Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Glueball-fermion hard scattering from type IIB superstring theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper derives glueball-fermion hard scattering from type IIB superstrings and finds the fixed-angle cross section follows constituent-counting scaling, dsigma/dt proportional to s^-11 for the lowest-twist states.

desk verdict A useful mixed-species extension of the Polchinski-Strassler program whose headline exponents all sit on an unverified kinematic factor from an unpublished companion paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04503 v2 pith:WIOXQCET submitted 2025-06-04 hep-th

Lucas Martin , Martin Parlanti , Martin Schvellinger This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords glueball-fermionscatteringholographichardtypeIIBsuperstringAdS/CFTcorrespondenceconstituentcountingruleReggelimitspinorsphericalharmonicsselectionrules
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 glueball-fermion elastic scattering in a strongly coupled confining gauge theory can be computed from the type IIB superstring amplitude for two dilatons and two dilatinos, using the gauge/string duality. It claims that at fixed angle the leading four-dimensional amplitude behaves as A proportional to s^(5/2 - T/2), where T is the total twist of the two glueball and two fermion operators. For the minimal-twist operators of N=4 super Yang-Mills, T=14, the differential cross section is predicted to be dsigma/dt proportional to $s^{-11}$ f(|t|/s), matching the counting-rule form for scattering of two different hadron species. In the Regge limit the amplitude grows as s^(2 + $\alpha$' t/2), which the authors interpret as single Reggeized graviton exchange. A sympathetic reader would care because this extends holographic string calculations beyond all-glueball or all-fermion processes to mixed-species scattering, with explicit S5 angular integrals and selection rules.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the ten-dimensional closed-string amplitude for two dilatons and two dilatinos, Eq. (2.14), whose compact kinematic factor is proportional to bar-lambda_1 Phi_2 Phi_3 (k_3 dot Gamma) lambda_4, and the locality map of Eq. (3.1), which converts it into a four-dimensional amplitude by integrating over the AdS5 x S5 bulk. The dilaton and dilatino wave functions, approximated at large r by powers (r0/r)^$\Delta$ times scalar and spinor spherical harmonics, determine the integrals; the spinor spherical harmonics on S5 and their orthonormalization provide the selection rules embodied in the angular integral I of Eq. (3.28). The Stirling approximation to the gamma-function product in the string amplitude converts the Mandelstam dependence into the exponential factor whose fixed-angle analysis yields the s-power, and whose saddle-point analysis in the Regge direction yields the graviton exponent.

What would settle it

Compute the same glueball-fermion amplitude in the full AdS5 x S5 string theory without the local-amplitude shortcut, or extract the fixed-angle exponent from a lattice simulation of a confining gauge theory with states of twist 4 and 3; if the leading cross section is not dsigma/dt proportional to $s^{-11}$ f(|t|/s), the central claim fails. Alternatively, a next-order $\alpha$' computation that changes the power of s from 5/2 - T/2 would falsify the leading-term identification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the mixed-species hard-scattering amplitude can be obtained by taking the compact ten-dimensional dilaton-dilatino amplitude, Eq. (2.14), and applying the locality prescription of Eq. (3.1): integrate the locally evaluated string amplitude coherently over radial and S5 positions with momenta rescaled by p-tilde = R p/r. The resulting four-dimensional amplitude, Eq. (3.46), has leading term A proportional to s^(5/2 - T/2), which the authors identify with the form A proportional to s^(2 - n/2) s^(L/2 - 1/2) for L=2 interacting constituent pairs; for minimal twist T=14 this gives dsigma/dt proportional to $s^{-11}$ f(|t|/s). The authors also compute the Regge limit, obtaining s^(2 + $\alpha$' t/2), and interpret it as exchange of a single Reggeized graviton. They evaluate the angular integrals of two scalar and two spinor spherical harmonics on S5, obtaining I = 1/$pi^{3}$ for the lowest-twist cases, and derive selection rules that keep the glueball's Kaluza-Klein level k unchanged in the elastic process.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the locality prescription of Eq. (3.1): the ten-dimensional string scattering is assumed to happen at a single point in the curved bulk, so the four-dimensional amplitude is a coherent integral of the locally evaluated string amplitude; if string interactions are not effectively local at the relevant energies, the derived s-powers and Regge exponent would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For lowest-twist N=4 SYM operators (glueball twist 4, fermion twist 3), the fixed-angle differential cross section is dsigma/dt proportional to s^-11 f(|t|/s).
  • The leading term s^(5/2 - T/2)(1 + cos(theta)) dominates except near backward scattering, where the subleading s^(2 - T/2)(cos(theta) - 1) term takes over, an effect the paper attributes to strong coupling.
  • The subleading terms form a strong-coupling expansion in inverse powers of the 't Hooft coupling, with coefficients set by the confinement scale Lambda.
  • In the Regge limit s >> |t|, the amplitude behaves as s^(2 + alpha' t/2), identified with single Reggeized graviton exchange.
  • The S5 angular integrals give 1/pi^3 for the minimal-twist cases and imply elastic selection rules: fermion and glueball quantum numbers are preserved, and the glueball's k level is unchanged.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the locality prescription survives a full-string computation, the same method should extend to other mixed-species pairs, such as glueball-vector or meson-fermion scattering, with the total twist T controlling the exponent.
  • The backward-scattering dominance of the s^(2 - T/2) term suggests that holographic strong coupling reverses the usual partonic counting near theta = pi; this could be tested by computing the next term in the strong-coupling expansion or by a lattice simulation of the fixed-angle amplitude.
  • The Reggeized graviton exchange in the mixed-species channel implies that glueball-fermion scattering at small t should be governed by the same Pomeron-like object seen in four-glueball scattering, so its t-dependence could be compared with existing holographic Pomeron fits.
  • The explicit spinor spherical harmonic integrals provide a template for arbitrary twists, predicting a sequence of leading exponents s^(5/2 - T/2) for T = 14, 15, 16, ... that could be checked by a dual calculation at higher Kaluza-Klein levels.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript calculates the four-dimensional glueball-fermion hard-scattering amplitude from the ten-dimensional dilaton-dilatino type IIB superstring amplitude. The authors take the compact KLT kinematic factor of Eq. (2.14), combine it with the Polchinski-Strassler locality prescription of Eq. (3.1), and integrate over the holographic radial coordinate and the five-sphere using the large-r dilaton and dilatino wave functions. The fixed-angle result is summarized in Eq. (3.46), with leading behavior A ∝ s^{5/2−T/2}; for minimal-twist glueball and fermion operators with T = 14 this gives dσ/dt ∝ s^{−11} f(|t|/s) in Eq. (3.49). The Regge limit is treated in Section 4 and yields A ∝ s^{2+α̂′t/2}, which the authors interpret as single Reggeized graviton exchange. The paper also computes several S^5 angular integrals and derives selection rules for the scalar and spinor spherical harmonics.

Significance. If the input amplitude and the locality dictionary are accepted, this is the first holographic string-theory calculation of mixed-species (glueball-fermion) hard scattering, and it is a natural extension of the four-glueball and four-fermion programs of Polchinski-Strassler and of the authors' own previous work. The final exponents are parameter-free in the sense that no target cross-section exponent is used to fix a constant: the leading power is inherited from the s̃^3 term of Eq. (2.14), and the T = 14 result s^{−9/2} for the amplitude is internally consistent with the quoted cross-section s^{−11}. The explicit S^5 angular integrals and the Regge exponent 2 + α̂′t/2 are concrete, testable deliverables. I found no evidence of circular tuning of the final scaling. The main risks are external to the paper's own derivation: the kinematic input Eq. (2.14) is imported from the companion preprint [7], and the locality ansatz Eq. (3.1), although flagged by the authors, is an assumed dictionary step rather than a proven theorem.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (2.5) and (2.14)] The central kinematic factor K^{dilaton-dilatino}_{closed} of Eq. (2.14) is stated after "some tedious algebra" from the KLT product in Eq. (2.5), with the full calculation relegated to the unpublished companion [7]. This factor is load-bearing: its s̃^3 term and its single spinor structure λ̄1Φ2Φ3(k3·Γ)λ4 determine the leading fixed-angle exponent in Eq. (3.46), the Brodsky-Farrar match in Eq. (3.48), and the Regge exponent in Eq. (4.15). An error in the power of s̃ or in the spinor contraction would propagate through every subsequent integral and change all final predictions. I verified that Eq. (2.16) is algebraically consistent with Eq. (2.14), so the concern is not the conversion to the angular form, but the provenance of Eq. (2.14) itself. Please include the full KLT reduction in an appendix, or provide an independent and publicly checkable derivation, before the paper can be considered self-contained.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (3.1)] The locality prescription of Eq. (3.1), in which the four-dimensional amplitude is obtained by coherently integrating the ten-dimensional string amplitude over all bulk positions (r, Ω5) with momenta scaled by p̃ = R p/r, is the structural assumption of the calculation. The authors do flag it in the text, which is to their credit, but no estimate of corrections or statement of its domain of validity is given. Since the fixed-angle exponent, the Regge exponent, and the selection rules all follow from this ansatz, the paper should state explicitly that this is an assumption inherited from the Polchinski-Strassler program, and indicate the kinematic regime in which it is expected to hold and what would constitute a failure of locality.
  3. [Section 3.4, Eqs. (3.43) and (3.46)] The notation Γ[z, x] for the incomplete gamma function is not specified. Under the standard upper incomplete-gamma convention Γ(a, z) = ∫_z^∞ t^{a−1} e^{−t} dt, the trailing terms in the curly bracket of Eq. (3.43) are exponentially small for large s, whereas under the lower incomplete-gamma convention there are cancellations among the terms and the s-power counting is different in detail. The final leading exponent s^{5/2−T/2} is consistent with a direct evaluation of the radial integral ∫_1^∞ ρ^{3−(Δ+Δ̃)} e^{−z/ρ²} dρ after the substitution u = ρ^{−2}, which maps the integral to ∫_0^1 u^{(Δ+Δ̃−6)/2} e^{−zu} du, but the displayed formula in Eq. (3.43) does not make this convention clear. Please specify the convention, show the substitution, and give the asymptotic identity used to extract the leading power.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (3.19)] The denominator in Eq. (3.19) is written as Γ(1 − α′χ/4), which differs from the denominator Γ(1 + α′χ/4) in Eq. (2.2) and from the denominator used in the subsequent Stirling reduction of Eq. (3.38). Please correct this sign inconsistency.
  2. [Section 3.4, Eqs. (3.34)–(3.37)] The displayed expressions for √p1·σ and related spinor factors contain malformed brackets, such as "1√s+ 2M)" and inconsistent parentheses; these should be typeset correctly so that the high-energy limit s ≫ 4M² can be checked.
  3. [Introduction] There is a typo in the phrase "which we have recenclty derived"; it should read "recently derived."
  4. [Section 3.2, footnote 6] Footnote 6 asserts that using the large-r dilaton and dilatino wave functions does not affect the s-power behavior. Since the radial integral at fixed angle is dominated by large ρ (equivalently small u in the substitution u = ρ^{−2}), a one-sentence justification of this dominance would make the approximation more transparent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No reduction-by-construction: the s-exponents are computed one-way from the KLT factor, no parameter is fitted to s^{-11}, and the Brodsky-Farrar benchmark is checked ex post.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. 2, Eqs. (2.14)/(2.16); propagated via (3.19), (3.30), (3.46)-(3.49); Regge input Eq. (4.1)]
    "From the explicit tensor product in K^{dilaton-dilatino}_{closed}(˜1,2,3, ˜4) defined in equation (2.5) there are 60 terms. Fortunately, after some tedious algebra these terms can be summed, obtaining a very compact expression ... K^{dilaton-dilatino}_{closed}(˜1,2,3, ˜4) = −˜s³(49 cos(3θ)+266 cos(2θ)−97 cos(θ)+550)/65536 × ¯λ1Φ2Φ3(k3·Γ)λ4. (2.16) ... For the complete calculation of this ten-dimensional closed string scattering amplitude we refer the reader to our work introduced in reference [7]."

    Eq. (2.16)'s ˜s³ factor is carried multiplicatively through every integral in Section 3 (the (α′˜s)³ factor in (3.19)/(3.30)), so the leading power in (3.46), A ∝ s^{5/2−T/2} (3.48), and the s^{−11} cross-section (3.49) inherit that s-power directly; the Regge exponent in (4.15) similarly inherits from (4.1). This factor is not derived here: Section 2 attributes it to 'some tedious algebra' over the 60 KLT terms (2.5) and refers to the same authors' companion preprint [7]. The central premise is thus justified only by a same-group citation that this paper neither reproduces nor independently checks.

full rationale

The derivation is a single-direction pipeline: the 10D KLT amplitude (2.1)-(2.16), the Polchinski-Strassler locality integral (3.1), the large-r dilaton and dilatino wave functions (3.5)/(3.17), and the gamma-function asymptotics (3.38) combine into (3.46); its leading term gives A ∝ s^{5/2−T/2} (3.48) and, for minimal twist T=14, dσ/dt ∝ s^{−11} (3.49). The Regge result (4.15) is the same pipeline in a different kinematic regime. No output quantity is used to fix an input: the wave-function normalizations (3.8)/(3.18) come from canonical orthonormalization, Λ∼M∼1 GeV is a phenomenological scale that does not affect the s-power, and the angular integral I_{7/2,4,4,7/2}=1/π³ is evaluated explicitly in Section 5. The Brodsky-Farrar formula (3.47) is quoted only after (3.46) to read off L=2, so the external benchmark is a consistency check rather than an input. The paper itself flags its structural assumptions: the locality premise in Section 3.1 and the large-r wave-function approximation in footnote 6, both stated not to affect the s-power. The one flagged step is authorial: the compact kinematic factor (2.14)/(2.16) and its Regge form (4.1) come from the same group's companion preprint [7] via 'some tedious algebra' with no in-paper derivation or independent check, so the quoted exponents ride on an unshown algebraic step. Because that cited result is parameter-free and target-independent and the final scaling is computed rather than imposed, this is a verification-gap concern and not a reduction by construction; per the hard rules it warrants a low circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical data are fitted. The prediction follows from operator twist inputs, an imported string amplitude, and the Polchinski-Strassler locality prescription. The hand-set scales M≈1 GeV and α'|t|≈1 affect subleading terms or Regge presentation, not the leading fixed-angle exponent.

free parameters (2)
  • Common mass scale M for glueball and fermion = ≈1 GeV
    Set by hand in Section 3.4 after Eq. (3.29) to approximate kinematics; it affects subleading terms and the Λ∼M conversion, but not the leading s-power behavior.
  • Regge momentum-transfer scale α'|t| = ~1
    Set phenomenologically just before Eq. (4.15) to simplify the Regge expression; it is not used to determine the fixed-angle scaling.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ten-dimensional dilaton-dilatino closed-string amplitude is exactly the compact expression in Eq. (2.14) from companion paper [7].
    Invoked in Section 2 as the starting point; the current paper gives no derivation, and the result is not machine-checked.
  • domain assumption Polchinski-Strassler locality prescription: the four-dimensional amplitude is the coherent integral over bulk locations of the local ten-dimensional string amplitude, Eq. (3.1).
    Introduced in Section 3.1; it is the core holographic dictionary step and is not derived from first principles in this paper.
  • domain assumption Only the large-r asymptotic forms of the dilaton and dilatino wave functions, Eqs. (3.5) and (3.17), are needed.
    Used to evaluate the radial integrals; the paper states this does not change the s-power behavior but provides no error estimate.
  • domain assumption The spinor spherical harmonics and their orthonormality are taken from the same authors' earlier papers [36,37].
    The angular integral in Eq. (3.28) and the selection rules depend on these explicit harmonics.
  • standard math Stirling's approximation for the gamma-function product, Eq. (3.38), and saddle-point evaluation in the Regge limit are valid in the stated kinematic regimes.
    Asymptotic analytic methods are standard in high-energy limits, though no error bounds are given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Glueball-fermion hard scattering from type IIB superstring theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WIOXQCET

@misc{pith2026250604503,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Glueball-fermion hard scattering from type IIB superstring theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WIOXQCET}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04503}
}
read the original abstract

We calculate the glueball-fermion hard-scattering amplitude from the dilaton-dilatino closed string scattering amplitude in type IIB superstring theory, in the framework of the gauge/string theory duality. We investigate its high-energy scaling at fixed angle and also in the Regge limit. We derive the leading and sub-leading terms contributing to the scattering cross section. This dual calculation of the glueball-fermion scattering amplitude is particularly interesting since it involves the scattering of two different types of external states. We calculate explicitly some angular integrals for two scalar spherical harmonics and two spinor spherical harmonics on the five-sphere, leading to selection rules.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Dilaton-dilatino superstring theory scat- tering amplitude and its Regge behavior,

    L. Martin, M. Parlanti and M. Schvellinger, “Dilaton-dilatino superstring theory scat- tering amplitude and its Regge behavior,” [arXiv:2506.16472 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv

  2. [1]

    Fermions hard scattering from superstrings

    L. Martin, M. Parlanti and M. Schvellinger, “Fermions hard scattering from super- strings,” Phys. Rev. D111, no.6, 066004 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.066004 [arXiv:2412.08425 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    Hard scattering and gauge / string duality,

    J. Polchinski and M. J. Strassler, “Hard scattering and gauge / string duality,” Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 031601 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.031601 [arXiv:hep- th/0109174 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2002

  4. [3]

    Four-dilatino superstring theory scattering amplitude and its Regge behavior

    L. Martin, M. Parlanti and M. Schvellinger, “Four-dilatino superstring theory scattering amplitude and its Regge behavior,” [arXiv:2503.19150 [hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  5. [4]

    A Relation Between Tree Ampli- tudes of Closed and Open Strings,

    H. Kawai, D. C. Lewellen and S. H. H. Tye, “A Relation Between Tree Ampli- tudes of Closed and Open Strings,” Nucl. Phys. B269, 1-23 (1986) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(86)90362-7

    doi:10.1016/0550- 1986

  6. [5]

    Scaling Laws at Large Transverse Momentum,

    S. J. Brodsky and G. R. Farrar, “Scaling Laws at Large Transverse Momentum,” Phys. Rev. Lett.31, 1153-1156 (1973) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.31.1153

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.31.1153 1973

  7. [6]

    Scaling Laws for Large Momentum Transfer Processes,

    S. J. Brodsky and G. R. Farrar, “Scaling Laws for Large Momentum Transfer Processes,” Phys. Rev. D11, 1309 (1975) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.11.1309

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.11.1309 1975

  8. [8]

    The Mass Spectrum of Chiral N=2 D=10 Supergravity on S**5,

    H. J. Kim, L. J. Romans and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “The Mass Spectrum of Chiral N=2 D=10 Supergravity on S**5,” Phys. Rev. D32, 389 (1985) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.32.389

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.32.389 1985

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    The compactification of IIB supergravity onS 5 revisted,

    P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “The compactification of IIB supergravity onS 5 revisted,” doi:10.1142/9789814412551 0005 [arXiv:1206.2667 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    The Kaluza-Klein Program and Supergravity — The Com- pactification of Type 2B Supergravity Revisited,

    P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “The Kaluza-Klein Program and Supergravity — The Com- pactification of Type 2B Supergravity Revisited,” Subnucl. Ser.54, 247-279 (2019) doi:10.1142/9789811206856 0009

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Linear confinement and AdS/QCD,

    A. Karch, E. Katz, D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, “Linear confinement and AdS/QCD,” Phys. Rev. D74, 015005 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.015005 [arXiv:hep-ph/0602229 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Anti-de Sitter space and holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 253-291 (1998) doi:10.4310/ATMP.1998.v2.n2.a2 [arXiv:hep-th/9802150 [hep-th]]. 24

    1998 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Low energy hadron physics in holographic QCD,

    T. Sakai and S. Sugimoto, “Low energy hadron physics in holographic QCD,” Prog. Theor. Phys.113, 843-882 (2005) doi:10.1143/PTP.113.843 [arXiv:hep-th/0412141 [hep-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Partonic behavior of string scattering amplitudes from holographic QCD models,

    M. Bianchi, M. Firrotta, J. Sonnenschein and D. Weissman, “Partonic behavior of string scattering amplitudes from holographic QCD models,” JHEP05, 058 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2022)058 [arXiv:2111.12106 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    The Pomeron contribution to p p and p anti-p scattering in AdS/QCD,

    S. K. Domokos, J. A. Harvey and N. Mann, “The Pomeron contribution to p p and p anti-p scattering in AdS/QCD,” Phys. Rev. D80, 126015 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.126015 [arXiv:0907.1084 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Setting the scale of the p p and p bar p total cross sections using AdS/QCD,

    S. K. Domokos, J. A. Harvey and N. Mann, “Setting the scale of the p p and p bar p total cross sections using AdS/QCD,” Phys. Rev. D82, 106007 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.106007 [arXiv:1008.2963 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

    High-Energy Fixed- Angle Meson Scattering and the Constituent Counting Rule in Holographic QCD,

    A. Armoni, B. Pyszkowski, S. Sugimoto and D. Weissman, “High-Energy Fixed- Angle Meson Scattering and the Constituent Counting Rule in Holographic QCD,” [arXiv:2412.17784 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Deep inelastic scattering and gauge / string duality,

    J. Polchinski and M. J. Strassler, “Deep inelastic scattering and gauge / string duality,” JHEP05, 012 (2003) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/05/012 [arXiv:hep-th/0209211 [hep- th]]

    2003 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Deep inelastic scattering from polarized spin-1/2 hadrons at lowxfrom string theory,

    N. Kovensky, G. Michalski and M. Schvellinger, “Deep inelastic scattering from polarized spin-1/2 hadrons at lowxfrom string theory,” JHEP10, 084 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2018)084 [arXiv:1807.11540 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Deep Inelastic Scattering from Holo- graphic Spin-One Hadrons,

    E. Koile, S. Macaluso and M. Schvellinger, “Deep Inelastic Scattering from Holo- graphic Spin-One Hadrons,” JHEP02, 103 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2012)103 [arXiv:1112.1459 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Deep inelastic scattering structure functions of holographic spin-1 hadrons withN f ≥1,

    E. Koile, S. Macaluso and M. Schvellinger, “Deep inelastic scattering structure functions of holographic spin-1 hadrons withN f ≥1,” JHEP01, 166 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014)166 [arXiv:1311.2601 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Towards 1/N corrections to deep inelastic scattering from the gauge/gravity duality,

    D. Jorrin, N. Kovensky and M. Schvellinger, “Towards 1/N corrections to deep inelastic scattering from the gauge/gravity duality,” JHEP04, 113 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)113 [arXiv:1601.01627 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Jorrin, M

    D. Jorrin, M. Schvellinger and N. Kovensky, JHEP12, 003 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2016)003 [arXiv:1609.01202 [hep-th]]. 25

    2016 arXiv

  16. [24]

    The Pomeron and gauge/string duality,

    R. C. Brower, J. Polchinski, M. J. Strassler and C. I. Tan, “The Pomeron and gauge/string duality,” JHEP12, 005 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/12/005 [arXiv:hep-th/0603115 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  17. [25]

    String-Gauge Dual Description of Deep Inelastic Scattering at Small-x,

    R. C. Brower, M. Djuric, I. Sarcevic and C. I. Tan, “String-Gauge Dual Description of Deep Inelastic Scattering at Small-x,” JHEP11, 051 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2010)051 [arXiv:1007.2259 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Scope and limitations of a string theory dual description of the proton structure,

    D. Jorrin and M. Schvellinger, “Scope and limitations of a string theory dual description of the proton structure,” Phys. Rev. D106, no.6, 066024 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.066024 [arXiv:2207.02984 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Proton helicity structure func- tiong p 1 from a holographic Pomeron,

    I. Borsa, D. Jorrin, R. Sassot and M. Schvellinger, “Proton helicity structure func- tiong p 1 from a holographic Pomeron,” Phys. Rev. D108, no.5, 056024 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.056024 [arXiv:2308.01975 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Science Require- ments and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report,

    R. Abdul Khalek, A. Accardi, J. Adam, D. Adamiak, W. Akers, M. Albaladejo, A. Al-bataineh, M. G. Alexeev, F. Ameli and P. Antonioli,et al.“Science Require- ments and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report,” Nucl. Phys. A1026, 122447 (2022) doi:10.10...

    2022

  21. [29]

    SUPERSTRING THEORY. VOL. 1: INTRODUCTION,

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz and E. Witten, “SUPERSTRING THEORY. VOL. 1: INTRODUCTION,” 1988, ISBN 978-0-521-35752-4

    1988

  22. [30]

    Supersymmetrical Dual String Theory. 2. Vertices and Trees,

    M. B. Green and J. H. Schwarz, “Supersymmetrical Dual String Theory. 2. Vertices and Trees,” Nucl. Phys. B198, 252-268 (1982) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90556-9

    1982 doi

  23. [31]

    Some tree-level string amplitudes in the NSR formalism,

    K. Becker, M. Becker, I. V. Melnikov, D. Robbins and A. B. Royston, “Some tree-level string amplitudes in the NSR formalism,” JHEP12, 010 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2015)010 [arXiv:1507.02172 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    The Quartic Effective Action for the Heterotic String,

    D. J. Gross and J. H. Sloan, “The Quartic Effective Action for the Heterotic String,” Nucl. Phys. B291, 41-89 (1987) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(87)90465-2

    1987 doi

  25. [33]

    Superstring scattering from D-branes,

    M. R. Garousi and R. C. Myers, “Superstring scattering from D-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B 475, 193-224 (1996) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(96)00316-1 [arXiv:hep-th/9603194 [hep-th]]

    1996 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Model for elastic scattering at wide angle,

    P. V. Landshoff, “Model for elastic scattering at wide angle,” Phys. Rev. D10, 1024- 1030 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.1024

    1974 doi

  27. [35]

    Supersymmetric gauge theories and the AdS / CFT correspondence,

    E. D’Hoker and D. Z. Freedman, “Supersymmetric gauge theories and the AdS / CFT correspondence,” [arXiv:hep-th/0201253 [hep-th]]. 26

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Spin-1/2 fermionic operators ofN = 4 SYM theory and DIS from type IIB supergravity,

    D. Jorrin, G. Michalski and M. Schvellinger, “Spin-1/2 fermionic operators ofN = 4 SYM theory and DIS from type IIB supergravity,” JHEP06, 063 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2020)063 [arXiv:2004.02909 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Higher-twist fermionic operators and DIS structure functions from the AdS/CFT duality,

    D. Jorrin and M. Schvellinger, “Higher-twist fermionic operators and DIS structure functions from the AdS/CFT duality,” Phys. Rev. D103, no.10, 106012 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.106012 [arXiv:2010.07369 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    On the Eigen functions of the Dirac operator on spheres and real hyperbolic spaces,

    R. Camporesi and A. Higuchi, “On the Eigen functions of the Dirac operator on spheres and real hyperbolic spaces,” J. Geom. Phys.20, 1-18 (1996) doi:10.1016/0393- 0440(95)00042-9 [arXiv:gr-qc/9505009 [gr-qc]]

    1996 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Perturbative QCD at High-Energies,

    A. H. Mueller, “Perturbative QCD at High-Energies,” Phys. Rept.73, 237 (1981) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(81)90030-2

    1981 doi

  32. [40]

    Elastic scattering of hadrons,

    I. M. Dremin, “Elastic scattering of hadrons,” Phys. Usp.56, 3-28 (2013) doi:10.3367/UFNe.0183.201301a.0003 [arXiv:1206.5474 [hep-ph]]. 27

    2013

Pith tools

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