Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 49 references

Quark model of nucleon based on an analogy with polaron

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a polaron/QCD correspondence that converts solid-state polaron calculations into quantitative predictions for the nucleon mass and the pion-nucleon sigma term.

desk verdict A self-aware polaron-QCD analogy whose nucleon mass 'prediction' is a consistency condition, but the scaling relation and the honest discussion make it worth a referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10350 v1 pith:R3B7EDZW submitted 2025-07-14 hep-ph cond-mat.supr-conhep-latnucl-th

S.S. Afonin , A.V. Tulub This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phcond-mat.supr-conhep-latnucl-th
keywords polaron-QCDcorrespondencenucleonmassconstituentquarkpion-nucleonsigmatermGell-Mann-Oakes-Rennerrelationstrongcouplinglongitudinalopticalpolaronhadrondecomposition
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 proposes a polaron/QCD correspondence: a light quark inside a nucleon behaves like an electron moving through a polarizable ionic crystal, with virtual pions playing the role of phonons and the rest of the nucleon playing the role of the lattice. Reading the known strong- and weak-coupling results of polaron theory through this map gives a concrete formula for the nucleon mass, $M_N^2 = 1.58\,(m_\pi^2/2)\,(m^*_q/m_q)$, which evaluates to about 939 MeV for standard inputs, and gives $\sigma_{\pi N} \approx \alpha_s m_\pi \approx 40$--$60$ MeV. The paper also finds that only one valence quark acts as an independent dressed degree of freedom and that its mass is about one-third of the nucleon mass, a split consistent with lattice decompositions. If true, the analogy converts some of the hardest numbers in non-perturbative QCD into textbook polaron calculations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Fröhlich large-polaron Hamiltonian, which describes an electron coupled to dispersionless longitudinal optical phonons, together with its strong- and weak-coupling asymptotics. The load-bearing identity is the 'polaron/QCD correspondence' of Table 1, mapping phonon energy $\hbar\omega_0$ to $m_\pi$, electron mass $m$ to current quark mass $m_q$, polaron effective mass $m^*$ to constituent quark mass $m^*_q$, and the absolute ground-state energy $|E_0|$ to the nucleon mass $M_N$. Through this map, the polaron scaling $E_0^2 \sim (m^*/m)\,(\hbar\omega_0)^2/2$ becomes the nucleon mass relation Eq. (22).

What would settle it

Compute the nucleon mass on the lattice as a function of the current quark mass and check whether it follows $M_N^2 \propto (m^*_q/m_q)\,m_\pi^2$ with coefficient $1.58$; a clear deviation would falsify the polaron scaling. A second decisive test is a precision extraction of $\sigma_{\pi N}$ outside the $40$--$60$ MeV range that cannot be accounted for by strange-quark contributions, which would invalidate $\sigma_{\pi N} \approx \alpha_s m_\pi$, and a third is the absence of a single dressed quark pole near $313$ MeV in the quark propagator extracted on the lattice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

What the authors claim to have found is that the polaron correspondence is a quantitatively predictive map, not just a metaphor. A valence quark in the QCD vacuum is treated as an electron in a continuous polarizable medium; pions are the phonons, and the two other valence quarks together with gluons and sea quarks form the polarizable 'lattice'. With $m_q = 5.5$ MeV, $m_\pi = 140$ MeV, and $m^*_q \approx M_N/3 = 313$ MeV, the improved strong-coupling polaron results $E_0 = -0.1257520\,\alpha^2\,\hbar\omega_0$ and $m^*/m = 0.020\,\alpha^4$ combine into Eq. (22), $M_N^2 = 1.58\,(m_\pi^2/2)\,(m^*_q/m_q) \approx (939\text{ MeV})^2$. The same correspondence yields an effective quark-pion coupling $\alpha_{\rm eff} \approx 7.3$, reproduces the pion-nucleon $\sigma$ term as $\sigma_{\pi N} \approx \alpha_s m_\pi \approx 40$--$60$ MeV, and places the constituent quark mass at roughly one-third of the nucleon mass, in line with lattice decompositions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the Table 1 identification: one valence quark behaves like an electron in a polarizable medium, the other two valence quarks plus gluons and sea quarks act as the medium, and the absolute value of the dressed quark's ground-state energy equals the nucleon mass; this identification is assumed rather than derived, and if it fails the numerical agreement of Eq. (22) is a coincidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The nucleon mass becomes a simple output of polaron formulas, $M_N \approx 939$ MeV from $m_\pi$, $m_q$, and $m^*_q$, so the model supplies a one-line derivation of the nucleon mass.
  • The pion-nucleon sigma term is tied to the weak-coupling polaron energy, $\sigma_{\pi N} \approx \alpha_s m_\pi \approx 40$--$60$ MeV, connecting a solid-state strong-coupling phenomenon to chiral symmetry breaking.
  • The nucleon mass follows $M_N^2 \sim m^*_q$ rather than the naive constituent-quark sum $M_N \sim 3m^*_q$, and this squared scaling is claimed to be the natural relativistic form.
  • Only one valence quark is an independent dressed degree of freedom, giving a $1:2$ split between quark and gluon/sea contributions to the nucleon mass that matches lattice results.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would vary $m_q$ on the lattice and check whether $M_N$ follows the square-root dependence implied by $M_N^2 \sim m^*_q$; the paper does not perform this lattice test.
  • The remaining input $m^*_q = M_N/3$ could be promoted to a prediction by using the gluon-condensate formula Eq. (50) to compute $m^*_q$, which the paper only includes in the appendix as a heuristic.
  • The same correspondence could be extended to strange baryons by substituting the kaon or eta mass for the phonon scale $m_\pi$, and the resulting hyperon masses would provide an independent check; this is an open direction the paper leaves implicit.
  • If the map is real, the quark spectral function in a nucleon should show a single dominant quasi-particle pole near the constituent quark mass, a microscopic signature that modern lattice and Schwinger-Dyson calculations could search for.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a 'polaron/QCD correspondence' in which a valence quark in a nucleon is mapped to an electron in an ionic crystal, pions are mapped to phonons, the QCD vacuum and the other two valence quarks are mapped to the polarizable medium, and the absolute ground-state energy of the dressed quark is identified with the nucleon mass. Using known strong-coupling polaron results, the paper derives M_N^2 = 1.58 (m_pi^2/2)(m*_q/m_q) (Eq. 22) and, inserting m*_q = (M_p + M_n)/6, reports M_N ≈ 939 MeV. In the weak-coupling limit it identifies -E0 ≈ alpha_s m_pi with the pion-nucleon sigma term (Eq. 17), and it argues that a 1:2 splitting of the nucleon mass between quark and gluon contributions matches lattice QCD. An appendix attempts a formal QCD motivation via vacuum dominance and an 'i-tilde' state equality.

Significance. If the correspondence were established, the model would provide a simple analytic handle on non-perturbative nucleon observables, and the scaling M_N^2 proportional to m*_q m_pi^2/m_q is a clean, in-principle falsifiable relation. The paper is transparent about its speculative character, uses the improved polaron constant 0.1257520 rather than an adjustable coefficient, and draws on a broad range of polaron and hadron literature. However, the headline numerical agreement is weakened by the input m*_q = M_N/3, which turns Eq. (22) into a consistency condition, and the central correspondence itself is assumed rather than derived. The manuscript is therefore an interesting exploratory analogue model rather than a demonstrated quantitative prediction.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (22)-(24)] Eq. (22) is not an independent prediction of the nucleon mass. Eq. (24) fixes m*_q = (M_p + M_n)/6 ≈ 313 MeV, i.e., M_N/3 by construction. Substituting m*_q = M_N/3 into Eq. (22) gives M_N = (1.58/6) m_pi^2/m_q = 0.263 m_pi^2/m_q ≈ 939 MeV, so the polaron calculation contributes only the dimensionless prefactor 1.58 while the mass scale is carried entirely by the GOR inputs m_pi and m_q. If instead one inserts an independent constituent-quark mass from lattice or Schwinger-Dyson analyses, for example m*_q ≈ 350 MeV, Eq. (22) gives M_N ≈ 993 MeV, which is well away from the claimed 'almost precisely' agreement. The paper itself concedes the inversion in Section 3 ('if we fix the nucleon mass, a typical value of the constituent quark mass will be obtained'), confirming that the numerical agreement is a self-consistency condition rather than a falsifiable prediction.
  2. [Table 1 and Secs. 3-4] The load-bearing identification |E0| = M_N and the reduction of the nucleon to one 'physical' valence quark plus a medium are assumed, not derived. Table 1 states the correspondence, and Section 4 asserts that only one valence quark should be treated as an effective physical degree of freedom with the other two valence quarks belonging to the environment, but no argument beyond analogy establishes that the dressed-quark ground-state energy equals the nucleon mass or that the other two valence quarks can be demoted to the medium. If this mapping fails, the numerical success of Eq. (22) is a coincidence. A derivation of the correspondence from QCD, or at least a quantitative check of the one-quark picture against an independent observable, is needed before the central claim can be accepted.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eq. (17)] The weak-coupling sigma-term relation sigma_piN ≈ alpha_s m_pi is not a prediction of the polaron model: it uses the input range alpha_s ≈ 0.3-0.4 and the trivial identification E0 = -alpha hbar omega_0 from Eq. (6). The agreement with the phenomenological 40-60 MeV range is therefore an input-range reflection, not an output. Moreover, the strong-coupling/appendix estimate in Eq. (55), sigma_piN ≈ 10 MeV, differs from the weak-coupling estimate by a factor of 4-6; attributing the discrepancy to strange quark pairs is plausible but is not quantified. The paper should state explicitly that these are two different regime-dependent estimates and that neither is a parameter-free prediction.
  4. [Appendix, Eqs. (43)-(53)] The formal derivation of Eq. (23) relies on vacuum dominance, the symbol i-tilde defined in Eq. (44) (which is not a standard complex unit), and the guessed overlap in Eq. (53) with k = 1. These steps are not justified; Eq. (53) is explicitly marked with '(?)' and the constant k is a free parameter. The appendix therefore does not provide the promised QCD motivation for the central relation; it transfers the ad hoc assumption of the polaron correspondence to a different level of formalism.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (9)] The notation '0.020α4' should read '0.020 α^4' (and similarly in Eq. (6)-(9) the underlined constants should be typeset consistently).
  2. [Sec. 3, text after Eq. (24)] The statement that m*_q differs from m_q by 'almost two orders of magnitude' is imprecise since 313/5.5 ≈ 57, which is about 1.8 orders of magnitude; consider saying 'more than an order of magnitude'.
  3. [Appendix, Eq. (55)] The sigma-term estimate sigma_piN ≈ 10 MeV and the earlier estimate sigma_piN ≈ alpha_s m_pi ≈ 40-60 MeV should be presented side by side with a clear statement of which regime each refers to, since the current text could leave the reader with the impression of a single predicted value.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Nucleon-mass 'prediction' is a self-consistency condition: Eq. (24) sets m*_q = M_N/3, so Eq. (22) returns the input mass.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, Eqs. (22) and (24)]
    "For numerical prediction of the nucleon mass, we need to know the value of the constituent mass m*_q. ... As a reasonable guide (and the simplest possibility) let us just take 1/3 of the mean mass of the proton and neutron, m*_q = 1/3 (M_p+M_n)/2 ≈ 939/3 = 313 MeV. ... substituting (24) to (22) yields M_N ≈ 939 MeV — almost precisely the mean nucleon mass!"

    Eq. (22) reads M_N^2 = (1.58/2) m_pi^2 (m*_q/m_q). Inserting the input m*_q = M_N/3 from Eq. (24) gives M_N = 1.58 m_pi^2/(6 m_q) ≈ 939 MeV for m_pi = 140 MeV and m_q = 5.5 MeV. The advertised nucleon mass is therefore independent of the value of m*_q once m*_q is defined as one third of the nucleon mass; the target appears on both sides and cancels. The paper even states the inversion: 'And vice versa: If we fix the nucleon mass, a typical value of the mass of the constituent quark will be obtained.' Thus the polaron calculation contributes only the dimensionless prefactor 1.58, while the mass scale comes from the GOR inputs m_pi and m_q. The 939 MeV result is a consistency condition, not a falsifiable prediction; using an independent constituent quark mass, e.g.

full rationale

The central numerical claim for the nucleon mass, Eq. (22) combined with Eq. (24), is circular in the precise sense of pattern 1: the input m*_q is defined as M_N/3, so substituting it into the relation M_N^2 = (1.58/2) m_pi^2 (m*_q/m_q) makes M_N cancel and leaves only M_N = 1.58 m_pi^2/(6 m_q). The polaron model does supply a nontrivial scaling relation between M_N and an independent constituent mass, and Eq. (24) is admittedly a 'reasonable guide' rather than a fit; nevertheless, the paper presents the number 939 MeV as a quantitative prediction, which it is not by the paper's own equations. The sigma-term relation sigma_piN ≈ alpha_s m_pi in Eq. (17) is not circular: alpha_s is taken from experiment in the 0.3–0.4 range and m_pi is an external input, so the result is arithmetically implied rather than fitted back to the sigma term. The QCD tensor appendix contains speculative steps (e.g., the guessed normalization of <0|N> in Eq. (53)), but those are unproven assumptions, not self-referential reductions. Citations to the authors' prior polaron work [16,19] supply the coefficient 0.1257520, and Ref. [36] gives an independent estimate m*_q ≈ 320 MeV; these are external physics results that do not encode the nucleon mass, so they do not by themselves make the paper circular. However, the advertised nucleon-mass agreement does reduce to the self-consistency of Eq. (24) with Eq. (22), giving partial circularity and a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central relation (22) rests on the polaron strong-coupling formulas (external), the GOR relation (external), and three hand-chosen inputs: m*_q = M_N/3, alpha_s in the 0.3-0.4 range, and the appendix overlap factor k=1. No new physical particle or force is introduced; the i-tilde symbol is a formal device. The correspondence rules themselves are ad hoc assumptions, and the appendix's vacuum-dominance matching is heuristic.

free parameters (3)
  • Constituent quark mass m*_q = 313 MeV
    Adopted as one third of the mean nucleon mass in Eq. (24). This is a model-dependent input and effectively imports the nucleon mass scale into the mass prediction.
  • Strong coupling alpha_s for the weak-coupling sigma term = 0.3-0.4
    Taken at the nucleon mass scale from experimental ranges in Section 3. The sigma-term prediction sigma_piN approximately alpha_s m_pi copies the input range onto the target interval 40-60 MeV.
  • Overlap factor k in Eq. (53) = 1
    Chosen by hand in the appendix, where the text states the overall factor cannot be deduced. The value k=1 is needed to obtain the final approximate relation (23).
assumptions (7)
  • ad hoc to paper Polaron/QCD correspondence rules in Table 1: phonons map to pions, electrons to quarks, polaron to constituent quark, electron ground-state energy to nucleon mass.
    Assumed in Section 3 and Table 1; not derived from QCD or from condensed matter theory.
  • domain assumption Non-relativistic polaron Hamiltonian and strong-coupling asymptotic formulas (6)-(10) apply to quarks inside a nucleon.
    Section 3, paragraph noting 'The polaron approach to QCD is certainly non-relativistic.' The entire numerical relation (22) rests on this transfer of polaron results.
  • ad hoc to paper A nucleon is modeled as one 'physical' valence quark plus a medium made of the other two valence quarks, sea quarks, and gluons.
    Section 3 paragraph 'In this simplified picture...' and Section 4 paragraph on the polaron model of the nucleon.
  • ad hoc to paper The absolute value of the dressed quark ground-state energy equals the nucleon mass.
    Section 3 after Table 1: 'We will identify the absolute value of this energy with the mass of the nucleon.'
  • domain assumption Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation m_pi^2 f_pi^2 = -(m_u+m_d)<q q bar>.
    Eq. (18), standard chiral perturbation theory input used to set m_q = 5.5 MeV and to derive the mass formula.
  • ad hoc to paper Vacuum dominance and formal state equalities |pi> = i-tilde sqrt(2)/f_pi |0> and |N> = i-tilde/f_pi |0>.
    Appendix Eqs. (39)-(46) and (53); the latter is explicitly a guess, marked with a question mark.
  • standard math Feynman-Hellmann theorem used to relate pion and nucleon sigma terms.
    Appendix Eq. (35), a standard theorem applied to derive the pion sigma term and to motivate the formal state matching.
invented entities (1)
  • i-tilde symbol with i-tilde times i-tilde* = -1
    purpose: Formal sign bookkeeping in the vacuum-dominance matching that relates averages over pion and vacuum states in the appendix.
    It is a purely formal device introduced in Eqs. (44) and (46); it has no falsifiable handle outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quark model of nucleon based on an analogy with polaron." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R3B7EDZW

@misc{pith2026250710350,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quark model of nucleon based on an analogy with polaron},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R3B7EDZW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10350}
}
read the original abstract

We demonstrate that the polaron theory from solid state physics can serve as an interesting analogue model for non-perturbative QCD, at least in the description of nucleons and related low-energy physics of strong interactions. By drawing explicit analogies between polaron physics, arising for an electron moving in an ionic crystal, and physics of pion-nucleon interactions, certain rules for the "polaron/QCD correspondence" are proposed. In polaron theory, the effective fermion mass as a function of the coupling constant is known both in the weak and strong coupling limits. The conjectured "polaron/QCD correspondence" translates these results into strong interactions. It is then shown how application of these rules leads to unexpectedly good quantitative predictions for the nucleon mass and the pion-nucleon sigma term. The polaron approach also predicts that the quark degrees of freedom in the form of the constituent quark account for one-third of the nucleon mass, consistent with lattice predictions. We discuss possible physical reasons underlying the observed quantitative similarity between polaron physics and non-perturbative QCD.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nambu and G

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.122 (1961) 345

    work page 1961

  2. [2]

    Klevansky, Rev

    S. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys.64 (1992) 649

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    Landau, Phys

    L.D. Landau, Phys. Z. Sowjetunion3 (1933) 644

    work page 1933

  4. [4]

    Pekar, Journ

    S.I. Pekar, Journ. of Phys. USSR10 (1946) 341

    work page 1946

  5. [5]

    Fr¨ ohlich, Adv

    H. Fr¨ ohlich, Adv. Phys.3 (1954) 325

    work page 1954

  6. [6]

    Devreese, Encyclopedia of Applied Physics, 14 (1996) 383 [arXiv:cond-mat/0004497]

    J.T. Devreese, Encyclopedia of Applied Physics, 14 (1996) 383 [arXiv:cond-mat/0004497]

    arXiv 1996

  7. [7]

    Devreese and A.S

    J.T. Devreese and A.S. Alexandrov, Rep. Prog. Phys.72 (2009) 066501

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    High Temperature Superconductivity. Bipolaron Mecha- nism,

    V.D. Lakhno, “High Temperature Superconductivity. Bipolaron Mecha- nism,” De Gruyter, Berlin, 2022. 24

    work page 2022

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Models and Methods of High-Tc Superconductivity: Some Frontal Aspects,

    A.L. Chernyshev and R.F. Wood, in “Models and Methods of High-Tc Superconductivity: Some Frontal Aspects,” V.1 Chapter 11, Nova Sci- ence Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge NY, 2003 [arXiv:cond-mat/0208541]

    2003 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Iwao, Lett

    S. Iwao, Lett. Nuovo Cimento15 (1976) 331

    1976

  3. [11]

    Afonin and T.D

    S.S. Afonin and T.D. Solomko, Eur. Phys. J. C82 (2022) 195

    2022

  4. [12]

    Manohar and H

    A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B234 (1984) 189

    1984

  5. [13]

    Lucha, F.F

    W. Lucha, F.F. Sch¨ oberl and D. Gromes, Phys. Rep.200 (1991) 127

    1991

  6. [14]

    Lakhno, Physics — Uspekhi58 (2015) 295

    V.D. Lakhno, Physics — Uspekhi58 (2015) 295

    2015

  7. [15]

    Lee, F.E

    T.D. Lee, F.E. Low, and D. Pines, Phys. Rev.90 (1953) 297

    1953

  8. [16]

    Tulub, Sov

    A.V. Tulub, Sov. Phys. JETP14 (1962) 1301 [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.41 (1961) 1828]

    1962

  9. [17]

    Feynman, Phys

    R.P. Feynman, Phys. Rev.97 (1955) 660

    1955

  10. [18]

    Tulub, Vestnik Leningradsk

    A.V. Tulub, Vestnik Leningradsk. Univ.22 (1960) 104

    1960

  11. [19]

    Kashirina, V.D

    N.I. Kashirina, V.D. Lakhno, A.V. Tulub, JETP114 (2012) 867 [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.141 (2012) 994]

    2012

  12. [20]

    Gerlach and H

    B. Gerlach and H. L¨ owen, Phys. Rev. B37 (1988) 8042

    1988

  13. [21]

    Meson Theory of Nuclear Forces,

    W. Pauli, “Meson Theory of Nuclear Forces,” 1946, by Interscience Pub- lishers, Inc

    1946

  14. [22]

    Wick, Revs

    G.C. Wick, Revs. Modern Phys.27 (1955) 339

    1955

  15. [23]

    Novozhilov, JETP32 (1957) 1030 [Zh

    Iu.V. Novozhilov, JETP32 (1957) 1030 [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.32 (1957) 1262]

    1957

  16. [24]

    Novozhilov, ”Dressed particles in quantum field theory,” Doctor dissertation, Leningrad, 1959 [Yu.V

    Yu.V. Novozhilov, ”Dressed particles in quantum field theory,” Doctor dissertation, Leningrad, 1959 [Yu.V. Novozhilov, ”Oblachennye chasticy v kvantovoj teorii polya,” doktorskaya dissertaciya, Leningrad, 1959]

    1959

  17. [25]

    Quarks and Leptons: an Introductory Course in Modern Particle Physics,

    F. Halzen and A.D. Martin, “Quarks and Leptons: an Introductory Course in Modern Particle Physics,” 1984, by John Wiley& Sons, Inc

    1984

  18. [26]

    Ericson et al., Nuclear Physics A654 (1999) 939c

    T.E.O. Ericson et al., Nuclear Physics A654 (1999) 939c

    1999

  19. [27]

    Reinert, H

    P. Reinert, H. Krebs and E. Epelbaum, Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021) 092501. 25

    2021

  20. [28]

    Riska and G.E

    D.O. Riska and G.E. Brown, Nucl. Phys. A653 (1999) 251

    1999

  21. [29]

    Wilczek, arXiv:hep-ph/0409168 [hep-ph]

    F. Wilczek, arXiv:hep-ph/0409168 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Navaset al

    S. Navaset al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 030001

    2024

  23. [31]

    Bali, Phys

    G.S. Bali, Phys. Rep.343 (2001) 1

    2001

  24. [32]

    Alarc´ on, Eur

    J.M. Alarc´ on, Eur. Phys. J. ST230 (2021) 1609

    2021

  25. [33]

    Gell-Mann, R.J

    M. Gell-Mann, R.J. Oakes and B. Renner, Phys. Rev.175 (1968) 2195

    1968

  26. [34]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B94 (1975) 269

    1975

  27. [35]

    Gasser and H

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

    1982

  28. [36]

    Afonin, Adv

    S.S. Afonin, Adv. High Energy Phys.2019 (2019) 1701939

    2019

  29. [37]

    Aguilar, D

    A.C. Aguilar, D. Binosi and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 014032

    2012

  30. [38]

    Deur, S.J

    A. Deur, S.J. Brodsky and C.D. Roberts, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.134 (2024) 104081

    2024

  31. [39]

    Johnson and E

    M.H. Johnson and E. Teller, Phys. Rev.98 (1955) 783

    1955

  32. [40]

    Y. B. Yanget al., Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 212001

    2018

  33. [41]

    Ji, Phys

    X. Ji, Phys. Rev. D52 (1995) 271

    1995

  34. [42]

    Hoferichter and J.R

    M. Hoferichter and J.R. de Elvira, arXiv:2506.23902 [hep-ph]

  35. [43]

    Lorc´ e, Eur

    C. Lorc´ e, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 120

    2018

  36. [44]

    Ji, Front

    X. Ji, Front. Phys. (Beijing)16 (2021) 64601

    2021

  37. [45]

    Lorc´ e, A

    C. Lorc´ e, A. Metz, B. Pasquini and S. Rodini, JHEP11 (2021) 121

    2021

  38. [46]

    Aguilar et al., Eur

    A.C. Aguilar et al., Eur. Phys. J. A55 (2019) 190

    2019

  39. [47]

    Zwicky, Phys

    R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 034009

    2024

  40. [48]

    Shifman, A.I

    M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainstein and V.I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 385

    1979

  41. [49]

    Shifman, A.I

    M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainstein and V.I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 448. 26

    1979

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.