Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Flavor, transverse momentum, and azimuthal dependence of charged pion multiplicities in SIDIS with 10.6 GeV electrons

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims to establish a high-precision three-dimensional map of charged-pion multiplicities in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering, with one common Gaussian transverse-momentum shape for all four flavor cases and a Gaussian wi

desk verdict A genuinely new, high-precision SIDIS multiplicity dataset whose central z^2 width claim needs checking against the model used to correct it—still worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.03562 v4 pith:NGJ6YOCF submitted 2025-10-03 hep-ex nucl-ex

Hall C SIDIS Collaboration: P. Bosted , H. Bhatt , S. Jia , W. Armstrong , D. Dutta , R. Ent , D. Gaskell , E. Kinney
show 62 more authors
H. Mkrtchyan S. Ali R. Ambrose D. Androic C. Ayerbe Gayoso A. Bandari V. Berdnikov D. Bhetuwal D. Biswas M. Boer E. Brash A. Camsonne M. Cardona J. P. Chen J. Chen M. Chen E. M. Christy S. Covrig S. Danagoulian M. Diefenthaler B. Duran C. Elliot H. Fenker E. Fuchey J. O. Hansen F. Hauenstein T. Horn G. M. Huber M. K. Jones M. L. Kabir A. Karki B. Karki S. J. D. Kay C. Keppel V. Kumar N. Lashley-Colthirst W. B. Li D. Mack S. Malace P. Markowitz M. McCaughan E. McClellan D. Meekins R. Michaels A. Mkrtchyan C. Morean G. Niculescu I. Niculescu B. Pandey S. Park E. Pooser B. Sawatzky G. R. Smith H. Szumila-Vance A. S. Tadepalli V. Tadevosyan R. Trotta H. Voskanyan S. A. Wood Z. Ye C. Yerom X. Zheng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exnucl-ex
keywords semi-inclusivedeep-inelasticscatteringchargedpionmultiplicitiestransversemomentumdependenceazimuthalasymmetriesGaussianwidthquarkfragmentationfunctionsflavor
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 reports measurements of charged-pion multiplicities in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering of 10.6 GeV electrons from hydrogen and deuterium, binned in a fine three-dimensional grid in z, transverse momentum Pt, and azimuthal angle φ*. The central finding is that, for both pion charges on both targets, the transverse momentum dependence of the azimuthally averaged multiplicity is the same Gaussian shape up to Pt = 0.4 GeV, and that the width of that Gaussian grows quadratically with the pion energy fraction z. The paper also finds that the cos(φ*) modulation is consistent with zero for π+ but significantly positive for π− at high z, while the cos(2φ*) modulation is consistent with zero. The significance is that these 20,000 multiplicity values provide a high-statistics benchmark at moderate Q² for constraining quark transverse-momentum distributions and fragmentation functions, and for testing higher-twist contributions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the differential multiplicity M(z, Pt, φ*) extracted by dividing coincidence yields by a Monte Carlo simulation of the acceptance, radiative tails, and detector response, and iterating the simulation's model against the data. Each (z, Pt) bin is fit to M0[1 + A cos(φ*) + B cos(2φ*)], with M0 the azimuthally averaged multiplicity and A, B the azimuthal modulation coefficients. The Gaussian slope parameter b from fits of M0 to a exp(−b Pt²) carries the physics: through b⁻¹ = ⟨p_⊥²⟩ + z²⟨k_T²⟩, it converts the measured width into the intrinsic transverse momentum of quarks and the transverse momentum generated in fragmentation, with the z² term following from momentum cons

What would settle it

Refit the published raw tables using a Monte Carlo with a non-Gaussian input Pt distribution and an independent model for the exclusive and πΔ(1232) radiative tails; if the extracted Gaussian slope b(z) or the π− cos(φ*) moment moves by more than the quoted point-to-point systematics, the claimed z² width growth and flavor asymmetry are artifacts of the simulation. A complementary check is to measure the same multiplicities in a detector with full 2π azimuthal coverage at identical kinematics and compare A and B directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: a 10.6 GeV electron beam scattering off hydrogen and deuterium targets, with scattered electrons and charged pions detected in coincidence, yields multiplicities on a fine (z, Pt, φ*) grid. Fitting each (z, Pt) bin with M0[1 + A cos φ* + B cos 2φ*] shows that M0's Pt dependence is the same Gaussian for ep→eπ⁺X, ep→eπ⁻X, ed→eπ⁺X, and ed→eπ⁻X below Pt = 0.4 GeV, and the same out to 0.7 GeV at φ* = 180°. The Gaussian slope parameter is well described by b = 1/(0.185 + 0.28 z²), i.e., the width grows quadratically in z, which the paper interprets through b⁻¹ = ⟨p_⊥²⟩ + z²⟨k_T²⟩ as nearly equal quark transverse-momentum widths for up and down quarks and nearly equal favo

Load-bearing premise

The extraction assumes the Monte Carlo model of the SIDIS cross section, radiative tails, and detector acceptance does not imprint its own z-, Pt-, or flavor-dependent shape onto the data, and that diffractive rho production is negligible for x > 0.1 — if either fails, the Gaussian slopes and azimuthal moments are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single Gaussian width with a z² term describes π+ and π− from protons and deuterons up to Pt ≈ 0.4 GeV; differences between up- and down-quark intrinsic transverse momenta and between favored and unfavored fragmentation widths must be small in this kinematic region.
  • The measured slope b(z) ≈ 1/(0.185 + 0.28 z²) gives a compact parameterization for TMD fits: quark and fragmentation widths near 0.28 and 0.185 GeV² respectively under the standard convolution ansatz.
  • The cos(φ*) moment being zero for π+ but positive for π− at high z requires models of the Cahn and transverse-spin effects to produce a flavor asymmetry rather than a common shift.
  • The published three-dimensional multiplicity tables, with and without radiative corrections, give the global fitting community a large, self-consistent dataset at moderate Q² to refine quark transverse-momentum distributions and higher-twist contributions.
  • Multiplicities at φ* ≈ 180° stay Gaussian in Pt out to 0.7 GeV, extending the range over which the Gaussian ansatz is empirically tested.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the paper does not take is to fit one shared Gaussian width to all four flavor-target cases simultaneously over the full grid; success would strengthen the claim that up/down and favored/unfavored widths are nearly equal.
  • If the same quadratic-in-z width scaling appears at higher Q² or in full-acceptance detectors, the simple convolution picture is confirmed; a flattening would signal scale dependence beyond the leading-twist ansatz.
  • Because the paper publishes tables without radiative corrections, a future global fit applying a different radiative-correction model could show how much of the reported π− azimuthal signal is dependent on the simulation's background assumptions.
  • The paper's own caveat that diffractive rho production is neglected means the reported azimuthal coefficients should be treated as upper bounds on the genuine TMD signals until a dedicated rho-subtraction is performed.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports high-statistics SIDIS charged-pion multiplicities from proton and deuteron targets at JLab Hall C with a 10.6 GeV electron beam, covering x in 0.3–0.6, Q^2 in 3–5 GeV^2, z up to 0.7, P_t up to 0.7 GeV, and full azimuthal coverage at low P_t. The data are binned on a fine (z, P_t, phi*) grid and fitted per (x, Q^2, z, P_t) bin to M0[1 + A cos(phi*) + B cos(2 phi*)]. The main physics claims are: the M0 P_t-dependence is Gaussian with a slope b = (0.185 + 0.28 z^2)^{-1} GeV^{-2}; the multiplicity shapes are remarkably flavor-independent; A is consistent with zero for pi+ but significantly positive for pi- at high z; and B is consistent with zero. The publication includes extensive detector/systematic studies, comparisons to MAP global fits, and tables both with and without radiative corrections.

Significance. If the results hold, this is the most precise fully differential SIDIS pion multiplicity dataset in the valence-quark region so far, and it will be a valuable benchmark for TMD phenomenology and higher-twist studies. The paper's strengths include high luminosity, dedicated acceptance-correction studies, multiple cross-checks, and the release of 20,000-bin tables, including no-radiative-correction versions. However, the central Gaussian-width z^2 claim and some of the azimuthal-moment conclusions rest on Monte Carlo corrections and background amplitudes that are partly fit to the same data, so the model independence of the physics results needs to be demonstrated before the claims can be taken at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV.D, §III.A, Eq. (9)] The extracted Gaussian width in Fig. 15, b=(0.185+0.28 z^2)^-1, has the same functional form as the input MC width b=(0.12 z^2+0.2)^-1 in Eq. (6). The final multiplicity is constructed as M_i = M0·Y_exp/Y_MC (Eq. 9), and the SIDIS model was iteratively fit to the data of this experiment (Sec. III.A). The ratio method is standard, but it does not by itself remove the model imprint if the fitted model used the same data to tune M0 and if acceptance/radiative corrections are model-dependent. The paper should include a dedicated model-dependence test: repeat the b extraction with alternative input b(z) choices (constant, linear, steeper quadratic) and use the published no-radiative-correction tables. Without this, the claim that the width 'exhibits a quadratic increase with z' is not fully separated from the model assumption.
  2. [§III.C, §V.C] The πΔ(1232) radiative-tail coefficients in Sec. III.C are determined from a fit to the data of this experiment, and the subtraction reaches up to 7% with strong z and P_t dependence (Fig. 6, Sec. V.C). The quoted πΔ model uncertainty is 0.5–3% depending on kinematics, but no demonstration is given of how variations of the four scaling coefficients propagate into M0, A, B, and the slope parameter b. Since the πΔ tail is peaked near phi*=180 degrees and grows toward high z, it can directly bias both the A(pi-) moments and the high-z width trend. Please add explicit coefficient-variation studies and report the resulting systematic shifts.
  3. [§IV.D, Fig. 15] Fig. 15 shows b as a function of z for 3 settings × 4 flavor cases, but the global fit b=(0.185+0.28 z^2)^-1 is described only as 'rough' and no uncertainties, chi^2/ndf, or alternative functional forms are provided. The numerical interpretation <k_T^2> ~ 0.28 GeV^2 and <p_perp^2> ~ 0.185 GeV^2 in Sec. IV.D depends on the exact intercept and slope. Please quote the fitted parameters with covariance, and state whether a quadratic term is statistically preferred over a constant or linear z dependence.
  4. [§V.D] The paper states in Sec. V.D that diffractive rho production was not subtracted; the text says both that there 'could be substantial corrections' to the azimuthal moments and that the corrections are 'small for x>0.1.' Since the smallness of the rho contamination is used to justify the A(pi-)>0 result, please provide a quantitative estimate of the rho contribution in the present x range based on the COMPASS parametrization [48] and include it in the systematic budget for A and B. A statement of mitigation is not sufficient for a new flavor-asymmetry claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II] Typo: '3-dinemsional grid' should be 'three-dimensional grid'.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract and text use both P_T and P_t for the same variable; unify the notation.
  3. [§III.A, Eq. (5)] The symbol m_pi in the target-mass-correction formula is not defined; also, the notation zeta could be introduced more explicitly.
  4. [Table III] The caption 'parameters used for D_f/u' is ambiguous; the table header should clearly identify the D_f and D_u rows and the p1–p12 columns.
  5. [§IV.D] The sentence about MAP not including non-zero values of A and B is unclear; consider rephrasing to 'the MAP calculation provides only M0 and does not include A or B.'

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The reported z^2 Gaussian-width trend is partly inherited from the Monte Carlo model that was iteratively fitted to the same data and then used in the extraction formula.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III A / Eq. (9)]
    "Experimental multiplicities, defined as the ratio of the SIDIS cross section (dσ_ee′πX) to the inclusive DIS cross section (dσ_ee′X), were determined for each kinematic bin by: M_i(z, P_t, φ*) = M_0(x, Q^2, z, P_t, φ*) Y_exp/Y_MC (9) ... The SIDIS model was improved by scaling the ratio of measured yields to the MC yield and iterating this process."

    M_0 in Eq. (9) is the MC model whose fragmentation parameters were 'obtained from an iterative fit to the data of this experiment' (Sec. III A). Once the ratio is iterated to convergence, Y_exp/Y_MC ≈ 1, so the reported multiplicity is approximately the fitted input model. The z, P_t, and φ* dependence of the input—including the common Gaussian width and the statement 'we do not have any azimuthal dependence in this fit, consistent with the π+ results of the present experiment'—is therefore re-exported as a measured result rather than independently determined.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III A (Eq. 6) → Sec. IV D]
    "The P_t-dependence of the multiplicity functions was incorporated as ... a Gaussian distribution with the parameter b= (0.12 z^2 + 0.2)^{-1} GeV^{-2}, common to all processes ... The values decrease with increasing z, with a rough global fit to all three kinematic settings given by b= (0.185 + z^2 0.28)^{-1} GeV^{-2}."

    The headline claim that Gaussian widths exhibit a quadratic increase with z uses the same functional form that was placed in the MC model before extraction. Since Eq. (9) multiplies the data/MC ratio by this model and the model was iteratively fit to the data, the extracted b(z) is expected to track the input b(z); the numerical closeness illustrates that the z^2 trend is largely inherited from the ansatz. The published no-radiative-correction tables would be needed to separate the genuinely data-driven part.

full rationale

The circularity is real but partial. The extraction chain M_i = M0_model × Y_exp/Y_MC (Eq. 9), with M0_model fitted to the same data (Sec. III A), means the corrected multiplicities and their Gaussian-width fits are not fully independent of the input model; the input's b=(0.12z^2+0.2)^{-1} already contains the quadratic z-dependence that the paper reports as a finding (b≈(0.185+0.28z^2)^{-1}). The πΔ background coefficients are also fit to the same data (Sec. III C), adding further model dependence to the subtracted yields. However, the analysis is not wholly circular: the multiplicities are still data-constrained ratios, the paper provides tables without radiative corrections for direct testing, the extracted b differs from the input value, and the P_t shapes are compared with external MAP predictions based on HERMES/COMPASS data. These external checks support the claim independently, so the score is moderate rather than extreme. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness-from-authors circularity was found. The paper also honestly flags (Sec. V D) that diffractive ρ production was not subtracted and could cause substantial corrections to the azimuthal moments, and (Sec. V C) that the πΔ fit uncertainty is 0.5–3%; these are caveats that underscore model dependence without being definitional circularity by themselves.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its central physics claims rest on standard TMD/Gaussian interpretive assumptions and on background/acceptance models that are partly fitted to the same data. The main free parameters are the MC model parameters and normalization factors used in the analysis loop.

free parameters (4)
  • MC fragmentation parameters Df/Du p1–p12 = listed in Table III
    These parameters determine the z-, Q²-, W-dependence of the SIDIS multiplicity model used for acceptance and radiative corrections; the text states they were 'obtained from an iterative fit to the data of this experiment' (Sec III A).
  • π∆ background scaling coefficients = 0.4, 0.8, 0.55, 1.0
    Coefficients scaling exclusive pion electroproduction to model semi-exclusive π∆(1232); text says they are 'determined from a fit to the data of this experiment' (Sec III C).
  • Gaussian width parameter b in MC multiplicity model = b = (0.12 z² + 0.2)^−1 GeV^−2
    Adopted in the SIDIS model (Eq. 6) common to all flavor cases; later re-fitted from the data as b=(0.185+0.28 z²)^−1, from which ⟨k_T²⟩≈0.28 and ⟨p⊥²⟩≈0.185 are inferred.
  • MAP normalization factors k = per setting/z/flavor, shown in Fig. 13
    k is fit to maximize agreement with MAP predictions in Fig. 12, so the comparison tests shape, not absolute normalization.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption TMD factorization is applicable at these kinematics (x≈0.3–0.6, Q²≈3–4.5 GeV², W≈2.6–3.3 GeV).
    Invoked in Sec I B and V D; prior experiments [8–11] observed applicability at moderate Q², but this is not derived here.
  • domain assumption The Gaussian ansatz and the relation b^−1 = ⟨p⊥²⟩ + z²⟨k_T²⟩, with ⟨p⊥²⟩ independent of z, describe the Pt dependence.
    Used to extract ⟨k_T²⟩ and ⟨p⊥²⟩ from slope parameters (Sec IV D, Eq. 6); paper itself notes 'This interpretation relies on ⟨p⊥²⟩ being independent of z, which is manifestly incorrect as z→0 at finite values of ν' (Sec I B).
  • ad hoc to paper The Mx > 1.6 GeV cut removes nucleon-resonance, semi-exclusive, and higher-twist contamination.
    Applied to final results (Sec IV A) following Ref. [8]; the MC iteration used the data without this cut, so residual model dependence may enter.
  • domain assumption Mo-Tsai angle-peaking approximation and the exclusive/π∆ radiative-tail subtraction model are adequate.
    Used for radiative corrections (Sec III A-D); uncertainty estimated 0.1–3%; relies partly on unpublished Hall C fits.
  • domain assumption Diffractive ρ electroproduction contributions are negligible for x>0.1.
    No correction applied; extrapolation from COMPASS suggests small corrections for x>0.1 but 'could [be] substantial corrections to moments' (Sec V D).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flavor, transverse momentum, and azimuthal dependence of charged pion multiplicities in SIDIS with 10.6 GeV electrons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NGJ6YOCF

@misc{pith2026251003562,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flavor, transverse momentum, and azimuthal dependence of charged pion multiplicities in SIDIS with 10.6 GeV electrons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NGJ6YOCF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.03562}
}
abstract

Measurements of SIDIS multiplicities for $\pi^+$ and $\pi^-$ from proton and deuteron targets are reported on a grid of hadron kinematic variables $z$, $P_{T}$, and $\phi^{*}$ for leptonic kinematic variables in the range $0.3<x<0.6$ and $3<Q^2<5$ GeV$^2$. Data were acquired in 2018-2019 at Jefferson Lab Hall C with a 10.6~GeV electron beam impinging on 10-cm-long liquid hydrogen and deuterium targets. Scattered electrons and charged pions were detected in the HMS and SHMS spectrometers, respectively. The multiplicities were fitted for each bin in $(x,~Q^2,~z,~P_{t})$ to extract the $\phi^{*}$ independent $M_0$ and the azimuthal modulations $\langle \cos(\phi^{*}) \rangle$ and $\langle \cos(2\phi^{*}) \rangle$. The $P_t$-dependence of the $M_0$ results was found to be remarkably consistent for the four cases studied: $ep\rightarrow e \pi^+ X$, $ep\rightarrow e \pi^- X$, $ed\rightarrow e \pi^+ X$, $ed\rightarrow e \pi^- X$ over the range $0<P_t<0.4$ GeV, as were the multiplicities evaluated near $\phi^* = 180^\circ$ over the extended range $0<P_t<0.7$ GeV. The Gaussian widths of the $P_t$-dependence exhibit a quadratic increase with $z$. The $\cos(\phi^{*})$ modulations were found to be consistent with zero for $\pi^+$, in agreement with previous world data, while the $\pi^-$ moments were, in many cases, significantly greater than zero. The $\cos(2\phi^{*})$ modulations were found to be consistent with zero. The higher statistical precision of this dataset compared to previously published data should allow improved determinations of quark transverse momentum distributions and higher twist contributions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.03562 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (left) Kinematics of the SIDIS process in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Overview of the experimental setup in Hall C at JLab. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Accidental-subtracted distributions of normalized HMS calorimeter energy ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. SHMS aerogel signals (in p.e.) from setting III, as a function of the arrival time of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The solid black curves illustrate the ratio of radiated cross sections to Born cross sections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Acceptance correction factors as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Experimental yields as a function of electron-pion missing mass squared for setting I from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Pion multiplicity as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Pion multiplicity as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Pion multiplicity as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Normalization factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The fit parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Slope parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Ratios to ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Results from this experiment (solid circles) for the coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Results from this experiment (solid circles) for the coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Charged kaon and proton multiplicities in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering with 11 GeV electrons

    hep-ex 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    New SIDIS multiplicity measurements for kaons and protons on proton and deuteron targets with model comparisons showing agreement for K+ but discrepancies for K- and protons versus TMD predictions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [48]

    Agarwalaet al.(COMPASS), Nucl

    J. Agarwalaet al.(COMPASS), Nucl. Phys. B956, 115039 (2020), arXiv:1912.10322 [hep-ex] 41

    arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, A. Kotzinian, F. Murgia, and A. Prokudin, Phys. Rev. D71, 074006 (2005)

    2005

  3. [2]

    Anselmino, A

    M. Anselmino, A. Efremov, A. Kotzinian, and B. Parsamyan, Phys. Rev. D74, 074015 (2006)

    2006

  4. [3]

    Bacchetta, M

    A. Bacchetta, M. Diehl, K. Goeke, A. Metz, P. Mulders, and M. Schlegel, J. High Energy Phys.02, 093 (2007)

    2007

  5. [4]

    R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 1415 (1969)

    1969

  6. [5]

    Mulders and R

    P. Mulders and R. Tangerman, Nucl. Phys. B461, 197 (1996)

    1996

  7. [6]

    D. Boer, P. J. Mulders, and O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Rev. D57, 3057 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9710223

    arXiv 1998

  8. [7]

    Ji, J.-P

    X. Ji, J.-P. Ma, and F. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B597, 299 (2004)

    2004

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    Navasardyanet al., Phys

    T. Navasardyanet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 022001 (2007)

    2007

  2. [9]

    Mkrtchyan, P

    H. Mkrtchyan, P. E. Bosted,et al., Phys. Lett. B665, 20 (2008)

    2008

  3. [10]

    Osikenkiet al., Phys

    M. Osikenkiet al., Phys. Rev. D80, 032004 (2009)

    2009

  4. [11]

    Asaturyanet al., Phys

    R. Asaturyanet al., Phys. Rev. C85, 015202 (2012)

    2012

  5. [12]

    Anselminoet al., Eur

    M. Anselminoet al., Eur. Phys. J. A47, 35 (2011)

    2011

  6. [13]

    Barone, F

    V. Barone, F. Bradamante, and M. A., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys65, 267 (2010)

    2010

  7. [14]

    Bacchetta and M

    A. Bacchetta and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 212001 (2011)

    2011

  8. [15]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, J. O. Gonzalez-Hernandez, S. Melis, and A. Prokudin, J. High Energy Phys.04, 005 (2014)

    2014

  9. [16]

    Barone, M

    V. Barone, M. Boglione, J. O. Gonzalez Hernandez, and S. Melis, Phys. Rev. D91, 074019 (2015)

    2015

  10. [17]

    Bacchetta, F

    A. Bacchetta, F. Delcarro, C. Pisano, M. Radici, and A. Signori, J. High Energy Phys.06, 81 (2017)

    2017

  11. [18]

    R. N. Cahn, Phys. Lett. B78, 269 (1978)

    1978

  12. [19]

    Boer and P

    D. Boer and P. J. Mulders, Phys. Rev. D57, 5780 (1998)

    1998

  13. [20]

    Collins, Nuclear Physics B396, 161 (1993)

    J. Collins, Nuclear Physics B396, 161 (1993)

    1993

  14. [21]

    C. J. Bebek, C. N. Brown, M. Herzlinger, S. D. Holmes, C. A. Lichtenstein, F. M. Pipkin, S. Raither, and L. K. Sisterson, Phys. Rev. Lett.34, 759 (1975). 39

    1975

  15. [22]

    Airapetianet al.(HERMES), Phys

    A. Airapetianet al.(HERMES), Phys. Rev. D87, 074029 (2013), arXiv:1212.5407 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Airapetianet al.(HERMES), Phys

    A. Airapetianet al.(HERMES), Phys. Rev. D87, 012010 (2013), arXiv:1204.4161 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Ashmanet al.(EMC), Z

    J. Ashmanet al.(EMC), Z. Phys. C 52 (1991) 361-38852, 361 (1991)

    1991

  18. [25]

    G. D. Alexeevet al.(COMPASS), Phys. Rev. D112, 012002 (2025), arXiv:2410.12005 [hep- ex]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Adolphet al.(COMPASS), Eur.Phys.J.C73, (2013) 8, 2531, erratum Eur.Phys.J.C 75 (2015) 2, 94, arXiv:1305.7317 [hep-ex]

    C. Adolphet al.(COMPASS), Eur.Phys.J.C73, (2013) 8, 2531, erratum Eur.Phys.J.C 75 (2015) 2, 94, arXiv:1305.7317 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Beneˇ sov´ a (COMPASS), PoSDIS2024, 223 (2025), arXiv:2407.14669 [hep-ex]

    V. Beneˇ sov´ a (COMPASS), PoSDIS2024, 223 (2025), arXiv:2407.14669 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Bacchetta, V

    A. Bacchetta, V. Bertone, C. Bissolotti, G. Bozzi, M. Cerutti, F. Delcarro, M. Radici, L. Rossi, and A. Signori (MAP), JHEP08, 232 (2024), arXiv:2405.13833 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Bhattet al., Phys

    H. Bhattet al., Phys. Lett. B865, 139485 (2025), arXiv:2408.16640 [nucl-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Ali et al., arXiv:2503.08706 [physics.ins-det],https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.08706, sub- mitted to Nucl

    S. Ali et al., arXiv:2503.08706 [physics.ins-det],https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.08706, sub- mitted to Nucl. Inst. and Meth

  24. [31]

    SURA-CEBAF,CEBAF Conceptual Design Report: Basic Experimental Equipment, Tech. Rep. (SURA-CEBAF, Newport News, Virginia, 1990) university of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library

    1990

  25. [32]

    Mkrtchyanet al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Ac- celerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment719, 85 (2013)

    H. Mkrtchyanet al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Ac- celerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment719, 85 (2013)

    2013

  26. [33]

    CLAS Collaboration, Jefferson Lab,.https://www.jlab.org/physics/hall-b/clas

  27. [34]

    CLAS12 Collaboration, Jefferson Lab,.https://www.jlab.org/physics/hall-b/clas12

  28. [35]

    Bhatt, PhD Dissertation, Mississippi State University, 2024.https://misportal.jlab

    H. Bhatt, PhD Dissertation, Mississippi State University, 2024.https://misportal.jlab. org/sti/publications/23431

    2024

  29. [36]

    Jia, PhD Dissertation, Temple University, 2022.https://misportal.jlab.org/sti/ publications/21868

    S. Jia, PhD Dissertation, Temple University, 2022.https://misportal.jlab.org/sti/ publications/21868

    2022

  30. [37]

    CEBAF Data Acquisition System (DAQ),https://coda.jlab.org

  31. [38]

    Hall C MC,https://hallcweb.jlab.org/wiki/index.php/SIMC_Monte_Carloandhttps: //github.com/JeffersonLab/simc_gfortran

  32. [39]

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

    1969

  33. [40]

    P. E. Bosted and M. E. Christy, Phys. Rev. C77, 065206 (2008)

    2008

  34. [41]

    Kuhlmann, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements79, 108 (1999), proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and QCD

    S. Kuhlmann, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements79, 108 (1999), proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Deep Inelastic Scattering and QCD. 40

    1999

  35. [42]

    Schienbein, V

    I. Schienbein, V. A. Radescu, G. P. Zeller, M. E. Christy, C. E. Keppel, K. S. McFarland, W. Melnitchouk, F. I. Olness, M. H. Reno, F. Steffens, and J.-Y. Yu, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics35, 053101 (2008)

    2008

  36. [43]

    Horn, PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland, 2006.https://physics.umd.edu/enp/ theses/horn_thesis_04-25-06-revised.pdf

    T. Horn, PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland, 2006.https://physics.umd.edu/enp/ theses/horn_thesis_04-25-06-revised.pdf

    2006

  37. [44]

    Hall C pion-SIDIS results ,https://hallcweb.jlab.org/experiments/HALLC_SIDIS/

  38. [45]

    Bacchetta, V

    A. Bacchetta, V. Bertone, C. Bissolotti, G. Bozzi, M. Cerutti, F. Piacenza, M. Radici, and A. Signori, J. High Energy Phys.10, 127 (2022)

    2022

  39. [46]

    Cerutti, Private communications, 2024

    M. Cerutti, Private communications, 2024

    2024

  40. [47]

    Boglione, M

    M. Boglione, M. Diefenthaler, S. Dolan, L. Gamberg, W. Melnitchouk, D. Pitonyak, A. Prokudin, N. Sato, and Z. Scalyer (Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM)), JHEP 04, 084 (2022), arXiv:2201.12197 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.