Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 33 references

The nucleon properties in finite temperature and density with vector meson

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding the omega vector meson to the quark-meson chiral soliton model makes nucleons larger and heavier, and shrinks the energy gap that binds quarks into hadrons.

desk verdict Competent but incremental chiral-soliton paper whose central mass and instability results hinge on a likely sign error in Eq. (27); worth refereeing if the sign is fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19981 v1 pith:4LE2FZCA submitted 2024-12-28 hep-ph hep-thnucl-th

Bingtao Li , Yiming Lyu , Song Shu , PeiXin Weng , Hui Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-thnucl-th
keywords omegavectormesonchiralsolitonquark-mesonmodelnucleonmassRMSradiusfinitetemperaturedensityheavy-ioncollisions
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 argues that the short-range repulsion carried by the omega vector meson changes the static properties of nucleons in a way that matters for hot and dense QCD matter. Embedding a chiral soliton in a uniform thermal background, the authors solve the coupled mean-field equations with $\sigma$, $\pi$, and $\omega$ fields and find that the nucleon RMS radius and the nucleon mass $E_B$ both grow with the vector coupling $g_\omega/m_\omega$. At the same time, the difference between $E_B$ and the energy of three free constituent quarks decreases, which the paper reads as a sign that hadrons become increasingly unstable as temperature and density rise. The results are offered as input for particle-yield predictions in heavy-ion collisions and for the mass-radius relation of compact stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a self-consistent set of radial mean-field equations for the quark orbitals $u(r)$, $v(r)$ and the meson fields $\sigma(r)$, $\pi(r)$, $\omega(r)$, solved under the hedgehog ansatz, in which the pion field points radially in isospin space. The in-medium extension replaces the zero-temperature potential $U(\sigma, \pi, \omega)$ in the soliton equations with the grand-canonical thermodynamic potential $\Omega(\sigma, \pi, \omega, T, \mu)$ (Eq.~18), whose quark contribution contains Fermi-Dirac factors with an effective chemical potential $\mu_{\rm eff} = \mu - g_\omega \omega$. The baryon mass $E_B$ is defined by subtracting the homogeneous background $\Omega(\sigma_v, \pi_v, \omega_v, T, \mu)$ from the integrated energy density (Eq.~27), and the RMS radius is the second moment of the quark density (Eq.~28). These equations carry the argument from the Lagrangian to the reported numbers.

What would settle it

One concrete check: at fixed $T = 150$ MeV, the paper predicts the RMS radius increases with $g_\omega/m_\omega$ for $\mu = 150$ MeV but decreases for $\mu = 200$ MeV (Fig. 4). An independent calculation or a measurement of in-medium nucleon radii at these two chemical potentials that fails to show this inversion would falsify the paper's central claim about the competition between scalar and vector forces.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that vector repulsion from the omega meson is not a small correction to the static nucleon in this model. Using a hedgehog-ansatz soliton with three valence quarks and the meson fields $\sigma(r)$, $\pi(r)$, $\omega(r)$, the authors solve the radial equations in a homogeneous thermal background and show that the root-mean-square radius $R = \sqrt{\langle r^2 \rangle}$ (Eq.~28) grows with the vector coupling, and the soliton energy $E_B$ (Eq.~27) also grows. The gap between $E_B$ and the energy of three free constituent quarks shrinks, so the paper concludes that hadrons become increasingly unstable at high temperature and density. The paper also reports a non-monotonic radius behavior at high temperature and chemical potential that it attributes to competition between scalar attraction and vector repulsion.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation depends on the assumption that you can take the zero-temperature soliton equations and simply swap in the hot background potential without changing how the valence quarks are treated, and that this swap is accurate enough to trust the numbers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If nucleon size and mass really change with temperature and density through vector repulsion, then heavy-ion collision models that keep hadron masses fixed will mispredict particle yields near the phase boundary.
  • Because the energy gap between the soliton and three free quarks closes, the model implies that deconfinement becomes easier at lower temperature or chemical potential once vector interactions are present, shifting the effective phase boundary.
  • The omega coupling postpones the chiral phase transition, so vector interactions stiffen the equation of state at high baryon density, which would push predicted neutron-star mass-radius curves toward larger radii and higher maximum masses.
  • The predicted crossing in the radius as a function of chemical potential at $T = 150$ MeV means there is a region where scalar attraction overcomes vector repulsion; any observable sensitive to nucleon size should show a turn-around there.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to compute the nuclear-matter equation of state from the same omega coupling and compare the saturation point with empirical nuclear matter properties; the paper itself stops at single-nucleon properties, but the mechanism clearly connects to the equation of state.
  • Treating the omega meson beyond the classical mean-field level, including its thermal width, could change the predicted radius growth near $T_c$, since thermal fluctuations of a heavy vector meson are not negligible in a hot medium.
  • The same effective-chemical-potential shift $\mu_{\rm eff} = \mu - g_\omega \omega$ is the standard vector-self-energy mechanism in relativistic mean-field models; calibrating $g_\omega/m_\omega$ against zero-temperature nuclear saturation would give an independent check of the finite-temperature predictions made here.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript extends the quark-meson chiral soliton model by introducing the omega vector meson in the mean-field hedgehog approximation. At zero temperature and density the model is solved numerically, and at finite temperature and chemical potential the vacuum potential U(σ,π,ω) is replaced by the homogeneous thermodynamic potential Ω(σ,π,ω,T,μ). The authors report that adding the vector coupling increases both the nucleon RMS radius and the nucleon mass EB, while decreasing the gap between EB and the energy of three free constituent quarks, which they interpret as a signal of hadronic instability. They suggest applications to particle yields in heavy-ion collisions and to compact-star mass-radius relations.

Significance. If the reported effects were numerically reliable, the paper would provide a simple mean-field illustration of how vector repulsion stiffens the in-medium equation of state and enlarges static baryons, a question of interest for heavy-ion phenomenology and neutron-star physics. The paper has the merit of addressing a clear model extension, and it does not fit the vector coupling to the experimental nucleon mass, so the claimed trend is in principle a prediction of the model rather than a re-fit. However, the central quantitative results are undermined by inconsistencies in the printed equations: the omega source term appears with the wrong coupling, the omega sector has sign/convention problems, and the in-medium embedding is introduced without a controlled justification. Because no numerical tables or code are provided, the reported mass and radius curves cannot currently be verified from the equations as written.

major comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (7) and Eq. (18)] The source term in the omega equation of motion is written as N g (u^2+v^2), but the coupling between the quark field and the omega meson in Eq. (1) is g_omega, not g. The sigma and pion equations correctly use g because they derive from the Yukawa term g(σ + iγ5 τ·π), while the omega source should be N g_omega (u^2+v^2). With the stated parameters, g≈5.28 is a fixed Yukawa coupling, whereas g_omega is the adjustable vector coupling, so the solved omega profiles are not the ones corresponding to the reported g_omega/m_omega values. This error affects every radius and mass value in Section IV and must be corrected before the quantitative claims can be assessed.
  2. [Eq. (27)] The omega gradient contribution to the baryon energy is printed as -(dω/dr)^2. Starting from the standard Proca-type kinetic term -1/4 F_μν F^μν in Eq. (1), the static vector-field energy contains +1/2 (dω/dr)^2, and with the mass term in Eq. (2) the omega contribution should be positive. As printed, the omega gradient lowers EB as the omega field grows, which is opposite to the reported monotonic increase of EB with g_omega. Since no numerical data or code are given, it is impossible to tell whether the production calculation used Eq. (27) or the positive-sign expression. This is not a peripheral typo: Eq. (27) defines the observable that supports the abstract and the instability conclusion. The authors should reconcile the sign conventions in Eqs. (1), (7), and (27) using a single Lagrangian, state the resulting energy functional explicitly, and verify it numerically, for example against the virial relations derived from the equations of motion.
  3. [Eqs. (21) and (24)] There is an extra factor of g_omega in the vector-density contribution. In Eqs. (14)-(15), the chemical potential enters through μ_eff = μ - g_omega ω, and the derivative of the thermodynamic potential with respect to ω is g_omega ν_q ∫ d^3p/(2π)^3 [f - fbar], with f and fbar the quark and antiquark occupation numbers. Eq. (24) instead defines ρ with an additional factor of g_omega, so that Eqs. (21) makes the medium feedback in the omega equation quadratic in g_omega. This changes the temperature and chemical-potential dependence of the omega field and therefore of the reported mass and radius curves. The definition of ρ should be the baryon density ν_q ∫ d^3p/(2π)^3 [f - fbar], with the coupling factor appearing only through g_omega ρ in Eq. (21).
  4. [Section III, Eqs. (13)-(18)] The finite-temperature embedding is introduced by 'simply replacing U(σ,π,ω) with Ω(σ,π,ω,T,μ)' inside the zero-temperature soliton equations, but no controlled approximation is given for this replacement. The thermodynamic potential Ω describes a spatially uniform quark gas, while the soliton equations also contain three valence quarks in a normalized mean-field orbital; the paper does not explain how these two quark populations are separated or why they are not double-counted. The baryon energy subtracts the homogeneous background Ω(σ_v,π_v,ω_v,T,μ), but the same Ω is used as a local potential inside the soliton. A consistency test is needed, for example demonstrating that the uniform-field limit of the soliton equations reproduces the homogeneous gap equations, or comparing the T→0 results against the T=0 calculation of Section II. The in-medium mass and radius values in Section IV depend directly on this uncontrolled step.
  5. [Section IV] The abstract and concluding claim that hadrons become 'increasingly unstable' rests on the decrease of the gap between EB and the energy of three free constituent quarks, but this free-quark energy is never defined or derived. In the chiral soliton picture, the baryon is a self-consistent solution of the coupled quark and meson equations, and the relevant stability criterion is that the solution be a local minimum of the energy functional; a comparison to a three-quark continuum requires a well-defined threshold energy at finite temperature and density. The authors should state the expression for the free three-quark energy, specify whether it includes the vector shift from μ_eff, and justify why its crossing or approach by EB signals instability rather than merely a change in the soliton's binding energy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (22)-(24)] The notation 'gσv_q', 'gπv_q', and 'gωv_q' should be written as g σ ν_q, g π ν_q, and g_omega ν_q to avoid confusing the fields with the degeneracy factor; the current typography makes the vector-density sign issue in Eq. (24) harder to identify.
  2. [Abstract and Section I] The phrase 'Quark Meson, model' in the abstract should read 'Quark-Meson model', and similar hyphenation issues appear throughout the text.
  3. [Figure captions] The labels 'gω.mω-1' should be typeset as g_omega/m_omega, and the captions should state the units of the plotted fields consistently (fm^{-3/2} for quark fields and fm^{-1} for meson fields).
  4. [Eq. (10)] The hedgehog condition (σ+τ)χ=0 is stated without defining the Pauli matrices acting on spin and isospin; a brief statement of the convention would help the reader reproduce the equations.
  5. [Section IV] The paper reports numerical results only through figures; providing a short table of EB and R for representative (T, μ, g_omega/m_omega) values, or making the solver available, would be necessary to check the sign-sensitive claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: EB and RMS radius are genuine model outputs from external parameters plus a scanned vector coupling; the self-citations are methodological, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The model parameters (g≈5.28, λ≈82.1, mσ=1200 MeV, Mq=500 MeV, fπ, mπ) are taken from Birse and Banerjee [20], an external source, and the vector coupling gω/mω is scanned over 0 to 4×10^-3 MeV^-1 rather than fitted to the nucleon mass or radius that the paper predicts. The observables are computed by solving the coupled mean-field equations (3)-(7) (with Ω replacing U at finite T and μ in Eq. (18)) under the hedgehog ansatz; Eq. (27) defines EB as a functional of the solved fields plus the subtracted homogeneous background, and Eq. (28) defines R directly from the normalized quark wave function. Neither EB nor R is used as an input to determine any model parameter, and no quantity in Eqs. (27)-(28) is defined in terms of the result to be predicted. The replacement of U by Ω in Section III is an uncontrolled approximation, hence a correctness risk, but it is not circular: it does not assume that EB or R increase with gω. The self-citations are methodological: [17] supplies the Lagrangian form and [29,30] supply the standard vacuum-subtraction/pressure-zero bookkeeping for the baryon energy; neither is an unverified uniqueness claim, nor does either force the reported monotonic increase in EB or R. A separate sign inconsistency in Eq. (27) (the printed -(dω/dr)^2 is opposite to the +1/2(dω/dr)^2 coming from Eq. (1)) is a calculational correctness issue, not a circularity. Therefore no step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs.

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

The model uses standard chiral-soliton machinery and no new particles are introduced. The vector coupling ratio g_omega/m_omega is the main free knob, scanned by hand. The Birse parameters (M_q=500 MeV, m_sigma=1200 MeV) are adopted from prior literature and set the soliton scale; they are not fitted here. The central assumptions are the mean-field and hedgehog approximations and the unvalidated replacement of the vacuum potential by the thermal thermodynamic potential inside the soliton equations.

free parameters (4)
  • g_omega/m_omega (vector coupling ratio) = scanned: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 x 10^-3 MeV^-1
    Controls the strength of omega repulsion; chosen by hand across a typical range, not fitted to data.
  • m_omega = ~1 GeV
    Treated as an effective mass, not the physical 783 MeV; value chosen as typical.
  • constituent quark mass M_q = 500 MeV
    Adopted from Birse (1984) to set the soliton scale; not fitted here but central to the mass predictions.
  • sigma meson mass m_sigma = 1200 MeV
    Adopted from Birse (1984); determines the scalar potential curvature.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mean-field approximation: meson fields are classical, quantum and thermal fluctuations neglected.
    Invoked in Section III after Eq. (13); standard for this model but uncontrolled.
  • domain assumption Hedgehog ansatz with s-wave quarks, (sigma_vec + tau_vec) chi = 0 (Eqs. 8-10).
    Restricts the solution space; the nucleon is modeled as N=3 quarks in the lowest s-wave level, normalized by Eq. (11).
  • domain assumption Soliton-in-medium embedding: replace U(sigma,pi,omega) by Omega(sigma,pi,omega,T,mu) in the soliton equations.
    Section III states this replacement simply without a controlled expansion; the validity is not checked.
  • domain assumption The omega meson field has only the time component omega_0 due to rotational symmetry.
    Stated in Section II; standard for static, spherically symmetric systems.
  • domain assumption Birse model parameters M_q=500 MeV, m_sigma=1200 MeV (so g=5.28, lambda=82.1) are taken as input.
    Adopted from Ref. [20]; they set the vacuum and soliton scales.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The nucleon properties in finite temperature and density with vector meson." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4LE2FZCA

@misc{pith2026241219981,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The nucleon properties in finite temperature and density with vector meson},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4LE2FZCA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19981}
}
abstract

We introduce the vector meson $\omega$ into the Quark Meson model, and study the impact of vector interactions on the properties of static hadrons using the mean-field approximation. The short-range repulsive force associated with vector interactions leads to an expansion of the root mean square radius of nucleons. While the mass of hadrons increases, the gap between this mass and the energy of the three free constituent quarks decreases, resulting in the instability of hadrons. Our study of nucleon mass and radius at finite temperature and density has potential applications for particle yield in heavy ion collisions and the mass-radius relationship in compact stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19981 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Thermal effective potential Ω as a function of the order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The quark fields [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The RMS radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The RMS radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The RMS radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The nucleon mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    0.5 1. 1.5 2. 2.5 3. 3.5 4. 4.5 5. -0.5 0. 0.5 1. r [fm] , [ fm-3/2] σ, π, ω[ fm-1] T=0 MeV μ=300 MeV Solid: gω.mω -1=0 MeV-1 Dashed:g ω.mω -1=0.002 MeV -1 Dotted:g ω.mω -1=0.004 MeV -1 u ν π σ ω

    work page

  2. [2]

    0.5 1. 1.5 2. 2.5 3. 3.5 4. 4.5 5. -0.5 0. 0.5 1. r [fm] , [ fm-3/2] σ, π, ω[ fm-1] T=100 MeV μ=300 MeV Solid: gω.mω -1=0 MeV-1 Dashed:g ω.mω -1=0.002 MeV -1 Dotted:g ω.mω -1=0.004 MeV -1 u ν π σ ω FIG. 2: The quark fields u(r), v(r), and the meson fields σ(r), π(r), ω(r) as functions of r for T = 0 MeV (left), and T = 100 MeV (right) with a fixed chemi...

    work page

  3. [3]

    D. H. Rischke, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.52, 197-296 (2004) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2003.09.002 [arXiv:nucl-th/0305030 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2004

  4. [4]

    K. Yagi, T. Hatsuda and Y. Miake, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 23, 1-446 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    S. J. Dong, J. F. Lagae and K. F. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2096-2099 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.2096 [arXiv:hep- ph/9502334 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 1995

  6. [6]

    T. D. Cohen, R. J. Furnstahl, D. K. Griegel and X. m. Jin, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 35, 221-298 (1995) doi:10.1016/0146- 6410(95)00043-I [arXiv:hep-ph/9503315 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1995

  7. [7]

    U. G. Meissner, Rept. Prog. Phys. 56, 903-996 (1993) doi:10.1088/0034-4885/56/8/001 [arXiv:hep-ph/9302247 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 1993

  8. [8]

    Alkofer and L

    R. Alkofer and L. von Smekal, Phys. Rept. 353, 281 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00010-2 [arXiv:hep-ph/0007355 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2001

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    M. S. Bhagwat, L. Chang, Y. X. Liu, C. D. Roberts and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. C 76, 045203 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.76.045203 [arXiv:0708.1118 [nucl-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Gell-Mann and M

    M. Gell-Mann and M. Levy, Nuovo Cim. 16, 705 (1960) doi:10.1007/BF02859738

    1960 doi

  3. [11]

    Nambu and G

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345-358 (1961) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.122.345

    1961 doi

  4. [12]

    H. A. Bethe, Phys. Rev. 103, 1353-1390 (1956) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.103.1353

    1956 doi

  5. [13]

    B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 16, 1-327 (1986) ITP-740-STANFORD

    1986

  6. [14]

    B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 6, 515-631 (1997) doi:10.1142/S0218301397000299 [arXiv:nucl- th/9701058 [nucl-th]]

    1997

  7. [15]

    Gyulassy and L

    M. Gyulassy and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A 750, 30-63 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.10.034 [arXiv:nucl- th/0405013 [nucl-th]]

    2005

  8. [16]

    J. I. Kapusta, J. Phys. G 34, S295-304 (2007) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/34/8/S15 [arXiv:0705.1277 [nucl-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Fukushima, T

    K. Fukushima, T. Kojo and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.9, 096017 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.096017 [arXiv:2008.08436 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Nagai, N

    S. Nagai, N. Sawado and N. Shiiki, [arXiv:hep-ph/0608197 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Zhang, D

    H. Zhang, D. Hou, T. Kojo and B. Qin, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.11, 114029 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.114029 [arXiv:1709.05654 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cˆ amara Pereira, R

    R. Cˆ amara Pereira, R. Stiele and P. Costa, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.8, 712 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8296-9 [arXiv:2003.12829 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    C. Wu, W. L. Qian and R. K. Su, Phys. Rev. C 77, 015203 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.77.015203 [arXiv:0706.1349 [nucl-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  14. [22]

    M. C. Birse and M. K. Banerjee, Phys. Lett. B 136, no.4, 284-288 (1984) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91162-6

    1984 doi

  15. [23]

    T. D. Cohen and W. Broniowski, Phys. Rev. D 34, 3472 (1986) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.34.3472

    1986 doi

  16. [24]

    Goeke, F

    K. Goeke, F. Grummer, M. Harvey and J. N. Urbano, Phys. Rev. D 37, 754-767 (1988) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.37.754

    1988 doi

  17. [25]

    T. S. T. Aly, J. A. McNeil and S. Pruess, Phys. Rev. D 60, 114022 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.114022 [arXiv:hep- ph/9809473 [hep-ph]]

    1999

  18. [26]

    Broniowski and B

    W. Broniowski and B. Golli, Nucl. Phys. A 714, 575-588 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(02)01377-5 [arXiv:hep-ph/0210200 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  19. [27]

    H. Mao, T. Wei and J. Jin, Phys. Rev. C 88, 035201 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.88.035201 [arXiv:1301.6227 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Abu-Shady and H

    M. Abu-Shady and H. M. Mansour, Phys. Rev. C 85, 055204 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.85.055204

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    Floerchinger and C

    S. Floerchinger and C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. A 890-891, 11-24 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2012.07.009 [arXiv:1202.1671 [nucl-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Skokov, B

    V. Skokov, B. Friman, E. Nakano, K. Redlich and B. J. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D 82, 034029 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.034029 [arXiv:1005.3166 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Zhang and S

    H. Zhang and S. Shu, Chin. Phys. C 39, no.9, 094104 (2015) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/39/9/094104 [arXiv:1401.1021 [hep- ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zhang, R

    H. Zhang, R. Dong and S. Shu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 24, no.04, 1550025 (2015) doi:10.1142/S0218301315500251 [arXiv:1504.02248 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    M. Jin, J. R. Li and J. S. Chen, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 18, 2029-2037 (2003) doi:10.1142/S0217732303011861

    2003 doi

Pith tools

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