pith. sign in

arxiv: 2503.04015 · v4 · submitted 2025-03-06 · ⚛️ nucl-th

Quantum fluctuation energies over a spatially inhomogeneous field background in a chiral soliton model

Jiarui Xia , Song Shu , Xiaogang Li This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 01:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th
keywords chiral soliton modelquantum fluctuationsphase shiftsrenormalizationDirac spectrumhedgehog ansatzgrand spin
0
0 comments X

The pith

Finite quantum fluctuation energies of quarks over a chiral soliton background are evaluated numerically after renormalization by Born subtraction of phase shifts.

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

The paper computes the one-loop quantum correction arising from quark fluctuations around a static, spatially inhomogeneous chiral soliton meson field. It constructs the Dirac Hamiltonian from the effective action, separates variables in the hedgehog ansatz, solves for the distorted eigenvalue spectrum, and extracts the density of states from scattering phase shifts. A Born subtraction plus compensating Feynman diagrams removes divergences, leaving finite, cutoff-independent energies that are summed separately in each parity and grand-spin channel. A sympathetic reader would care because these energies enter the effective mass or potential of the soliton and therefore affect predictions for baryon properties in the model.

Core claim

The effective Hamiltonian for quarks in the static spherical hedgehog background is diagonalized by parity and grand spin; the resulting phase shifts determine the density of states, which after Born subtraction and diagram compensation yields finite numerical values for the fluctuation energy in each channel.

What carries the argument

Born-subtracted phase-shift density of states used to evaluate the renormalized one-loop sum over the Dirac spectrum.

If this is right

  • The total classical plus quantum energy of the soliton receives well-defined additive contributions from each parity-grand-spin sector.
  • Stability or binding-energy estimates for the soliton can be refined by including these channel-by-channel corrections.
  • The same renormalization procedure applies directly to other static background configurations that admit a phase-shift analysis.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the calculation to non-spherical or time-dependent backgrounds would test whether the finite remainder remains well-defined.
  • Comparing the channel contributions to observed baryon mass splittings could constrain the parameters of the underlying chiral model.
  • The method supplies a concrete benchmark for other regularization schemes that aim to compute the same one-loop correction.

Load-bearing premise

Subtracting the Born approximation to the phase shift together with compensating Feynman diagrams isolates a physically meaningful finite remainder that does not depend on the ultraviolet cutoff.

What would settle it

A numerical result in which the renormalized energy still changes when the momentum cutoff is increased or when more partial waves are included would show that the finite remainder has not been isolated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2503.04015 by Jiarui Xia, Song Shu, Xiaogang Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The solutions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The phase shift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The subtracted phase shift function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The subtracted phase shift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The subtracted phase shift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The subtracted phase shift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The subtracted phase shift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The comparison of the scaled total energies as functi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Based on chiral soliton models, the quantum fluctuation energies of quarks over a spatially inhomogeneous meson field background have been thoroughly studied. We have used a systematic calculation scheme initiated by Schwinger, in which the loop quantum fluctuation energies are evaluated by a nontrivial level summation over the eigenvalue spectrum of the effective Hamiltonian of the system. The effective Hamiltonian can be constructed by one loop effective action of fluctuations of quarks over a static chiral soliton field background. The corresponding Dirac equation is obtained. In a static and spatially spherical case and by the hedgehog ansatz the radial part and the angular part of the grand spin of the wave function for the Dirac equation can be separated. Due to the soliton background the eigenvalue spectrum are distorted. The scattering phase shift can be determined by solve the radial equations at different momentum. The density of states in momentum space can be derived. The effective Hamiltonian has been diagonalized in a Hilbert space where the eigenfunctions are labeled by the parity, grand spin and energy. The renormalization scheme can be carried out by a Born subtraction of the phase shift and the compensating Feynman diagram renormalization. Finally the finite quantum fluctuation energies over chiral soliton background at different parities and grand spins have been numerically evaluated, compared and discussed.

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes quantum fluctuation energies of quarks over a static chiral soliton background in a chiral soliton model. It constructs the one-loop effective action, derives the Dirac equation under the hedgehog ansatz, separates variables by parity and grand spin, extracts scattering phase shifts from the radial equations, applies Born subtraction plus compensating Feynman diagrams for renormalization, and reports numerical values for the finite per-channel energies.

Significance. If the subtracted phase-shift sums plus counterterms can be shown to produce cutoff-independent results, the channel-by-channel numerical values would supply concrete data on quantum corrections in inhomogeneous meson backgrounds, useful for refining soliton-model predictions of baryon properties. The work follows a standard Schwinger proper-time/level-density approach but currently lacks the convergence diagnostics needed to certify the output.

major comments (1)
  1. [Renormalization and numerical evaluation] Renormalization procedure (described after the phase-shift extraction): the central claim that Born subtraction of the phase shift together with compensating Feynman diagrams isolates a finite, physically meaningful remainder requires explicit numerical verification that the per-channel energies are stable when the momentum cutoff or basis size is varied and that the leading UV divergence cancels. No such stability tests or cancellation plots are reported, leaving the finiteness of the quoted energies unsubstantiated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the energies 'have been numerically evaluated' but supplies neither error estimates, convergence tables, nor comparisons with independent regularization schemes.
  2. [Methods] Notation for the grand-spin channels and the precise definition of the subtracted phase-shift integral should be stated explicitly before the numerical results are presented.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript on quantum fluctuation energies over chiral soliton backgrounds. The single major comment concerning explicit numerical verification of renormalization stability is addressed point-by-point below. We will strengthen the presentation accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Renormalization and numerical evaluation] Renormalization procedure (described after the phase-shift extraction): the central claim that Born subtraction of the phase shift together with compensating Feynman diagrams isolates a finite, physically meaningful remainder requires explicit numerical verification that the per-channel energies are stable when the momentum cutoff or basis size is varied and that the leading UV divergence cancels. No such stability tests or cancellation plots are reported, leaving the finiteness of the quoted energies unsubstantiated.

    Authors: We agree that explicit numerical checks would strengthen the manuscript. The Born subtraction plus compensating Feynman diagrams is constructed to cancel the leading UV divergence analytically, as is standard in phase-shift renormalization of Dirac spectra in soliton backgrounds; the quoted per-channel values are the resulting finite remainders. To provide direct evidence of stability, the revised version will add plots of selected per-channel energies versus momentum cutoff (and, where applicable, basis size), demonstrating convergence to cutoff-independent plateaus beyond a threshold value. A brief discussion of these diagnostics will be inserted after the description of the renormalization scheme. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; direct numerical evaluation of renormalized spectrum

full rationale

The derivation proceeds by constructing the Dirac Hamiltonian from the one-loop effective action in the hedgehog background, separating variables in grand spin and parity, extracting phase shifts from the radial scattering solutions, performing the standard Born subtraction plus compensating diagrams, and summing the resulting finite level-shift contribution. None of these steps defines the output energies in terms of themselves or renames a fitted quantity as a prediction; the renormalization procedure is an external subtraction scheme applied to the computed spectrum, and the final per-channel energies are obtained by direct summation rather than by construction from input parameters. No self-citation is invoked as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on the chiral soliton model, the hedgehog ansatz for spherical symmetry, and Schwinger's effective-action construction; no explicit free parameters or invented entities are named in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The hedgehog ansatz correctly captures the static spherical soliton background and allows separation of radial and angular variables.
    Invoked in the abstract to separate the Dirac wave function into radial and grand-spin parts.
  • domain assumption The Born subtraction plus Feynman-diagram counterterms remove all ultraviolet divergences while leaving a finite physical remainder.
    Described as the renormalization scheme that yields the reported finite energies.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5747 in / 1237 out tokens · 59859 ms · 2026-05-23T01:37:55.246982+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    School of Physics, Hubei University, Wuhan, Hubei 430062 , China and

    work page

  2. [2]

    Key Laboratory of Quark and Lepton Physics (MOE) and Insti tute of Particle Physics, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079, Chin a Based on chiral soliton models, the quantum fluctuation ener gies of quarks over a spatially in- homogeneous meson field background have been thoroughly stu died. We have used a systematic calculation scheme initi...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    G = 0 case When G = 0, the equations of negative parity are { g′ 1 + 2 rg1 − (ε +gσ )f1 − gπg 1 = 0, f ′ 1 + (ε − gσ )g1 +gπf 1 = 0, (45) Atr → ∞ , considering σ (r) → σv, π → 0, the asymptotic forms of the equations (17) are { g′ 1 + 2 rg1 − (ε +gσv)f1 = 0, f ′ 1 + (ε − gσv)g1 = 0, (46) From the characteristics of the equations, combined with the recu rs...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Usually the first order differential equations should be decoupled to two sets of the second order equ ations of the upper part and the lower part of the Dirac spinor

    G ̸= 0 case For the case of G ̸= 0 and the parity Π = − (− 1)G, the solution has a matrix form. Usually the first order differential equations should be decoupled to two sets of the second order equ ations of the upper part and the lower part of the Dirac spinor. Each part is still a two flavor isospinor. For the upper p art the radial wave functions are g1(...

    work page

  5. [5]

    gs order equations:                          v(1)(1, 0)′ 1 +v(1)(1, 0) 1 h′ G+1 hG+1 + G + 2 r v(1)(1, 0) 1 − (ε − gσv) hG hG+1 u(1)(1, 0) 1 +βσs = 0; v(1)(1, 0)′ 2 +v(1)(1, 0) 2 h′ G− 1 hG− 1 − G − 1 r v(1)(1, 0) 2 + (ε − gσv) hG hG− 1 u(1)(1, 0) 2 = 0; u(1)(1, 0)′ 1 +u(1)(1, 0) 1 h′ G hG − G ru(1)(1, 0) 1 + (ε +gσv)hG+1 hG v(1)(...

    work page

  6. [6]

    g2 s order equations:                          v(1)(2, 0)′ 1 +v(1)(2, 0) 1 h′ G+1 hG+1 + G + 2 r v(1)(2, 0) 1 − (ε − gσv) hG hG+1 u(1)(2, 0) 1 +σsu(1)(1, 0) 1 = 0; v(1)(2, 0)′ 2 +v(1)(2, 0) 2 h′ G− 1 hG− 1 − G − 1 r v(1)(2, 0) 2 + (ε − gσv) hG hG− 1 u(1)(2, 0) 2 − σsu(1)(1, 0) 2 = 0; u(1)(2, 0)′ 1 +u(1)(2, 0) 1 h′ G hG − G ru(1)(2...

    work page

  7. [7]

    gp order equations:                            v(1)(0, 1)′ 1 +v(1)(0, 1) 1 h′ G+1 hG+1 + G + 2 r v(1)(0, 1) 1 − (ε − gσv) hG hG+1 u(1)(0, 1) 1 + π 1 + 2G = 0; v(1)(0, 1)′ 2 +v(1)(0, 1) 2 h′ G− 1 hG− 1 − G − 1 r v(1)(0, 1) 2 + (ε − gσv) hG hG− 1 u(1)(0, 1) 2 + 2 √ G(1 +G)π 1 + 2G = 0; u(1)(0, 1)′ 1 +u(1)(0, 1) 1 h′ G hG − G ru(1)...

    work page

  8. [8]

    g2 p order equations:                            v(1)(0, 2)′ 1 +v(1)(0, 2) 1 h′ G+1 hG+1 + G + 2 r v(1)(0, 2) 1 − (ε − gσv) hG hG+1 u(1)(0, 2) 1 + π 1 + 2Gv(1)(0, 1) 1 − 2 √ G(1 +G)π 1 + 2G v(1)(0, 1) 2 = 0; v(1)(0, 2)′ 2 +v(1)(0, 2) 2 h′ G− 1 hG− 1 − G − 1 r v(1)(0, 2) 2 + (ε − gσv) hG hG− 1 u(1)(0, 2) 2 + π 1 + 2Gv(1)(0, 1) 2 ...

    work page

  9. [9]

    The above equations could be numerically solved order by order at given k and G with parity Π = − (− 1)G

    gsgp order equations:                            v(1)(1, 1)′ 1 +v(1)(1, 1) 1 h′ G+1 hG+1 + G + 2 r v(1)(1, 1) 1 − (ε − gσv) hG hG+1 u(1)(1, 1) 1 +σsu(1)(0, 1) 1 + π 1 + 2Gv(1)(1, 0) 1 − 2 √ G(1 +G)π 1 + 2G v(1)(1, 0) 2 = 0; v(1)(1, 1)′ 2 +v(1)(1, 1) 2 h′ G− 1 hG− 1 − G − 1 r v(1)(1, 1) 2 + (ε − gσv) hG hG− 1 u(1)(1, 1) 2 − σsu(1...

    work page

  10. [10]

    gs order equations:                  v(1)(1, 0)′′ 1 + 2 rv(1)(1, 0)′ 1 ( 1 + rh′ G+1 hG+1 ) + ( − σ ′ s εv )h′ G+1 hG+1 + ( − σ ′ s εv )G + 2 r = 0, v(1)(1, 0)′′ 2 + 2 rv(1)(1, 0) 2 ′ ( 1 + rh′ G+1 hG+1 ) + 2(2G + 1) r2 v(1)(1, 0) 2 = 0, (C5)          v(2)(1, 0)′′ 1 + 2 rv(2)(1, 0)′ 1 ( 1 + rh′ G− 1 hG− 1 ) − 2(2G + 1) r2 v(2)(1,...

    work page

  11. [11]

    g2 s order equations:                                      − σ ′ s εv ( v(1)(1, 0)′ 1 +v(1)(1, 0) 1 h′ G+1 hG+1 ) + ( − σ ′ s εv )G + 2 r v(1)(1, 0) 1 + σ ′ sσs ε2 v h′ G+1 hG+1 + σ ′ sσs ε2 v G + 2 r − (σ 2 s + 2σvσs) +v(1)(2, 0)′′ 1 + 2 rv(1)(2, 0)′ 1 ( 1 + rh′ G+1 hG+1 ) = 0, − σ ′ s εv ( v(1)(1, 0)′ 2 +v(1)(1, 0) 2...

    work page

  12. [12]

    gp order equations:                  v(1)(0, 1)′′ 1 + 2 rv(1)(0, 1)′ 1 ( 1 + rh′ G+1 hG+1 ) + G + 1 2G + 1 2 rπ − π ′ 2G + 1 = 0, v(1)(0, 1)′′ 2 + 2 rv(1)(0, 1)′ 2 ( 1 + rh′ G+1 hG+1 ) + 2(2G + 1) r2 v(1)(0, 1) 2 − π r 2 √ G(G + 1) 2G + 1 + 2 √ G(G + 1) 2G + 1 π ′ = 0, (C9)                  v(2)(0, 1)′′ 1 + 2 rv(2)(0, 1)′...

    work page

  13. [13]

    g2 p order equations:                            ( − π ′ 2G + 1 + 2 r G + 1 2G + 1π ) v(1)(0, 1) 1 + 2 √ G(G + 1) 2G + 1 ( π ′ − π r ) v(1)(0, 1) 2 − π 2 +v(1)(0, 2)′′ 1 + 2 rv(1)(0, 2)′ 1 ( 1 + rh′ G+1 hG+1 ) = 0, 2 √ G(G + 1) 2G + 1 ( π ′ − π r ) v(1)(0, 1) 1 + ( π ′ 2G + 1 + 2 r G 2G + 1π ) v(1)(0, 1) 2 +v(1)(0, 2)′′ 2 + 2 rv...

    work page

  14. [14]

    The above equations could be numerically solved order by order

    gsgp order equations:                                                        ( − π ′ 2G + 1 + 2 r G + 1 2G + 1π ) v(1)(0, 1) 1 + 2 √ G(G + 1) 2G + 1 ( π ′ − π r ) v(1)(1, 0) 2 + σ ′ s εv π 2G + 1 − σ ′ s εv ( v(1)(0, 1)′ 1 +v(1)(0, 1) 1 h′ G+1 hG+1 ) − σ ′ s εv G + 2 r v(1)(0, 1) 1 +v(1)(1, 1)′′ 1 + 2...

    work page

  15. [15]

    M. N. Chernodub, Physical Review D 103, 054027 (2021)

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Y. Chen, D. Li, and M. Huang, Physical Review D 106, 106002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Fukushima and C

    K. Fukushima and C. Sasaki, Progress in Particle and Nucl ear Physics 72, 99 (2013)

    work page 2013

  18. [18]

    Buballa and S

    M. Buballa and S. Carignano, Progress in Particle and Nuc lear Physics 81, 39 (2015)

    work page 2015

  19. [19]

    Brauner and N

    T. Brauner and N. Yamamoto, Journal of High Energy Physic s 2017, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Nickel, Phys

    D. Nickel, Phys. Rev. D 80, 074025 (2009)

    work page 2009

  21. [21]

    Ishioka, Y

    J. Ishioka, Y. Liu, K. Shimatake, T. Kurosawa, K. Ichimur a, Y. Toda, M. Oda, and S. Tanda, Physical review letters 105, 176401 (2010)

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    Evans, K.-Y

    N. Evans, K.-Y. Kim, M. Magou, Y. Seo, and S.-J. Sin, Journ al of High Energy Physics 2012, 1 (2012)

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    Voskresensky, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physi cs 130, 104030 (2023)

    D. Voskresensky, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physi cs 130, 104030 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Lakaschus, M

    P. Lakaschus, M. Buballa, and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 103, 034030 (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Endr˝ odi, T

    G. Endr˝ odi, T. G. Kov´ acs, and G. Mark´ o, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 232002 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    C. Y. Cardall, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, The Astrop hysical Journal 554, 322 (2001)

    work page 2001

  27. [27]

    Tsokaros, M

    A. Tsokaros, M. Ruiz, S. L. Shapiro, and K. b. o. Ury¯ u, Ph ys. Rev. Lett. 128, 061101 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Bzdak, S

    A. Bzdak, S. Esumi, V. Koch, J. Liao, M. Stephanov, and N. Xu, Physics Reports 853, 1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    E. J. Ferrer, W. Gyory, and V. de la Incera, Phys. Rev. D 109, 036023 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Li and R

    M. Li and R. J. Perry, Phys. Rev. D 37, 1670 (1988)

    work page 1988

  31. [31]

    I. W. Stewart and P. G. Blunden, Phys. Rev. D 55, 3742 (1997)

    work page 1997

  32. [32]

    Kahana and G

    S. Kahana and G. Ripka, Nuclear Physics A 429, 462 (1984)

    work page 1984

  33. [33]

    Shifman, A

    M. Shifman, A. Vainshtein, and M. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. D 59, 045016 (1999)

    work page 1999

  34. [34]

    G. V. Dunne, Physics Letters B 467, 238 (1999)

    work page 1999

  35. [35]

    Graham and R

    N. Graham and R. Jaffe, Nuclear Physics B 544, 432 (1999)

    work page 1999

  36. [36]

    Rebhan, P

    A. Rebhan, P. van Nieuwenhuizen, and R. Wimmer, Physics Letters B 594, 234 (2004)

    work page 2004

  37. [37]

    Rebhan, R

    A. Rebhan, R. Schofbeck, P. van Nieuwenhuizen, and R. Wi mmer, Physics Letters B 632, 145 (2005)

    work page 2005

  38. [38]

    Farhi, N

    E. Farhi, N. Graham, P. Haagensen, and R. L. Jaffe, Physic s Letters B 427, 334 (1998)

    work page 1998

  39. [39]

    Farhi, N

    E. Farhi, N. Graham, R. Jaffe, and H. Weigel, Nuclear Phys ics B 630, 241 (2002)

    work page 2002

  40. [40]

    Quandt, N

    M. Quandt, N. Graham, and H. Weigel, Nuclear Physics B 923, 350 (2017)

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    Graham, M

    N. Graham, M. Quandt, and H. Weigel, Spectral Methods in Quantum Field Theory , vol. 777 (2009)

    work page 2009

  42. [42]

    Schwinger, Physical Review 94, 1362 (1954)

    J. Schwinger, Physical Review 94, 1362 (1954)

    work page 1954

  43. [43]

    t Hooft, Physical Review D 14, 3432 (1976)

    G. t Hooft, Physical Review D 14, 3432 (1976)

    work page 1976

  44. [44]

    Shu, SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 60, 041021 (2017)

    S. Shu, SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 60, 041021 (2017)

    work page 2017

  45. [45]

    S. Shu, X. Li, and J.-R. Li, Nuclear Physics A 1014, 122256 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    X. Li, S. Shu, and J.-R. Li, Physical Review C 105, 045203 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    M. C. Birse and M. K. Banerjee, Physics Letters B 136, 284 (1984)

    work page 1984

  48. [48]

    Diakonov, V

    D. Diakonov, V. Y. Petrov, and P. Pobylitsa, Nuclear Phy sics B 306, 809 (1988)

    work page 1988

  49. [49]

    C. V. Christov, A. Blotz, H.-C. Kim, P. Pobylitsa, T. Wat abe, T. Meissner, E. R. Arriola, and K. Goeke, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 37, 91 (1996)

    work page 1996

  50. [50]

    M´ ocsy, I

    A. M´ ocsy, I. N. Mishustin, and P. J. Ellis, Phys. Rev. C 70, 015204 (2004)

    work page 2004

  51. [51]

    P. Weng, B. Li, Y. Lyu, S. Shu, and H. Zhang, Physics Lette rs B 867, 139587 (2025)

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    Ma, Journal of Mathematical Physics 26, 1995 (1985)

    Z. Ma, Journal of Mathematical Physics 26, 1995 (1985)

    work page 1995