pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.19918 · v2 · pith:QMSCW42Pnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · ✦ hep-ph

Redetermination of proton sea distributions

Alim Ruzi , Bo-Qiang Ma This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 18:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords sea quark distributionsproton structureGottfried sum ruleNNLO QCD analysisHERA dataATLAS dataparton distribution functionsflavor asymmetry
0
0 comments X

The pith

NNLO fits to HERA and ATLAS data reveal an excess of anti-up over anti-down quarks in the proton sea for x between 0.01 and 1.

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

The authors conduct two separate next-to-next-to-leading order global analyses of proton parton distributions. One uses HERA measurements of electron-proton deep inelastic scattering, while the other incorporates ATLAS data on W and Z boson production in proton-proton collisions. Both analyses extract light-flavor sea distributions and find that the anti-up quark momentum distribution is larger than that of the anti-down quark across the range from 1 percent to 100 percent of the proton's momentum. Reevaluating the Gottfried sum rule with these distributions produces a value that differs from earlier results reported by the NMC and NuSea experiments. A sympathetic reader would care because this challenges the conventional understanding of flavor symmetry in the proton's sea quarks and may require adjustments to models of nucleon structure.

Core claim

The shapes of light flavor sea quark distributions of the proton are examined directly from two rounds of NNLO global analysis of HERA e±p deep inelastic scattering cross section measurements, termed as HERAshape, and the ATLAS measurement of W±/Z production from pp collision at √s = 7 TeV, termed as ATLASshape. An asymmetric distribution between anti-up (ū) quark and anti-down (d̄) quark is found in both analysis, showing that the anti-up quark distribution exceeds over anti-down quark distribution in the momentum fraction range x∈(10^{-2}, 1) of these partons. The Gottfried Sum Rule is reevaluated from these extracted parton distribution functions and the obtained value differs surprisingl

What carries the argument

NNLO global analysis procedure applied to HERA deep inelastic scattering and ATLAS electroweak boson production data for extracting sea quark parton distributions.

If this is right

  • Light sea quarks exhibit ū(x) > d̄(x) asymmetry in the specified x range.
  • The Gottfried integral from these PDFs deviates from previous NMC and NuSea results.
  • Global parton distribution functions should incorporate this asymmetry in future fits.
  • Predictions for processes sensitive to light-flavor sea quarks may change at moderate x.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The asymmetry could alter cross-section predictions for other high-energy processes involving sea quarks.
  • Independent data from higher-energy colliders could test whether the imbalance persists or evolves with scale.
  • Theoretical models of sea-quark generation may need explicit flavor-breaking mechanisms to match this extraction.

Load-bearing premise

The NNLO analysis with the selected HERA and ATLAS data accurately determines the light sea quark distributions without interference from unmodeled effects or data biases.

What would settle it

A new global PDF fit or direct measurement of sea quark distributions that yields ū(x) ≤ d̄(x) across the same x range and restores the prior Gottfried sum rule value would falsify the asymmetry claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.19918 by Alim Ruzi, Bo-Qiang Ma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The parton distribution functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The parton distribution functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The sea di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The computed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The shapes of light flavor sea quark distributions of the proton are examined directly from two rounds of NNLO global analysis of HERA $e^{\pm}p$ deep inelastic scattering cross section measurements, termed as HERAshape and the ATLAS measurement of $W^{\pm}/Z$ production from $pp$ collision at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV, termed as ATLASshape. An asymmetric distribution between anti-up ($\ubar$) quark and anti-down ($\dbar$) quark is found in both analysis, showing that the anti-up quark distribution exceeds over anti-down quark distribution in the momentum fraction range $x\in(10^{-2}, 1)$ of these partons. The Gottfried Sum Rule is reevaluated from these extracted parton distribution functions and the obtained value differs surprisingly from that of the NMC and the NuSea Collaborations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript performs two separate NNLO global PDF analyses—one using HERA e±p DIS cross sections (HERAshape) and one using ATLAS W±/Z production data at 7 TeV (ATLASshape)—and reports that both yield ū(x) > d̄(x) for x ∈ (10^{-2}, 1). From the resulting PDFs the Gottfried sum rule is reevaluated and found to differ from the values obtained by the NMC and NuSea collaborations.

Significance. If the asymmetry is shown to be independently constrained by each dataset rather than imposed by parametrization choices, the result would provide a useful cross-check on light-sea distributions and motivate a re-examination of the numerical value of the Gottfried sum rule.

major comments (3)
  1. [HERAshape analysis description] HERAshape analysis: inclusive HERA e±p structure functions constrain only the charge-weighted sum (4/9)(u + ū) + (1/9)(d + d̄) + …; ū and d̄ enter with identical coefficients, supplying no direct lever arm on ū − d̄. The reported asymmetry therefore requires explicit demonstration (e.g., Δχ² when the asymmetry parameter is fixed to zero) that it is data-driven rather than an artifact of the chosen functional form.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4] Abstract and results section: the two analyses are presented symmetrically as mutual confirmation, yet the HERAshape result lacks an independent constraint on the asymmetry. The joint claim and the subsequent Gottfried-sum reevaluation therefore rest primarily on the ATLAS W±/Z data; this asymmetry of constraining power should be stated clearly.
  3. [Gottfried sum rule subsection] Gottfried-sum reevaluation: the numerical value and its uncertainty must be compared directly with the NMC and NuSea measurements, including a quantitative assessment of tension; the present text only states that the value “differs surprisingly.”
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract omits any mention of the parametrization form, number of free parameters, data-selection cuts, or error treatment; a one-sentence summary of these elements would improve readability.
  2. [Introduction] Notation for the sea distributions (ū, d̄) should be defined at first use and kept consistent with standard PDF literature.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions that will be incorporated.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [HERAshape analysis description] HERAshape analysis: inclusive HERA e±p structure functions constrain only the charge-weighted sum (4/9)(u + ū) + (1/9)(d + d̄) + …; ū and d̄ enter with identical coefficients, supplying no direct lever arm on ū − d̄. The reported asymmetry therefore requires explicit demonstration (e.g., Δχ² when the asymmetry parameter is fixed to zero) that it is data-driven rather than an artifact of the chosen functional form.

    Authors: We agree that inclusive HERA e±p data constrain only the charge-weighted combination and therefore supply no direct experimental lever arm on ū − d̄. In the HERAshape analysis the observed asymmetry is generated by the flexible input-scale parametrization and is selected by the global χ² minimization. To demonstrate that the data prefer a non-zero asymmetry, we will add the requested Δχ² comparison (free fit versus asymmetry parameters fixed to zero) in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and Section 4] Abstract and results section: the two analyses are presented symmetrically as mutual confirmation, yet the HERAshape result lacks an independent constraint on the asymmetry. The joint claim and the subsequent Gottfried-sum reevaluation therefore rest primarily on the ATLAS W±/Z data; this asymmetry of constraining power should be stated clearly.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the ATLAS W±/Z measurements supply the direct experimental constraint on the sea asymmetry, while the HERAshape result is a consistency check that relies on parametrization freedom. We will revise the abstract and Section 4 to state this difference in constraining power explicitly and to present the two analyses accordingly rather than as fully symmetric confirmations. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Gottfried sum rule subsection] Gottfried-sum reevaluation: the numerical value and its uncertainty must be compared directly with the NMC and NuSea measurements, including a quantitative assessment of tension; the present text only states that the value “differs surprisingly.”

    Authors: We will expand the Gottfried-sum subsection to quote the central values and uncertainties from both the NMC and NuSea measurements and to include a quantitative assessment of tension (e.g., pull in units of standard deviation) between our result and each experimental value. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected; derivation relies on external data fits.

full rationale

The paper performs standard NNLO global PDF fits to independent external datasets (HERA e±p DIS cross sections and ATLAS W±/Z production). The extracted ū > d̄ asymmetry and subsequent Gottfried sum reevaluation are direct outputs of these fits rather than reductions by construction to the paper's own inputs or self-citations. No equations, parametrizations, or claims in the provided text exhibit self-definitional equivalence, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citation chains. The procedure is externally benchmarked against experimental data, satisfying the criteria for a self-contained, non-circular analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of NNLO perturbative QCD for the global fits and on the assumption that the selected data sets constrain the sea distributions without large unmodeled contributions; no explicit free parameters or invented entities are stated in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • PDF parametrization parameters
    Standard in any global PDF fit; many parameters are fitted to data to determine the sea distributions.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption NNLO perturbative QCD is adequate to describe the HERA and ATLAS data for sea-quark extraction
    Invoked by performing NNLO global analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5664 in / 1266 out tokens · 36367 ms · 2026-06-30T18:13:04.360105+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Probing SU(2) Quark Flavor Asymmetry with W Bosons at RHIC

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    The STAR W+/W- cross section ratio is minimally affected by fiducial constraints and pT resummation, providing robust discrimination between ar d(x) and ar u(x) PDF models at x ~ 0.1 via L2 sensitivity and reweighting.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 25 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    (2) If the sea SU(2) symmetry is further assumed, ¯ u(x) = ¯d(x), we obtain the Quark Parton Model (QPM) prediction for GSR, to be 1 /3

    reduces to S G = 1 3 + 2 3 ∫ 1 0 [ ¯u(x) −¯d(x) ] dx. (2) If the sea SU(2) symmetry is further assumed, ¯ u(x) = ¯d(x), we obtain the Quark Parton Model (QPM) prediction for GSR, to be 1 /3. The NMC result, 0 . 240 ±0. 016 [ 8], is roughly 10% lower than this value. This discrepancy be- tween the NMC result and QPM prediction of the GSR was considered as ...

  2. [2]

    Redetermination of proton sea distributions

    reads as S G = 1 3 + 10 9 ∫ 1 0 [¯qp(x) −¯qn(x)] dx. (3) arXiv:2605.19918v1 [hep-ph] 19 May 2026 2 Thus, we can interpret the discrepancy between the NMC and QPM predictions, according to Eq. ( 3), as an indication that there are more sea quarks in the neutron than in the pro- ton. The contribution from isospin symmetry breaking to the GSR is expected to ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    40 for charged current (CC) interaction (mediated by W ±), with electron beam energy of Ee ≃27

    3 ×10−2 ≤x ≤0. 40 for charged current (CC) interaction (mediated by W ±), with electron beam energy of Ee ≃27. 5 GeV and proton beam energies of E p = 920, 820, 575, 460 GeV . The obtained PDFs from these data are free of any hadronic corrections and the assumption of isospin symmetry in the nucleon. Another important feature of the HERA data is that the ...

  4. [4]

    As for the strange quark factor, fs, it is reported that the ac- tual distribution of the strange quark is not suppressed in the proton [ 20, 23]

    with freeing the parameters A, B of x ¯D and x ¯U. As for the strange quark factor, fs, it is reported that the ac- tual distribution of the strange quark is not suppressed in the proton [ 20, 23]. The ratio of ¯ s/ ¯d is measured to be

  5. [5]

    19+0. 15 −0. 16 with great precision by A TLAS collaboration, us- ing the HERA e±p data jointly with W ±/ Z production cross section data [ 20]. By Eq. ( 5), we have fs = 0.54 in our anal- ysis. By relaxing the restricted parameters in Eq. ( 4), the num- ber of free fit parameters then adds up to 16 from the 14 fit parameters of HERAPDF2.0. The fitting proce...

  6. [6]

    With the inclusion of the A TLAS W ±/ Z data and the application of the parame- terization form in Eq

    The x¯u, x ¯d, x ¯s distributions of the A T- LASshape PDFs are well constrained with smaller uncertain- ties relative to the HERAshape PDFs. With the inclusion of the A TLAS W ±/ Z data and the application of the parame- terization form in Eq. ( 6), x¯u is slightly diminished in A T- LASshape PDFs with respect to both the HERAPDF2.0 and the HERAshape PDF...

  7. [7]

    The pale green bands in both figure represents the NMC results with 0. 227 ±0. 0016 and 0. 240 ±0. 016 corresponding in two x ranges. The S G obtained from NNPDF3.1, CT18NNLO crosses with that of the NMC within their large uncertainties, with the central values being larger than NMC result in 0 . 004 ≤ 4 4−10 3−10 2−10 1−10 1 x 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 )2(x,Q u...

  8. [8]

    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 and H. W . Kendall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 930-934 (1969)

    1969

  9. [9]

    Breidenbach, J

    M. Breidenbach, J. I. Friedman, H. W . Kendall, E. D. Bloom, D. H. Coward, H. C. DeStaebler, J. Drees, L. W . Mo and R. E. Taylor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 935-939 (1969) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.935

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.23.935 1969

  10. [10]

    Neural network determination of parton distributions: the nonsinglet case

    L. Del Debbio et al. [NNPDF], JHEP 03, 039 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0701127 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  11. [11]

    New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics

    S. Dulat, T. J. Hou, J. Gao, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, P . Nadolsky, J. Pumplin, C. Schmidt, D. Stump and C. P . Y uan, Phys. Rev. 6 D 93, no.3, 033006 (2016) [arXiv:1506.07443 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, P . Motylinski and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no.5, 204 (2015) [arXiv:1412.3989 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  13. [13]

    A. M. Cooper-Sarkar [ZEUS and H1], PoS EPS-HEP2011, 320 (2011) [arXiv:1112.2107 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  14. [14]

    Gottfried, Phys

    K. Gottfried, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 1174 (1967)

    1967

  15. [15]

    Amaudruzet al

    P . Amaudruzet al. [New Muon], Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2712- 2715 (1991)

    1991

  16. [16]

    Baldit et al

    A. Baldit et al. [NA51], Phys. Lett. B 332, 244-250 (1994) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)90884-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)90884-2 1994

  17. [17]

    Ackersta ffet al

    K. Ackersta ffet al. [HERMES], Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5519- 5523 (1998) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevLett.81.5519 [arXiv:hep- ex/9807013 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 1998

  18. [18]

    E. A. Hawker et al. [NuSea], Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3715- 3718 (1998) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevLett.80.3715 [arXiv:hep- ex/9803011 [hep-ex]]

    work page arXiv 1998

  19. [19]

    R. S. Towell et al. [NuSea], Phys. Rev. D 64, 052002 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.052002 [arXiv:hep-ex /0103030 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.64.052002 2001

  20. [20]

    Georgi and H

    H. Georgi and H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. D 14, 1829 (1976) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.1829

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.14.1829 1976

  21. [21]

    Badelek and J

    B. Badelek and J. Kwiecinski, Phys. Rev. D 50, 4-8 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.R4 [arXiv:hep-ph /9401314 [hep- ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.50.r4 1994

  22. [22]

    Ma, Phys

    B.-Q. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 274, 111-115 (1992)

    1992

  23. [23]

    B.-Q. Ma, A. Schafer and W . Greiner, Phys. Rev. D47, 51-55 (1993) [arXiv:hep-ph/9211202 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  24. [24]

    B.-Q. Ma, A. Schafer and W . Greiner, J. Phys. G 20, 719- 726 (1994) doi:10.1088 /0954-3899/20/5/006 [arXiv:hep- ph/9405323 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 1994

  25. [25]

    Combination of Measurements of Inclusive Deep Inelastic $e^{\pm}p$ Scattering Cross Sections and QCD Analysis of HERA Data

    H. Abramowicz et al. [H1 and ZEUS], Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no.12, 580 (2015) [arXiv:1506.06042 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  26. [26]

    Measurement of the inclusive W+- and Z/gamma cross sections in the electron and muon decay channels in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    G. Aad et al. [A TLAS], Phys. Rev. D 85, 072004 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.072004 [arXiv:1109.5141 [hep- ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.072004 2012

  27. [27]

    Precision measurement and interpretation of inclusive $W^+$, $W^-$ and $Z/\gamma^*$ production cross sections with the ATLAS detector

    M. Aaboud et al. [A TLAS], Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no.6, 367 (2017) doi:10.1140 /epjc/s10052-017-4911-9 [arXiv:1612.03016 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Correlations between Polarisation States of W Particles in the Reaction e-e+ -> W-W+ at LEP2 Energies 189-209 GeV

    J. Abdallah et al. [DELPHI], Eur. Phys. J. C 63, 611-623 (2009) [arXiv:0908.1023 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  29. [29]

    P . M. Nadolsky et al Phys. Rev. D 78, 013004 (2008) [arXiv:0802.0007 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  30. [30]

    Determination of the strange quark density of the proton from ATLAS measurements of the W->l nu and Z->ll cross sections

    G. Aad et al. [A TLAS], Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 012001 (2012) [arXiv:1203.4051 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  31. [31]

    HERAFitter, Open Source QCD Fit Project

    S. Alekhin et al., HERAFitter Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no.7, 304 (2015) [arXiv:1410.4412 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    xFitter (formerly HERAFitter) program, 2016, www.xfitter.org

    2016

  33. [33]

    V . N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 438- 450 (1972) IPTI-381-71

    1972

  34. [34]

    V . N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15, 675- 684 (1972)

    1972

  35. [35]

    Y . L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP46, 641-653 (1977)

    1977

  36. [36]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B 126, 298-318 (1977) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90384-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90384-4 1977

  37. [37]

    QCDNUM: Fast QCD Evolution and Convolution

    M. Botje, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 490-532 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2010.10.020 [arXiv:1005.1481 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2010.10.020 2011

  38. [38]

    James and M

    F. James and M. Roos, Comput. Phys. Commun. 10, 343-367 (1975) doi:10.1016/0010-4655(75)90039-9

    work page doi:10.1016/0010-4655(75)90039-9 1975

  39. [39]

    Uncertainties of predictions from parton distribution functions II: the Hessian method

    J. Pumplin, D. Stump, R. Brock, D. Casey, J. Hus- ton, J. Kalk, H. L. Lai and W . K. Tung, Phys. Rev. D 65, 014013 (2001) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.65.014013 [arXiv:hep-ph/0101032 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  40. [40]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  41. [41]

    J. Gao, L. Harland-Lang and J. Rojo, Phys. Rept. 742, 1-121 (2018) doi:10.1016 /j.physrep.2018.03.002 [arXiv:1709.04922 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    A posteriori inclusion of parton density functions in NLO QCD final-state calculations at hadron colliders: The APPLGRID Project

    T. Carli, D. Clements, A. Cooper-Sarkar, C. Gwenlan, G. P . Salam, F. Siegert, P . Starovoitov and M. Sutton, Eur. Phys. J. C 66, 503-524 (2010) doi:10.1140 /epjc/s10052-010- 1255-0 [arXiv:0911.2985 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  43. [43]

    A. M. Cooper-Sarkar and K. Wichmann, Phys. Rev. D 98, no.1, 014027 (2018) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.98.014027 [arXiv:1803.00968 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    Goncharov et al

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

    work page arXiv 2001

  45. [45]

    Tzanov et al

    M. Tzanov et al. [NuTeV], Phys. Rev. D 74, 012008 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.012008 [arXiv:hep-ex /0509010 [hep-ex]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.74.012008 2006

  46. [46]

    H. L. Lai, M. Guzzi, J. Huston, Z. Li, P . M. Nadol- sky, J. Pumplin and C. P . Y uan, Phys. Rev. D 82, 074024 (2010) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.82.074024 [arXiv:1007.2241 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  47. [47]

    A Precision Measurement of Charm Dimuon Production in Neutrino Interactions from the NOMAD Experiment

    O. Samoylov et al. [NOMAD], Nucl. Phys. B 876, 339-375 (2013) doi:10.1016 /j.nuclphysb.2013.08.021 [arXiv:1308.4750 [hep-ex]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  48. [48]

    Ruzi and B.-Q

    A. Ruzi and B.-Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.7, 076004 (2021) doi:10.1103 /PhysRevD.104.076004 [arXiv:2109.06854 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.014013 2021

  50. [50]

    L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, R. Nathvani and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no.10, 811 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7296-0 [arXiv:1907.02750 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7296-0 2019

  51. [51]

    Illuminating the photon content of the proton within a global PDF analysis

    V . Bertoneet al. [NNPDF], SciPost Phys. 5, no.1, 008 (2018) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.5.1.008 [arXiv:1712.07053 [hep- ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.21468/scipostphys.5.1.008 2018

  52. [52]

    A. V . Manohar, P . Nason, G. P . Salam and G. Zanderighi, JHEP 12, 046 (2017) doi:10.1007 /JHEP12(2017)046 [arXiv:1708.01256 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  53. [53]

    NLO PDFs from the ABMP16 fit

    S. Alekhin, J. Blümlein and S. Moch, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no.6, 477 (2018) doi:10.1140 /epjc/s10052-018-5947-1 [arXiv:1803.07537 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018