Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

$ \rho\to \pi\pi $ Hadronic Decay in the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio Model: Mass-Width Interplay and Beyond-RPA Corrections

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single Green's-function pole controls both the mass shift and the decay width of the rho meson in the NJL model, yielding 775.4 MeV and 149.3 MeV.

desk verdict A competent but over-sold application of the authors' prepared-state formalism to ρ→ππ in NJL; the numerical agreement is fitted, and the pole is not evaluated self-consistently. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22446 v1 pith:GFMLCZ5H submitted 2025-05-28 hep-ph

Qing-Wu Wang , Xiao-Fu Ltextü , Hua-Zhong Guo This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords rhomesonNambu-Jona-LasiniomodelBethe-SalpeterequationGreen'sfunctionpolemass-widthinterplaydispersionrelationbeyond-RPAcorrectionsunstablehadrons
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 mass and decay width of an unstable hadron should be read off from a single complex pole of its Green's function, rather than treated as independent parameters. Working in the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model, it prepares the $\rho$ as a stable Bethe-Salpeter bound state and then lets $\rho\to\pi\pi$ decay act on that state; the same decay amplitude shifts the pole's real part and generates its imaginary part. With one parameter set, the random-phase-approximation (RPA) bound-state mass of 838.6 MeV becomes a physical mass of 775.4 MeV and a width of 149.3 MeV, close to the empirical values. The point a general reader should take is that in this framework the width is not imposed from outside but is the same interaction that renormalizes the mass.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Green's function of the prepared unstable state, $G_{aa}(\varepsilon)=(\varepsilon-M_0-T_{aa}(\varepsilon))^{-1}$, where $M_0$ is the bare Bethe-Salpeter bound-state mass and $T_{aa}$ is the diagonal $T$-matrix element of the decay channel. The argument runs through three linked steps: the imaginary part $I(\varepsilon)$ is obtained from the $\rho\to\pi\pi$ triangle diagram; the real part $D(\varepsilon)$ is obtained from $I$ by the principal-value dispersion integral; and the pole position $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{pole}}\simeq M_0+D(M_0)-iI(M_0)$ then fixes the physical mass and width. The same coupling constants thus drive the decay and the mass shift, which is the mechanism by which the paper goes beyond the random-phase-approximation bound-state description.

What would settle it

Solve the pole equation $\varepsilon=M_0+D(\varepsilon)-iI(\varepsilon)$ without the small-width substitution using the same NJL parameters. If the resulting complex pole differs materially from $775.4-i\,(149.3/2)$ MeV, or if no pole near the empirical $\rho$ mass exists, the quoted mass and width are artifacts of the approximation; a lattice-QCD extraction of the $\rho$ pole from $\pi\pi$ scattering at matched quark masses would provide an independent check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the physical $\rho$ meson is not the stable solution of the homogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation but the pole of the full Green's function $G_{aa}(\varepsilon)=1/(\varepsilon-M_0-T_{aa}(\varepsilon))$. On the second Riemann sheet the diagonal $T$-matrix element splits into a real part $D(\varepsilon)$ and an imaginary part $I(\varepsilon)$; unitarity identifies $I$ with the decay channels, and the dispersion relation $D(\varepsilon)=-\frac{P}{\pi}\int_{\varepsilon_M}^{\infty}\frac{I(\varepsilon')}{\varepsilon'-\varepsilon}d\varepsilon'$ computes the real part from the same imaginary part. Approximating $\varepsilon$ by the bare mass $M_0$ in both functions gives the pole $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{pole}}\simeq M_0+D(M_0)-iI(M_0)$, so $D(M_0)$ is the mass correction $\Delta M$ and $2I(M_0)$ the decay width $\Gamma(M_0)$. Evaluated for $\rho\to\pi\pi$ in the NJL model, this turns the RPA mass 838.6 MeV into 775.4 MeV and yields $\Gamma=149.3$ MeV, which the paper reads as evidence that mass and width are dynamically linked observables rather than separate inputs.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation depends on replacing the complex pole energy $\varepsilon$ by the bare mass $M_0$ inside $D(\varepsilon)$ and $I(\varepsilon)$, justified by the claim that decay widths are very small compared with energy levels; for the $\rho$ meson, $\Gamma/M\simeq0.19$, so the quoted 775.4 MeV and 149.3 MeV rest on that substitution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The physical $\rho$ mass is about 10% below the RPA bound-state mass, so bound-state calculations that simply insert the experimental mass are omitting the same physics that generates the width.
  • Because $D(M_0)$ and $I(M_0)$ come from one decay amplitude, the mass and width cannot be adjusted independently when fitting a resonance in this framework.
  • The same Green's-function-plus-dispersion-relation scheme applies to other dominant two-body decay channels, including molecular states whose mass corrections were previously treated separately.
  • The numerical agreement with the $1/N_c$ self-energy result suggests that two independent beyond-RPA routes to the physical mass, one through $1/N_c$ corrections and one through the decay $T$-matrix, converge for the rho.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pole equation is solved self-consistently rather than with $\varepsilon\simeq M_0$, the quoted numbers could shift; the size of that shift is a direct test of how much of the result is the small-width approximation.
  • For very broad resonances such as the $\sigma/f_0(500)$, where $\Gamma/M$ is of order one, the substitution $\varepsilon\simeq M_0$ would break down, and the framework would have to follow the pole into the complex energy plane.
  • The predicted correlation between mass shift and decay width could be looked for in lattice-QCD calculations that vary the pion mass: the difference between the bound-state mass and the resonance pole mass should track the opening of the $\pi\pi$ threshold.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper applies a Green's-function/dispersion-relation framework, previously developed for unstable molecular states, to the ρ→ππ decay in the two-flavor NJL model. The ρ is first obtained as an RPA/BS bound state with a bare mass M0=838.6 MeV; the decay channel is then coupled through a T-matrix element T=D−iI. The imaginary part gives the width and the real part, obtained by a dispersion integral, gives a mass shift ΔM=D(M0), so that the physical pole is written εpole≈M0+D(M0)−iI(M0) (Eq. (23)). With G2Λ2=−57.12 and aπ=0.1415 the authors obtain M=775.4 MeV and Γ=149.3 MeV, which they compare with experimental values. The appendix provides the one-loop form factor needed for the decay amplitude.

Significance. The formal skeleton—complex pole of the Green's function, unitarity-based imaginary part, dispersion relation for the real part—is standard, and the paper gives a reasonably detailed derivation of the decay form factor in Appendix A. The paper is also honest in saying it fits experimental data with adjustable parameters (Secs. III and IV). However, as it stands the numerical result has no predictive content: the two parameters that enter the decay amplitude are adjusted so that the computed mass and width coincide with experiment, and the small-width replacement in Eq. (23) is quantitatively unjustified for a state with Γ/M≈0.19. Because the central claim of the abstract—that the calculated mass and width agree with experiment and demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach—rests entirely on this fitting and on the uncontrolled approximation, the manuscript needs major remedial work before it can be evaluated as a quantitative hadronic calculation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, 'To fit the experimental data' paragraph and Fig. 2] The numerical agreement is built in by construction. After Eq. (23) the paper states 'To fit the experimental data... G2Λ2 and aπ were treated as adjustable parameters,' and Fig. 2 is explicitly used to make the mass and width curves pass through the experimental values. Because aπ enters the form factor G in Eq. (6), it controls both Γ and, through the dispersion integral Eq. (21), the mass shift ΔM. The quoted 775.4 MeV and 149.3 MeV are therefore not predictions of the framework; the abstract's claim of 'good agreement with experiment, demonstrating the effectiveness of this approach' is not supported by the calculation as presented. The authors should either fix all parameters from independent inputs (e.g., pion properties and fπ only) or present the result as a parameter determination with a clear accounting of how many observables are fitted by how many parameters.
  2. [Eqs. (22)-(23) and text after Eq. (22)] The replacement ε→M0 in the pole equation is uncontrolled for the ρ. With the quoted output Γ/M≈0.19 and ΔM/M0≈0.075, the pole lies roughly 64 MeV in the real direction and 75 MeV in the imaginary direction away from M0=838.6 MeV; the phase-space factor in Eq. (6) changes by about 10% between M0 and M, and the energy dependence of D and I is not shown to be weak. The sentence 'decay widths are very small compared with their energy levels' is not satisfied by the ρ, so the 63.2 MeV shift and 149.3 MeV width obtained from Eq. (23) are not established pole parameters. The pole equation should be solved self-consistently, or a controlled expansion in Γ/M should be provided, before quoting these numbers. Relatedly, Eq. (6) is written with an explicit mρ in the phase-space factor, but the text does not state whether mρ there is the bare M0 or the physical M; this ambiguity affects the quoted width at the ten-percent level.
  3. [Eq. (21) and the numerical paragraph in Sec. III] The mass shift ΔM=D(M0) is not reproducible from the text. The dispersion integral in Eq. (21) requires the full spectral function I(ε′) over the final-state continuum, but neither I(ε′) nor the resulting principal-value integral is displayed; the numerical result −63.2 MeV is simply stated. It is also unclear how the cutoff Λ of the NJL model is implemented in the dispersion integral, since Eq. (21) is written with the upper limit at infinity while Eq. (14) uses Λ. Without this input no reader can verify the quoted mass shift or the width.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II and Sec. V] There are typographical and style issues: 'formlism' should be 'formalism', and the spelling of the author name 'L¨ u' is inconsistent in the acknowledgments and references.
  2. [Fig. 2] The two curves are not labeled; please identify which curve is the mass and which is the width, and mark the experimental values used for the fit.
  3. [Introduction and Sec. III] The Introduction quotes an RPA ρ mass of 834 MeV, while Sec. III reports 838.6 MeV; these numbers should be reconciled.
  4. [References] Ref. [1] appears to be mis-cited as a single ATLAS/CMS paper and with the wrong volume and year for the Higgs-boson discovery; please check all references for accuracy.
  5. [Eq. (22)] Eq. (22) uses the same symbol ε inside D(ε) and I(ε) on the right-hand side while defining εpole on the left; the pole equation should be εpole=M0+D(εpole)−iI(εpole), and the abbreviated notation should be clarified.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The numerical mass-width 'prediction' is calibrated: G2Λ2 and aπ are adjustable parameters chosen to fit the experimental rho mass and width, so the quoted agreement is by construction; the underlying dispersion framework is not itself circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III, parameter paragraph after Eq. (23)]
    "To fit the experimental data, we adopted the following parameter settings: ... Here, G2Λ2 and aπ were treated as adjustable parameters. When G2Λ2 = −57.12 and aπ = 0.1415, we obtained the quark mass 463.6 MeV and rho meson mass from RPA prediction 838.6 MeV. After corrections, the mass and decay width were calculated as mρ = 775.4 MeV and Γ = 149.3 MeV. ... The intersection points of the vertical line with the two curves give the experimental values."

    Two adjustable parameters are set with the aim of fitting the experimental rho mass and width, and the quoted outputs (775.4 MeV, 149.3 MeV) are the same experimental values used as fit targets. The mass shift is then computed from the dispersion integral over the imaginary part that has been calibrated to reproduce the width; the final agreement is therefore built into the parameter choices rather than being an independent prediction of the model. This is a calibration, not a test, of the claimed mass-width relation.

full rationale

The derivation of the real part D from the imaginary part I via Eq. (21) is a standard dispersion relation and does not by itself contain a circular step: D and I are different components of the same T-matrix, and computing a mass shift from a width is a legitimate causal relation. The self-citations to Refs. [12,13] are not the sole support because the key equations are restated in the paper. The main circularity concern is quantitative: the parameters G2Λ2 and aπ are explicitly adjusted 'to fit the experimental data', and the chosen values yield rho mass 775.4 MeV and width 149.3 MeV, i.e., the same two experimental numbers. With two adjustable parameters and two target observables, the 'good agreement' is not an independent test of the framework; it is a calibration. The framework's content survives as a structural relation, but the specific numerical demonstration reduces to the fitted inputs. In addition, Eq. (23) evaluates D and I at the bare mass M0 rather than at the pole; for Γ/M ≈ 0.19 this is an uncontrolled approximation, but that is a correctness/self-consistency issue rather than a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The numerical result rests on three model constants and several structural approximations. Two of the constants are explicitly adjusted in this paper to reproduce the quoted mass and width; the third is a regularization scale taken from prior work. The structural assumptions (small width, single-channel unitarity, leading-order vertex) are stated but not tested against alternatives.

free parameters (3)
  • G2Λ2 = -57.12
    Vector-channel coupling strength; adjusted so that the RPA rho mass (838.6 MeV) plus the decay-induced shift lands near the experimental 775 MeV, also setting the quark mass to 463.6 MeV.
  • aπ = 0.1415
    Parameter in the effective pion-quark vertex (Eq. 8); scanned in Fig. 2 and chosen so the computed width becomes 149.3 MeV, matching the experimental width.
  • Λ = 1050 MeV
    NJL regularization cutoff taken from Ref [26]; a model scale that strongly affects all loop integrals and the final pole position.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The NJL model with a sharp momentum cutoff is an adequate low-energy description of QCD for this calculation, despite the absence of confinement.
    Invoked throughout Section II; the paper itself notes that the lack of confinement creates unphysical quark-antiquark thresholds requiring phenomenological suppression.
  • ad hoc to paper Decay widths are very small compared with the energy level, so ε can be replaced by M0 in the pole equation.
    Stated after Eq. (22); for the rho meson, Γ/M ≈ 0.19, making this quantitative approximation questionable.
  • domain assumption The real part D(ε) of the T-matrix element follows from a single unsubtracted principal-value dispersion integral over the imaginary part (Eq. 21).
    This is the framework taken from Refs [12,13]; no subtraction constants or additional inelastic contributions are discussed.
  • domain assumption The leading-order triangle diagram with two pion final states gives the full imaginary part I(ε), with no final-state rescattering.
    Used in the evaluation of T_ba leading to the decay width formula in Eq. (6) and in Appendix A; higher-order rescattering effects are neglected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $ \rho\to \pi\pi $ Hadronic Decay in the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio Model: Mass-Width Interplay and Beyond-RPA Corrections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GFMLCZ5H

@misc{pith2026250522446,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $ \rho\to \pi\pi $ Hadronic Decay in the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio Model: Mass-Width Interplay and Beyond-RPA Corrections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GFMLCZ5H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22446}
}
abstract

We present a novel framework for analyzing unstable composite particles using Green's functions and dispersion relations. As an illustrative example, we explore the $\rho$ vector meson decay process $\rho\to\pi\pi$ within the Nambu -- Jona - Lasinio (NJL) model. Our approach addresses a key limitation of the four-quark interaction description, which adequately describes two-quark bound states but fails to describe decay processes. The Bethe-Salpeter(BS) wave function of the $\rho$ meson exhibits time evolution that leads to the physical mass $M$ incorporating a correction $\Delta M $. This correction depends on the decay width $\Gamma(M)$. This work provides crucial insights into the dynamical relationship between resonance masses and their decay properties, addressing a long-standing challenge in hadron physics. The calculated mass and width are in good agreement with the experimental values, demonstrating the effectiveness of this approach for studying unstable hadronic systems beyond conventional bound-state approximations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22446 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The amplitude used to calculate the decay width. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Meson mass and decay width as function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. Review of particle physics. Phys. Rev. D, 110:030001, Aug 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    G. Aad, S. Chatrchyan, et al. Observation of a new boson at 125 GeV. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:2016, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [2]

    (11) For the decay ρ → ππ, the two pions are on shell and we have p2 1 = p2

    + pµ 2 G(q2; p2 2, p2 1)]. (11) For the decay ρ → ππ, the two pions are on shell and we have p2 1 = p2

    work page

  4. [3]

    prepared state

    Then T µ can be expressed as T µ(mρ; mπ) = −2iNcgρ−q ¯qg2 π−q ¯q(pµ 1 + pµ 2 )G(m2 ρ; m2 π) (12) with G(m2 ρ; m2 π) the form factor as in Eq.6. The calcu- lation of G(m2 ρ; m2 π) can be found in the Appendix. As the form factor G is obtained, the decay width is avail- able from Eq. (6) which depends on the ρ meson mass. The mass of ρ meson defined through...

    work page

  5. [4]

    (A16) The calculation of M1 can make use of the assumption pµ 1 M1(p1, p2) + pµ 2 M1(p2, p1) = Z d4k (2π)4 kµ s0s1s2

    (p1 · p2I(p1) −p2 2I(p2) + (p2 2 − p1 · p2)I(p1 − p2) +p2 2(p2 1 − p1 · p2)M (p1, p2)). (A16) The calculation of M1 can make use of the assumption pµ 1 M1(p1, p2) + pµ 2 M1(p2, p1) = Z d4k (2π)4 kµ s0s1s2 . (A17) The calculated J1 is written as J1 = − 1 2 I(pi) + I(p1 − p2) − (p2 1 + p2 2)M1(p1, p2).(A18) Finally, the function G can be written in terms of...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Abe et al

    F. Abe et al. Observation of top quark production in ¯ pp collisions. Phys. Rev. Lett., 74:2626–2631, 1995

    work page 1995

  7. [6]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. Observation of CP violation in B0 → J/ψK 0 S decays. Phys. Rev. Lett., 87:091802, 2001

    work page 2001

  8. [7]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. Observation of a charged charmonium- like structure in e+e− → π+π−J/ψ. Phys. Rev. Lett., 110:252001, 2013

    work page 2013

Show all 36 references
  1. [8]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. Measurement of sin 2 β from B0 → J/ψK 0 S. Phys. Rev. Lett., 89:201802, 2002

    2002

  2. [9]

    Bernard, A

    V. Bernard, A. H. Blin, B. Hiller, U. G. Meissner, and M. C. Ruivo. Strong and radiative meson decays in a generalized Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model. Phys. Lett. B, 305:163–167, 1993

    1993

  3. [10]

    Meissner

    V´ eronique Bernard and Ulf G. Meissner. Properties of vector and axial-vector mesons from a generalized nambu-jona-lasinio model. Nucl. Phy. A, 489(4):647–670, 1988

    1988

  4. [11]

    Brice˜ no, Jozef J

    Ra´ ul A. Brice˜ no, Jozef J. Dudek, and Ross D. Young. Scattering processes and resonances from lattice qcd. Rev. Mod. Phys., 90:025001, Apr 2018

    2018

  5. [12]

    Brodsky, Guy F

    Stanley J. Brodsky, Guy F. de T´ eramond, and Hans G¨ unter Dosch. Light-front holography and ads/qcd. Phys. Rep., 584:1–105, 2015

    2015

  6. [13]

    NJL model analysis of quark matter at large density

    Michael Buballa. NJL model analysis of quark matter at large density. Phys. Rep., 407:205–376, 2005

    2005

  7. [14]

    Juge, Colin Morningstar, and Chik Him Wong

    John Bulava, Brendan Fahy, Ben H¨ orz, Keisuke J. Juge, Colin Morningstar, and Chik Him Wong. I= 1 and i= 2 π − π scattering phase shifts from nf= 2 + 1 lattice qcd. Nucl. Phys. B, 910:842, September 2016

    2016

  8. [15]

    Development of bethe–salpeter theory for dealing with unstable system

    Xiaozhao Chen and Xiaofu L¨ u. Development of bethe–salpeter theory for dealing with unstable system. Eur. Phys. J. C, 83:499, 6 2023

    2023

  9. [16]

    Calculation of mass and width of unstable molecular state using the developed bethe- salpeter theory

    Xiaozhao Chen, Xiaofu L¨ u, Xiurong Guo, Zonghua Shi, and Qingbiao Wang. Calculation of mass and width of unstable molecular state using the developed bethe- salpeter theory. Phys. Rev. D, 108:114005, Dec 2023

    2023

  10. [17]

    T. E. Coan et al. Precision measurement of B(D0 → K −π+) and CP asymmetry. Phys. Rev. Lett., 85:5258– 5262, 2000

    2000

  11. [18]

    Christian S. Fischer. Dyson-schwinger equations and the phase diagram of qcd. Phys. Rev. D, 98:014034, 2018

    2018

  12. [19]

    Goldberger and Kenneth M

    Marvin L. Goldberger and Kenneth M. Watson. Collision theory. Wiley, New York, 1964

    1964

  13. [20]

    Heavy mesons in the nambu-jona-lasinio model

    Xiao-Yu Guo, Xiao-Lin Chen, and Wei-Zhen Deng. Heavy mesons in the nambu-jona-lasinio model. Chin. Phys. C, 37(3):033102, 2013

    2013

  14. [21]

    On the π − π resonance states

    Mo-Lin Ke and I-Shih Tuan. On the π − π resonance states. Acta Phys. Sin., 21(w19651106):1903, 1965

    1903

  15. [22]

    S. P. Klevansky. The Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model of quantum chromodynamics. Rev. Mod. Phys., 64:649– 708, 1992

    1992

  16. [23]

    S. P. Klevansky and R. H. Lemmer. Nambu-jona-lasinio model in the 21st century. Rev. Mod. Phys., 91:045003, 2019

    2019

  17. [24]

    Klimt, M

    S. Klimt, M. Lutz, U. Vogl, and W. Weise. General- ized su(3) nambu-jona-lasinio model: (i). mesonic modes - sciencedirect. Nucl. Phys. A, 516(3):429–468, 1990

    1990

  18. [25]

    Pieter Maris and Craig D. Roberts. Dyson-schwinger equations and the application to hadron physics. Int. J. Mod. Phys. E, 12:297–365, 2003

    2003

  19. [27]

    Oertel, M

    M. Oertel, M. Buballa, and J. Wambach. Meson prop- erties in the 1/nc-corrected njl model. Nucl. Phys. A, 7 676(1):247–272, 2000

    2000

  20. [28]

    K. A. Olive et al. Review of particle physics. Chin. Phys. C, 38:090001, 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    Polleri, R.A

    A. Polleri, R.A. Broglia, P.M. Pizzochero, and N.N. Scoc- cola. Rho meson properties in the nambu-jona-lasinio model. Z. Phys. A, 357(3):325, 1997

    1997

  22. [30]

    Rebyakova, M

    V. Rebyakova, M. Strikman, and M. Zhalov. Coher- ent rho and j/ψ photoproduction in ultraperipheral pro- cesses with electromagnetic dissociation of heavy ions at rhic and lhc. Phys. Lett. B, 710(4):647–653, 2012

    2012

  23. [31]

    Roberts and Jorge Segovia

    Craig D. Roberts and Jorge Segovia. Dyson-schwinger equations: A tool for hadron physics. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 120:103883, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Dudek, and Robert G

    Arkaitz Rodas, Jozef J. Dudek, and Robert G. Edwards. Quark mass dependence of ππ scattering in isospin 0, 1, and 2 from lattice qcd. Phys. Rev. D, 108:034513, Aug 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Sch¨ uren, F

    C. Sch¨ uren, F. D¨ oRing, E. Ruiz Arriola, and K. Goeke. Vector mesons in the nambu-jona-lasinio model. Nucl. Phys. A, 565(4):687–739, 1993

    1993

  26. [34]

    Mikhail A. Shifman. Qcd sum rules: The legacy and the future. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 24:5999–6020, 2009

    2009

  27. [35]

    Sibirtsev and W

    A. Sibirtsev and W. Cassing. Rho meson production and decay in proton nucleus collisions. Nucl. Phys. A, 629:717–738, 1998

    1998

  28. [36]

    Roberts, and Sebastian M

    Qing-Wu Wang, Si-Xue Qin, Craig D. Roberts, and Sebastian M. Schmidt. Proton tensor charges from a poincar´ e-covariant faddeev equation. Phys. Rev. D, 98(5):054019, sep 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.