Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Symmetry breaking effects in pion couplings to constituent quark currents

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read With unequal up and down quark masses, the neutral pion couples more strongly to up-quark currents than to down-quark currents at every kinematic point considered, and charged-pion absorption differs from emission by a small amount…

desk verdict A legitimate extension with new numerical content, but the comparison to pion-nucleon couplings rests on an ad hoc mixing rescaling and the truncation error is the same size as the effects. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15104 v3 pith:6OZLK6LA submitted 2024-12-19 hep-ph nucl-th

Fabio L. Braghin This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords pioncouplingsconstituentquarkmodelisospinsymmetrybreakingdeterminantpi0-eta-eta-primemixingpseudoscalarcouplingaxialstrangecurrent
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 tries to establish that pion couplings to constituent quarks carry small, calculable isospin-breaking effects once the up and down quark masses are allowed to differ. Starting from a quark determinant with local pion fields, background quark currents, and a dressed gluon propagator, it derives pseudoscalar and axial coupling constants and finds that the neutral pion couples more strongly to up-quark currents than to down-quark currents in every kinematic point considered. It also finds that positive and negative pion absorption and emission are not exactly equal, with the asymmetry proportional to $M_d-M_u$ at leading order, and that pion mixing with $\eta$ and $\eta'$ states produces a very small neutral-pion coupling to the strange-quark current. The sympathetic reader cares because these quark-level asymmetries are the natural bridge from low-energy QCD to the small isospin violations seen in pion-nucleon couplings.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quark determinant of Eq. (1), expanded in large quark and gluon effective masses, with local pion fields $U=e^{iP\cdot\lambda/F}$ and dressed background quark currents. The expansion produces the form factors $G^{ps}_{ij}$ and $G^{A}_{ij}$ whose local limit gives the pion-quark couplings, and the renormalization condition $G^{ps}_{\pi^\pm}(M_f^2,0)=13$ sets the overall scale. Flavor mixing enters through the $\pi^0$-$\eta$-$\eta'$ rotation of Eq. (14) and the mixing prescription of Eq. (18), which converts the diagonal couplings into the mixed up, down, and strange couplings $G^\xi_{\mathrm{mix},uu}$, $G^\xi_{\mathrm{mix},dd}$, and $G^\xi_{\mathrm{mix},ss}$.

What would settle it

A determination of the neutral pion's relative couplings to up- and down-quark currents that found the opposite sign, or a high-precision measurement of charged-pion absorption versus emission that showed no $M_d-M_u$ asymmetry, would contradict the central claim. A direct check is also possible in the model itself: compute the next order in the large-mass expansion and show that the leading term is not dominant; if it is not, the quoted numbers are not reliable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that nondegenerate quark masses make the pion-constituent quark couplings flavor-dependent in a specific pattern. For the pseudoscalar channel, $G^{ps}_{uu}$ exceeds $G^{ps}_{dd}$ at all four kinematic points and for all three parameter sets, and the mixing of the neutral pion with the $\eta$ and $\eta'$ states shifts the up and down couplings in opposite directions. The charged pion coupling is fixed to $G^{ps}_{\pi^\pm}=13$ by renormalization, and with that condition the axial coupling emerges near $g_A\sim 1$ for the lower-mass parameter set. The difference between charged-pion absorption and emission, Eq. (25), is small and grows linearly with $M_d/M_u$ in leading order. The paper argues that the relative behavior of charged and neutral pion couplings is close to recent determinations of pion-nucleon couplings, although reproducing the proton-neutron hierarchy requires the mixing interactions to be adjusted by a factor $x^{ps}_m$ that is negative, typically between $-1.2$ and $-2.6$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the large quark and gluon mass expansion of the quark determinant in Eq. (1), whose validity the paper states is not directly proved; the representative term $Y_{\rm vac}\sim0.28$ is not very small, so if the expansion or the subsequent local limit is not under control the numerical coupling constants lose their quantitative meaning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The neutral pion couples more strongly to up-quark currents than to down-quark currents at every kinematic point considered, and the mixing shifts these two couplings in opposite directions.
  • Emission and absorption of a charged pion are not exactly equal; their relative difference is linear in $M_d-M_u$ at leading order and reaches a few percent for the pseudoscalar coupling with on-shell pions.
  • The neutral pion couples to the strange-quark current at only about $10^{-3}$ (pseudoscalar) and $10^{-4}$ (axial) of the charged pion coupling, so strangeness contamination is tiny unless additional mixing interactions amplify it.
  • With the charged pseudoscalar coupling fixed to 13, the axial coupling comes out close to 1, matching the constituent-quark-model expectation without imposing the Goldberger-Treiman relation.
  • The relative size of charged and neutral pion couplings resembles recent pion-nucleon determinations, but matching the proton-neutron hierarchy requires stronger, negative mixing interactions, plausibly of the 't Hooft type.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: computing the next order in the large-mass expansion would tell whether the marginal convergence ($Y_{\rm vac}\sim0.28$) changes the numerical pattern, so the tables here are best read as indicative rather than definitive.
  • Extension: the same mixing machinery could predict isospin-breaking couplings for the $\eta$ and $\eta'$ mesons, since the $0$ and $8$ flavor matrix elements are already computed.
  • Extension: if measurements of pion absorption and emission in nuclear reactions ever reach the $10^{-3}$ level, the linear $M_d-M_u$ asymmetry could become an independent handle on the light quark mass difference.
  • Extension: the tiny neutral-pion coupling to strange currents, negligible in vacuum, may become relevant in strange baryons or dense matter where strange quark content is enhanced.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper derives pseudoscalar and axial pion--constituent-quark coupling constants from a quark determinant in the presence of local pion fields and background quark currents, using nondegenerate up, down, and strange quark masses. Gluonic effects are encoded in an effective gluon propagator, and flavor mixings are introduced both through pion--eta--eta-prime mixing and through current mixing terms. The author computes the couplings at four kinematic points for three parameter sets, reports that the neutral pion couples more strongly to the up-quark current than to the down-quark current, finds a small charged-pion emission/absorption asymmetry linear in (M_d - M_u), and obtains a very small neutral-pion coupling to the strange-quark current. The paper compares the relative quark-level pattern with pion-nucleon coupling constants from Refs. [6,7], claiming qualitative agreement after tuning the mixing parameters.

Significance. If the derivation were fully controlled, the paper would provide a useful dynamical estimate of isospin and flavor symmetry breaking in pion--constituent-quark couplings, a quantity that is usually taken to be flavor-blind in constituent quark models. The author is commendably explicit about several limitations: the large-mass expansion is not proved, the mixing prescription is called nearly ad hoc, and the nucleon-level comparison requires an arbitrary rescaling. However, the central numerical claims are not yet established because the expansion uncertainty is comparable in size to the predicted effects, and one defining equation is inconsistent with the tables. The paper is potentially a useful contribution to the model-dependent literature on isospin breaking in pion couplings, but in its present form it does not provide a robust prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (1) and Y_vac] The central numerical results rely on the large quark-mass expansion of the determinant, whose validity the author explicitly states is not directly proved. The quoted control value Y_vac ~ 0.28, together with the author's own NJL precedent of 20-30% corrections, is not small compared with the effects claimed here: the neutral-pion up-down difference in Table 3 is about 7% of the charged coupling (A1 S1: 13.471 vs 12.531), and the charged emission/absorption asymmetry D_{u-d} in Fig. 2 is 1-3%. Without an estimate or bound on the next-order terms, the sign and magnitude of these small asymmetries are not established. I request a quantitative estimate of the first neglected order, or a sensitivity study that varies Y_vac over the range allowed by the quoted uncertainty.
  2. [Table 3, Eq. (11) and Eq. (17)] The neutral-pion entries in Table 3 are internally inconsistent with the defining equations. Eq. (11) states G_pi0_ps(0) = G_uu + G_dd, and Eq. (17) states that the mixed coupling is a3 times (G_mix,uu + G_mix,dd), but every row of Table 3 satisfies G_pi0 = (G_uu + G_dd)/2 (e.g., A1 S1: (13.471 + 12.531)/2 = 13.001 = G_pi0(0)). This factor of two must be resolved: either the defining equations are missing a 1/2 or the table entries are not the quantities defined by the equations. As printed, the numerical values cannot be reproduced from the formulas.
  3. [Section 3.1, Eq. (18) and Section 4, Eq. (24)] The mixing prescription g_ij = G_ij / (2(G_ii + G_jj)) is admitted to be “nearly ad hoc”, and the nucleon-compatible hierarchy is obtained only after an arbitrary uniform negative rescaling xm_ps (Eq. (24)). Consequently the abstract’s claim that the quark-level relative behavior “may be nearly the same” as the pion-nucleon couplings is not a prediction but a fit. Since the strange-current couplings in Eq. (15) are proportional to the same mixing parameters, their reported small values are also prescription-dependent. Please state which observable, if any, is independent of this tuning, or remove the nucleon-comparison claim from the abstract.
  4. [Section 4, Eq. (19) and Eq. (23)] The renormalization condition Eq. (19) fixes the absolute charged coupling to the phenomenological value 13, so the absolute scale is an input. The comparison with Refs. [6,7] further depends on the additive averaging assumption in Eq. (23) and on the tuned xm_ps, so the conclusion that “mixing interactions should be stronger than those provided by flavor symmetry breaking” does not follow from the calculation alone. A falsifiable statement would specify how xm_ps is determined independently of the nucleon data that the comparison is intended to reproduce.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 3, A2 S3] In the A2 S3 row, G_pi0(0) is printed as 15.550(2), but the entries G_uu(0)=14.818 and G_dd(0)=14.283 average to 14.5505; this appears to be a typographical error.
  2. [Introduction] The word “Goldsone” should be “Goldstone”.
  3. [Section 4] The text says “In the last column of Fig. (4)”, but the strange-current coupling is presented in Table 4, not in Fig. 4.
  4. [Eq. (4)] The notation S_B_eff uses a superscript B that is never defined; please clarify whether it labels the background-field effective action or something else.
  5. [Section 4] The abbreviation “s.o.p.” is used without being spelled out; please define “sets of parameters” on first use.
  6. [Fig. 2] The caption of Figure 2 would benefit from stating the normalization convention for D_{u-d} and the specific mass values used in the plotted curves.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction in the central isospin asymmetries; the overall charged scale is an input and the nucleon-compatible hierarchy is reached with an acknowledged ad hoc parameter.

full rationale

The central claimed results are the relative isospin effects: neutral pion coupling stronger to the up than to the down current in Table 3, and the emission/absorption asymmetry proportional to M_d - M_u in Eq. (25). These are computed from the determinant form factors in Eq. (7) with the stated quark masses and are not fitted to pion-nucleon data, so they do not reduce by construction. The paper explicitly uses Eq. (19) only as a renormalization condition (G^ps_{π±}(K^2=M_f^2,Q^2=0)=13) and says absolute values are not the focus; reporting 13.000 at S1 is therefore a named input, not a disguised prediction. The nucleon comparison is less clean: Eq. (24) multiplies the mixing parameters by an arbitrary negative factor x^m_{ps} to flip G^ps_uu < G^ps_dd and match Refs. [6,7]; the text calls this ad hoc and presents it as a suggestion, so it is a fitted compatibility exercise rather than a forced prediction. The large-mass expansion in Section 2 is explicitly admitted to be 'not directly proved', with Y_vac ~ 0.28 and 20-30% NJL corrections; that is a correctness risk that can affect the small asymmetries, but it is an unproven assumption, not a circular step. Heavy use of the author's earlier work [13,16,17,24,25] makes the framework self-referential, but no load-bearing claim is justified only by a self-cited uniqueness theorem, and the new relative effects are independently computed. An internal normalization ambiguity between Eq. (11) and Table 3 (factor of 2 in the neutral average) should be resolved, but it does not make the derivation circular.

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

The central calculation is not self-contained: it inherits quark masses, a gluon mass, a propagator ansatz, and a renormalization condition from phenomenology and earlier papers. The two most consequential choices are the ad hoc mixing prescription Eq. (18) and the arbitrary rescaling xm_ps used to compare with nucleon data. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Effective gluon normalization K_F = not quoted; fixed by Eq. (19)
    Chosen so that Gps_pi±(M_f^2,0)=13; sets the absolute scale of all pseudoscalar couplings.
  • Constituent quark masses (Mu, Md, Ms) = A1: 389/399/600 MeV, A2: 307/319/349 MeV, A3: 340/350/550 MeV
    Model inputs from an NJL fit and common literature values; the pattern of results depends on the set.
  • Effective gluon mass M_g = 500 MeV
    Chosen by hand for the confining propagator in Eq. (20); affects the kinematic dependence.
  • Mixing rescaling xm_ps = about -1.2 to -2.6, Table 3
    Arbitrary factor in Eq. (24) applied to mixings to make the neutral pion up/down hierarchy resemble pion-nucleon data.
  • Neutral pion mixing coefficient a3 = not stated; described as a3 ~ 1
    Multiplies all mixed neutral pion couplings in Eqs. (14)-(17) but is never numerically fixed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The large quark mass expansion of the determinant converges and the local limit applies, with typical term Y_vac ~ 0.28.
    Invoked in Section 2; the author explicitly says its validity is not directly proved.
  • domain assumption The effective dressed-gluon propagator has the form of Eq. (20) with a single mass scale M_g and an overall normalization K_F.
    The propagator is inspired by Ref. [36] and tested in earlier work; all numerical results follow from this choice.
  • domain assumption Pseudoscalar and axial pion couplings are obtained independently from the determinant without imposing the Goldberger-Treiman relation.
    Stated in Section 2; the Goldberger-Treiman relation is used only as a posterior check and is not satisfied with a small correction.
  • ad hoc to paper Mixing parameters follow the nearly ad hoc prescription g_i-j = G_ij / (2(G_ii+G_jj)) in Eq. (18).
    The paper labels this prescription as nearly ad hoc; it controls the size and sign of the up/down and strange mixing corrections.
  • domain assumption Nucleon pion couplings are approximated by flavor averages: g_pi0 nn ~ (2 G_dd + G_uu)/3 and g_pi0 pp ~ (2 G_uu + G_dd)/3.
    Used in Eq. (23) to compare quark-level results with pion-nucleon couplings from Refs. [6,7].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetry breaking effects in pion couplings to constituent quark currents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6OZLK6LA

@misc{pith2026241215104,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetry breaking effects in pion couplings to constituent quark currents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6OZLK6LA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15104}
}
abstract

Pseudoscalar and axial neutral and charged pion-constituent quark coupling constants are investigated with nondegenerate quark masses in different kinematical points, off shell and on shell pions and constituent quarks. By considering a large quark mass expansion of a quark determinant in the presence of local pion field and of constituent quark background currents, gluonic effects are considered by means of an effective gluon propagator that dresses quark currents. For the neutral pion, mixing effects are introduced by means of the pion mixing to states $P_0$ and $P_8$, that give rise to the $\pi^0-\eta-\eta'$ meson mixing, and mixing of quark currents via corresponding mixing interactions. The relative behavior of charged and neutral pion coupling constants to quarks may be nearly the same - in the framework of the constituent quark model - as the pion-nucleon coupling constants if mixings are introduced. A very small pion coupling to strange quark current is also obtained. The dependence of the positive and negative pion-constituent quark coupling constant on the non-degeneracy of quark masses, for emission and absorption processes, is identified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15104 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagrammatic interpretation of the leading (charged and neutral) pion couplings to constituent quark currents (absorption) at one loop level. Pion and quark momenta are, respectively, Q and K. In Diagram (c) q = u, d. Wiggly lines with a dot are components of a (non-perturbative) gluon (effective) propagator. Although resulting interaction are non-local, by assuming large quark and gluon effective masses, it is poss… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dependence of the difference of charged pion coupling constants (25) as a function of the mass ratio Md/Mu, for the cases Q2 = 0 and Q2 = M2 π± , with K2 = M2 f . 4.1 Pion coupling to Strange currents Both pion couplings to strangeness current, the pseudo-scalar and the axial ones, are very small and they depend on the strange quark effective mass. The behavior of the corresponding coupling constants will be shown w… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ratio G ps ss defined in (26) as a function of Ms for the three s.o.p. 0.00010 0.00010 0.00011 0.00011 0.00012 0.00012 0.00013 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 GssA , sop 1 GssA , sop 2 GssA , sop 3 G s s A Ms (GeV) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ratio GA ss defined in (26) as a function of Ms for the three s.o.p. 5 Summary and conclusions Pseudoscalar and axial charged and neutral pion -constituent quark coupling constants were derived and investigated by considering quark mass non-degeneracy within a dynamica…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lavelle, D

    M. Lavelle, D. McMullan, Constituent quarks from QCD, Phys. Rept.279, 1 (1997)

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Manohar and H

    A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B234, 189 (1984). W. Plessas, The constituent-quark model nowadays, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 30, 1530013 (2015)

    work page 1984

  3. [3]

    Y. B. Yang, J. Liang, Yu-J. Bi, Y. Chen, T. Draper, K. F. Liu, and Z. Liu, Proton Mass Decomposition from the QCD Energy Momentum Tensor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 212001 (2018), and references therein. C. Lorcé, On the hadron mass decomposition. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 120 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Itzykson, J.B

    C. Itzykson, J.B. Zuber, Quantum Field Theory, McGraw-Hill, 1985. T.P. Cheng, L.F. Li, Gauge theory of elementary particle physics, Oxford, 1984

    work page 1985

  5. [5]

    Bali et al, Solving the PCAC puzzle for nucleon axial and pseudoscalar form factors, Phys

    G.S. Bali et al, Solving the PCAC puzzle for nucleon axial and pseudoscalar form factors, Phys. Lett. B 789, 666 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Navarro Pérez, J

    R. Navarro Pérez, J. E. Amaro, and E. Ruiz Arriola, Precise determination of charge-dependent pion-nucleon-nucleon coupling constants, Phys. Rev. C 95, 064001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Reinert , H

    P. Reinert , H. Krebs , and E. Epelbaum, Precision Determination of Pion-Nucleon Coupling Constants Using Effective Field Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 092501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Quark masses Phys. Rep. 87, 77 (1982)

    work page 1982

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    J. F. Donoghue, Light quark masses and chiral symmetry, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 39, 1 (1989)

    1989

  2. [10]

    K Nakamura et al (Particle Data Group) 2010 Review of particle physics J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 37, 075021 (2010). M. Tanabashi, et al (Particle Data Group) 2018 Phys. Rev. D 98 030001 (2018)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Meissner, Isospin breaking in the pion–nucleon scat- tering lengths, Phys

    Martin Hoferichter, Bastian Kubis, Ulf-G. Meissner, Isospin breaking in the pion–nucleon scat- tering lengths, Phys. Lett. B678, 65 (2009). 15

    2009

  4. [12]

    105(2010)261601

    S.Weinberg, PionsinLargeNQuantumChromodynamics, Phys.Rev.Lett. 105(2010)261601

    2010

  5. [13]

    Braghin, Quark and pion effective couplings from polarization effects, Eur

    F.L. Braghin, Quark and pion effective couplings from polarization effects, Eur. Phys. Journ. A 52, 134 (2016). F.L. Braghin, Low energy constituent quark and pion effective couplings in a weak external magnetic field, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 45 (2018) . ArXiv:1705.05926

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    C. A. Aidala, S. D. Bass, D. Hasch, G. K. Mallot, The spin structure of the nucleon, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 655 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Le Yaouanc, L

    A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene, and J.-C. Raynal, "Naive" Quark-Pair-Creation Model of Strong-Interaction Vertices, Phys. Rev. D8, 2223 (1973)

    1973

  8. [16]

    Braghin, Pion constituent quark couplings strong form factors: A dynamical approach, Phys

    F.L. Braghin, Pion constituent quark couplings strong form factors: A dynamical approach, Phys. Rev. D99, 01401 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    F.L.Braghin, SU(2) Higher-order effective quark interactions from polarization, Phys. Lett. B 761, 424 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Ebert, H

    D. Ebert, H. Reinhardt, M.K. Volkov, Effective hadron theory of QCD, Progr. Part. Nucl. Phys. 33, 1 (1994)

    1994

  11. [19]

    C. D. Roberts, R. T. Cahill, and J. Praschifka, The effective action for the Goldstone modes in a global colour symmetry model of QCD, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 188, 20 (1988)

    1988

  12. [20]

    Meissner, Low-energy hadron physics from effective chiral Lagrangians, Phys

    U.-G. Meissner, Low-energy hadron physics from effective chiral Lagrangians, Phys. Rep. 161, 213 (1988). B. Holdom, Approaching low-energy QCD with a gauged, nonlocal, constituent- quark model, Phys. Rev. D 45, 2534 (1992)

    1988

  13. [21]

    Ke Ren, Hui-Feng Fu, Qing Wang, Derivation of the effective chiral Lagrangian for pseu- doscalar, scalar, vector, and axial-vector mesons from QCD, Phys. Rev. D95, 074012 (2017). Q.Wang, Y.-P. Kuang, X.-L.Wang, and M. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D 61, 054011 (2000)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Feldmann, Quark structure of pseudoscalar mesons, IJMPA, arXiv:hep-ph/9907491v2

    T. Feldmann, Quark structure of pseudoscalar mesons, IJMPA, arXiv:hep-ph/9907491v2

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Creutz, The ’t Hooft vertex revisited

    M. Creutz, The ’t Hooft vertex revisited. Ann. Phys. (Amst.) 323, 2349 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Braghin, Flavor-dependent U(3) Nambu–Jona-Lasinio coupling constant, Phys

    F.L. Braghin, Flavor-dependent U(3) Nambu–Jona-Lasinio coupling constant, Phys. Rev. D103, 094028 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Braghin, Strangeness content of the pion in the U(3) Nambu–Jona–Lasinio model, J

    F.L. Braghin, Strangeness content of the pion in the U(3) Nambu–Jona–Lasinio model, J. Phys. G 49, 055101 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Froldi, F.L

    I.M. Froldi, F.L. Braghin, Large quark mass Euler-Heisenberg type action for QCD with quark sources, arXiv:2406.19918

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Moreira, F.L

    T.H. Moreira, F.L. Braghin, Magnetic field induced corrections to the NJL model coupling constant from vacuum polarization Phys. Rev. D 105, 114009 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    de Sousa, F.L

    W.F. de Sousa, F.L. Braghin, U(5) Nambu–Jona–Lasinio model with flavor dependent coupling constants: pseudoscalar and scalar mesons masses, Eur. Phys. J. A 59, 271 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Ruiz Arriola, Pion structure at high and low energies in chiral quark models, Acta Phys

    E. Ruiz Arriola, Pion structure at high and low energies in chiral quark models, Acta Phys. Polon. B33, 4443 (2002), hep-ph/0210007. 16

    2002 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Roberts, Three Lectures on Hadron Physics, J

    Craig D. Roberts, Three Lectures on Hadron Physics, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 706 022003 (2016). Tanja Horn and Craig D Roberts, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 43 073001 2016, and references therein

    2016

  23. [31]

    Feldmann, P

    T. Feldmann, P. Kroll and B. Stech, Mixing and decay constants of pseudoscalar mesons Phys. Rev. D 58 114006 (1998). P. Kroll , Mixing of pseudoscalar mesons and isospin symmetry breaking Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 20 331 (2005)

    1998

  24. [32]

    G.S. Bali, V. Braun, S. Collins , A. Schafer and J. Simeth, Masses and decay constants of the η and η′ mesons from lattice QCD, JHEP08, 137 (2021); (arXiv:2106.05398v1 [hep-lat]). F. J. Gilman, R. Kaufman,η − η′ mixing angle, Phys. Rev. D36, 2761 (1987); 37(E) 3348 (1988). F. ...

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    M.R.Schindler, T.Fuchs, J.Gegelia, S.Scherer, Axial, inducedpseudoscalar, andpion-nucleon form factors in manifestly Lorentz-invariant chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. C75, 025202 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Braghin, Light vector and axial mesons effective couplings to constituent quarks, Phys

    F.L. Braghin, Light vector and axial mesons effective couplings to constituent quarks, Phys. Rev. D 97, 054025 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Th. A. Rijken, Constituent Quark Model and Nucleon-Nucleon Potentials, arXiv[nucl- th]:2412.19858v1. Th.A. Rijken, Y. Yamamoto, Quark-Quark and Quark-Nucleon Potential Model Extended-soft-core Meson-exchange Interactions, arXiv[nucl-th]:2412.15732v1

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. M. Cornwall, Entropy, confinement, and chiral symmetry breaking, Phys. Rev.D 83, 076001 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Maris, P.C

    P. Maris, P.C. Tandy, Bethe-Salpeter study of vector meson masses and decay constants, Phys. Rev. C 60, 055214 (1999). D. Binosi, L. Chang, J. Papavassiliou, C.D. Roberts, Bridging a gap between continuum -QCD and ab initiopredictions of hadron observables, Phys. Lett. B 742, ...

    1999

  30. [38]

    Schuren, E

    C. Schuren, E. Ruiz Arriola, K. Goeke, Explicit chiral symmetry breaking in the Nambu-Jona- Lasinio model, Nucl. Phys. A547, 612 (1992). Amir H. Rezaeian, Niels R. Walet, Michael C. Birse, Baryon structure in a quark-confining non-local NJL model, Phys. Rev. C70, 065203 (2004)...

    1992

  31. [39]

    Ruiz Arriola, J.E

    E. Ruiz Arriola, J.E. Amaro, R. Navarro Perez, Three pion nucleon coupling constants, Mod. Phys. Lett. A31, 28 (2016); nucl-th/1606.02171

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    In: Bernstein, A.M., Holstein, B.R

    S, Weinberg, Strong interactions at low energies. In: Bernstein, A.M., Holstein, B.R. (eds) Chiral Dynamics: Theory and Experiment. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol 452, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (1995). 17

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.