, ansatz-level bracket: it does not test whether the effective Coulomb potential felt by a lepton inside a heavy nucleus is a single Yukawa with that screening scale, and it does not address the finite size of the nuclear charge distribution, which changes the potential at the distances that contribute to the logarithmic enhancement. Since the paper itself labels this the dominant uncertainty, please provide a first-principles estimate of ζ from the atomic electron density (or a realistic screened potential) and check how the quoted ranges and the 'up to 10%' conclusions change when the shape of the potential is varied, not just its scale.
  2. [§3.1, Fig. 3, and §4] There is an inconsistency between the quoted maximum correction and the plotted curves. In Fig. 3 the axis is labeled δσe/σe in permille and has ticks up to 10^4, while §3.1 says the effect 'can reach sizable values (10%)' and the Conclusions repeat 'up to 10%'. If some curves at the phase-space boundary reach 10^4 permille, the text underestimates the maximum by a factor of 100; if the curves remain at the 10% level, the axis labels or figure ranges are misleading. Please make the quantitative summary consistent with the actual plotted values and state explicitly whether the edge-of-phase-space results are meant as a quantitative prediction or only as an indication of a divergence of the expansion.
  3. [§2.2, Eq. (5)] The resummed multiple-scattering results in Figs. 2, 5, and 6 depend on the mean number of QED interactions χ, but Eq. (5) specifies χ only as a proportionality, χ ∼ Z^{1/3}/(m_e R_rms)^2, and the numerical value of R_rms used for 208Pb is not stated. Without the coefficient and the input value, the resummed curves cannot be reproduced or checked, and the sensitivity of the few-percent conclusions to this parameter is unknown. Please give the concrete expression and numerical value used, and include a short sensitivity study around that value.
  4. [§3.1, Eq. (2)] The DIS corrections are obtained by substituting the inclusive DIS cross section into Eq. (2), which was derived for a hard scattering process with collinear electrons and Glauber photons of transverse momentum much smaller than the hard scale. The largest quoted effects occur precisely at the edges of phase space, where the hard cross section is steeply varying as a function of x and Q^2. It should be demonstrated that the q⊥ integral in Eq. (2) is dominated by q⊥ ≪ Q in those regions; otherwise the 10%-level edge predictions may be an artifact of applying the Glauber expansion outside its domain. A concrete test would be to show the q⊥ integrand at a representative edge point (e.g., x near 0.5 at Q^2 = s/2, or x near 1 at Q^2 = 1 GeV^2) and to compare the result with a calculation that restricts q⊥ to the Glauber region.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1, paragraph after Eq. (3)] The sentence 'We consider medium effects arising solely from the electromagnetic fields of nuclear sources and neglect contributions from the charge distribution of atomic electrons' is confusing because the screening scale ζ in Eq. (1) is precisely an atomic-electron screening effect. Please clarify that direct scattering off atomic electrons is neglected, while their screening of the nuclear Coulomb field is encoded in ζ.
  2. [§3.2, Figs. 5 and 6] The text repeatedly refers to the 'elastic relation between the recoil electron energy and scattering angle' when defining σexp, but for inclusive DIS there is no elastic relation between E'_e and the scattering angle. Please define σexp in the DIS context explicitly, for example as the cross section evaluated at the x and Q^2 reconstructed from the nominal E'_e and angle.
  3. [Appendices B and C, Eq. (25)] The normalization factor −π PolyLog[3,−e^{2R0}] appears without explanation; please state that it normalizes the Woods-Saxon density to the nuclear charge/neutron number, and specify the units used for R0 in that expression.
  4. [§2.2 and §3.2] In §2.1 the authors say lepton deflection is neglected, while §2.2 and §3.2 account for deflection through the transverse-momentum distribution of Eq. (4). A sentence clarifying that the first-order opacity calculation neglects deflection while the resummed calculation includes it would prevent an apparent contradiction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the percent-level corrections are computed consequences of an external potential and external form-factor/PDF inputs, not fitted or self-referential outputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required by the circularity test. The central cross-section corrections are obtained by substituting an externally specified screened Coulomb potential (Eq. 1, with ζ taken from Jackson's textbook, Ref. [20]) and external single-nucleon inputs (elastic form factors [24-30], nuclear PDFs [34-36]) into the opacity expansion (Eq. 2) and the Molière resummation (Eq. 4). No parameter is fitted to the target cross-section corrections; the atomic screening scale ζ is varied only to bracket sensitivity, and that variation is explicitly labeled as an uncertainty estimate rather than as a prediction. The self-citations to Refs. [14,15,18] supply the eikonal/SCET_G formalism, but those references are anchored in external QCD opacity results [17-19,21-23] and are not invoked as an unverified uniqueness theorem or as an ansatz unique to this paper. The paper's percent-level claim is therefore a computed consequence of stated inputs, not a renaming or refitting of those inputs. Any concern about the realism of the Thomas-Fermi screening scale is a physical-assumption risk, which the paper itself flags as the dominant uncertainty, and is not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces; the medium effect is standard QED in a screened Coulomb field. The main unverified inputs are the atomic screening scale and the opacity/resummation formalism from the authors' prior work.

free parameters (1)
  • Mean number of QED interactions χ = Not specified; Eq. (5) gives only χ ∼ Z^{1/3}/(m_e R_rms)^2
    Controls the width of the resummed transverse-momentum distribution in Eq. (4) and therefore the size of all multiple-scattering corrections in Figs. 2, 5, and 6; the paper does not fix the proportionality constant.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The nuclear Coulomb field is described by a screened static potential v(q_perp)=4πα/(q_perp^2+ζ^2) with ζ = m_e Z^{1/3}/192 (Eq. 1).
    Taken from Jackson [20]; all numerical results depend on this potential and on the neglect of running α below the electron mass.
  • domain assumption The opacity expansion Eq. (2) factorizes the medium interaction from the hard cross section; hard scattering is an incoherent sum over nucleons with a Woods-Saxon density (Eq. 3).
    Central formula from Refs. [14,21-23]; assumes eikonal, straight-line lepton trajectories and local hard interaction.
  • domain assumption Nuclear modification of elastic nucleon form factors is negligible at the level of cross-section ratios.
    Stated in §2.1; if form factors change inside the nucleus, the baseline and medium-modified rates shift.
  • domain assumption The resummed transverse-momentum distribution in Eq. (4) with the Moliere-type multiple-scattering ansatz.
    From Refs. [15,18]; the normalization χ is not fully specified.
  • domain assumption Bound-nucleon parton distributions from nuclear PDF fits [35,36] describe the nucleus in the DIS baseline.
    Used for all inclusive DIS results; PDF uncertainties are not propagated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QED nuclear medium effects at EIC energies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BQFBZQR6

@misc{pith2026250206943,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QED nuclear medium effects at EIC energies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BQFBZQR6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06943}
}
abstract

We present the first calculation of quantum electrodynamics (QED) nuclear medium effects under the experimental conditions of future Electron-Ion Collider (EIC) experiments. Our work offers numerical estimates, particularly in the context of inclusive deep inelastic scattering on a $^{208}_{82}\mathrm{Pb}$ nucleus. While prior studies have predominantly focused on elastic scattering, our investigation extends to the more complex scenarios of inelastic processes within a nuclear medium. Our findings suggest that the cross-section corrections due to QED nuclear medium effects could be substantial, reaching or exceeding the level of experimental precision. This work further compares the effects of single re-scattering events with those of multiple re-scatterings, as particles travel the nuclear volume. We estimate the dominant source of the uncertainties associated with our formalism by varying the scale of the atomic physics where the screening of the electric field of the nucleus happens. This calculation not only contributes to the understanding of QED nuclear medium effects, but also offers a path to a more precise extraction of the process-independent non-perturbative structure of nuclei.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06943 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Relative electron-nucleus scattering cross-section correction, at the first order in the opacity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Ratio of the elastic electron-proton scattering cross section after accounting for the QED [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Relative neutral-current inclusive deep inelastic electron-nucleus scattering cross-section correc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relative neutral-current inclusive deep inelastic electron-nucleus scattering cross-section correc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ratio of the inclusive deep inelastic electron-proton scattering cross section after accounting for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ratio of the inclusive deep inelastic electron-proton scattering cross section after accounting for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Coordinate choices in lepton-nucleus scattering are shown. The lepton trajectories are shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Coordinate choices in elastic lepton-nucleus scattering are shown. The incoming lepton tra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics(Wiley, 1998)

    1998

  2. [1]

    Willeke, Conceptual Design Report (2021), 10.2172/1765663

    F. Willeke, Conceptual Design Report (2021), 10.2172/1765663

    doi:10.2172/1765663 2021

  3. [2]

    Abdul Khalek et al., Nucl

    R. Abdul Khalek et al., Nucl. Phys. A 1026, 122447 (2022), arXiv:2103.05419 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2022

  4. [3]

    Boer et al., Prog

    D. Boer et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 142, 104162 (2025), arXiv:2409.03691 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [4]

    Copeland, S

    M. Copeland, S. Fleming, R. Gupta, R. Hodges, and T. Mehen, Phys. Rev. D 109, 054017 (2024), arXiv:2308.08605 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

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

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    D. R. Yennie, S. C. Frautschi, and H. Suura, Annals Phys. 13, 379 (1961)

    work page 1961

  8. [7]

    L. W. Mo and Y.-S. Tsai, Rev. Mod. Phys. 41, 205 (1969)

    work page 1969

Show all 52 references
  1. [8]

    L. C. Maximon and J. A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. C 62, 054320 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0002058

    2000 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Vanderhaeghen, J

    M. Vanderhaeghen, J. M. Friedrich, D. Lhuillier, D. Marchand, L. Van Hoorebeke, and J. Van de Wiele, Phys. Rev. C 62, 025501 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0001100

    2000 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Tuchin, Phys

    K. Tuchin, Phys. Rev. C 89, 024904 (2014), arXiv:1311.1124 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [11]

    A. V. Gramolin, V. S. Fadin, A. L. Feldman, R. E. Gerasimov, D. M. Nikolenko, I. A. Rachek, and D. K. Toporkov, J. Phys. G 41, 115001 (2014), arXiv:1401.2959 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [12]

    T. Liu, W. Melnitchouk, J.-W. Qiu, and N. Sato, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094033 (2021), arXiv:2008.02895 [hep-ph]. 14

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Afanasev et al., Eur

    A. Afanasev et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 91 (2024), arXiv:2306.14578 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Tomalak and I

    O. Tomalak and I. Vitev, Phys. Lett. B 835, 137492 (2022), arXiv:2206.10637 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Tomalak and I

    O. Tomalak and I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. D 108, 093003 (2023), arXiv:2310.01414 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Tomalak and I

    O. Tomalak and I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. D 109, 073010 (2024), arXiv:2402.16851 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Idilbi and A

    A. Idilbi and A. Majumder, Phys. Rev. D 80, 054022 (2009), arXiv:0808.1087 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Ovanesyan and I

    G. Ovanesyan and I. Vitev, JHEP 06, 080 (2011), arXiv:1103.1074 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [19]

    I. Z. Rothstein and I. W. Stewart, JHEP 08, 025 (2016), arXiv:1601.04695 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Gyulassy, P

    M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5535 (2000), arXiv:nucl-th/0005032

    2000 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gyulassy, P

    M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev, Nucl. Phys. B 594, 371 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0006010

    2001 arXiv

  15. [23]

    U. A. Wiedemann, Nucl. Phys. B 588, 303 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0005129

    2000 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J. C. Bernauer et al. (A1), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 242001 (2010), arXiv:1007.5076 [nucl-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. C. Bernauer et al. (A1), Phys. Rev. C 90, 015206 (2014), arXiv:1307.6227 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Xiong et al., Nature 575, 147 (2019)

    W. Xiong et al., Nature 575, 147 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Pohl et al., Nature 466, 213 (2010)

    R. Pohl et al., Nature 466, 213 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    Antognini et al., Science 339, 417 (2013)

    A. Antognini et al., Science 339, 417 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Beyer et al., Science 358, 79 (2017)

    A. Beyer et al., Science 358, 79 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Bezginov, T

    N. Bezginov, T. Valdez, M. Horbatsch, A. Marsman, A. C. Vutha, and E. A. Hessels, Science 365, 1007 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Moliere, Z

    G. Moliere, Z. Naturforsch. A 3, 78 (1948)

    1948

  24. [32]

    Gyulassy, P

    M. Gyulassy, P. Levai, and I. Vitev, Phys. Rev. D 66, 014005 (2002), arXiv:nucl-th/0201078

    2002 arXiv

  25. [33]

    J. a. Barata, Y. Mehtar-Tani, A. Soto-Ontoso, and K. Tywoniuk, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054047 (2021), arXiv:2009.13667 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    D. B. Clark, E. Godat, and F. I. Olness, Comput. Phys. Commun. 216, 126 (2017), arXiv:1605.08012 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kovarik et al., Phys

    K. Kovarik et al., Phys. Rev. D 93, 085037 (2016), arXiv:1509.00792 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Kusina et al., Eur

    A. Kusina et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 968 (2020), arXiv:2007.09100 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and M. D. Sievert, Nucl. Phys. B 903, 164 (2016), arXiv:1505.01176 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Accardi, F

    A. Accardi, F. Arleo, W. K. Brooks, D. D’Enterria, and V. Muccifora, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 32, 439 (2009), arXiv:0907.3534 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  31. [39]

    H. T. Li, Z. L. Liu, and I. Vitev, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138354 (2024), arXiv:2303.14201 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ke and I

    W. Ke and I. Vitev, Phys. Lett. B 854, 138751 (2024), arXiv:2301.11940 [hep-ph]. 15

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Ke, Y.-Y

    W. Ke, Y.-Y. Zhang, H. Xing, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 034001 (2024), arXiv:2304.10779 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Berger and A

    J. Berger and A. M. Stasto, JHEP 01, 001 (2013), arXiv:1205.2037 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Lomnitz and S

    M. Lomnitz and S. Klein, Phys. Rev. C 99, 015203 (2019), arXiv:1803.06420 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bhattacharya, D

    S. Bhattacharya, D. Zheng, and J. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 051901 (2024), arXiv:2312.01309 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Mertig, M

    R. Mertig, M. Bohm, and A. Denner, Comput. Phys. Commun. 64, 345 (1991)

    1991

  38. [46]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, Comput. Phys. Commun. 207, 432 (2016), arXiv:1601.01167 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Mathematica, Version 12.2.0.0,

    Wolfram Research, Inc., “Mathematica, Version 12.2.0.0,” (2022), Champaign, IL

    2022

  40. [48]

    M. R. MacAskill, Journal of Statistical Software 47, 1–9 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Halzen and A

    F. Halzen and A. D. Martin, QUARKS AND LEPTONS: AN INTRODUCTORY COURSE IN MODERN PARTICLE PHYSICS(John Wiley and Sons, 1984)

    1984

  42. [50]

    Brock et al

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

    1995

  43. [51]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    R. J. Hill and O. Tomalak, Phys. Lett. B 805, 135466 (2020), arXiv:1911.01493 [hep-ph]. 16

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.