Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Mechanical properties of the $\Omega^-$ baryon from gravitational form factors

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read QCD sum rules map the internal forces of the Ω⁻ baryon from its gravitational form factors.

desk verdict First QCD sum rule map of the Omega baryon's mechanical structure, built on the Delta-baryon machinery; internally consistent, but the headline D2, D3, and radii are tied to a fitted p-pole ansatz and the Omega-specific spectral densities are not shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14840 v2 pith:LG6UF4ND submitted 2025-07-20 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

Zeinab Dehghan , K. Azizi This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-exhep-lat
keywords gravitationalformfactorsOmegabaryonQCDsumrulesenergy-momentumtensormechanicalpropertiesD-termsmultipoledecompositionspin-3/2baryons
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 tries to establish that the seven conserved gravitational form factors of the Ω⁻ baryon—the stable, spin-3/2 baryon made entirely of strange quarks—can be extracted from QCD sum rules using the complete quark-plus-gluon energy-momentum tensor. These form factors then yield the baryon's internal pressure, shear force, energy density, angular momentum, multipole radii, and D-terms, with the paper reporting the first determinations of several of these observables for a spin-3/2 baryon. The headline values are the D-terms $D_0=-1.93(14)$, $D_2=0.001(3)$, $D_3=-1.00(7)$; a monopole mass radius of $0.551(32)$ fm; and a picture in which the $n=2$ quadrupole component is subdominant and locally unstable while the baryon as a whole remains mechanically stable. A reader should care because these numbers give concrete benchmarks for lattice QCD and for future experiments probing generalized parton distributions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the three-point QCD sum-rule correlation function $\Pi_{\alpha\mu\nu\beta}(p,q)=i^2\int d^4x\, d^4y\, e^{-ip\cdot x} e^{ip'\cdot y}\langle 0|T[J^\Omega_\alpha(y)\, T_{\mu\nu}(0)\, \bar J^\Omega_\beta(x)]|0\rangle$, built from the Rarita-Schwinger strange-quark interpolating current $J^\Omega_\alpha$ and the symmetric quark-plus-gluon energy-momentum tensor $T_{\mu\nu}$. Equating the hadronic and QCD representations after double Borel transformation and continuum subtraction yields the seven conserved gravitational form factors, and combining them into the gravitational multipole form factors of Eqs. (A.1)-(A.7) organizes the matrix elements into energy, angular-momentum, and D-type multipoles. The p-pole parametrization $G(t)=G(0)/(1-g_p\,t)^p$ of Eq. (51) then extrapolates each form factor to all space-like $t$ so that the three-dimensional Fourier transforms of Eqs. (21)-(25) can produce the spatial pressure, shear, and energy densities.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD calculation of the Ω⁻ gravitational form factors, or an extraction of the second moments of its generalized parton distributions from exclusive processes, would settle the claim: if $D_0$, $D_2$, $D_3$, or the monopole mass and mechanical radii disagree with $-1.93(14)$, $0.001(3)$, $-1.00(7)$, $0.551(32)$ fm, and $0.571(40)$ fm beyond the quoted uncertainties, the p-pole extrapolation or the sum-rule extraction itself would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that QCD sum rules, with the symmetric Belinfante energy-momentum tensor including both quark and gluon pieces, determine the seven conserved gravitational form factors $F_{1,0}$, $F_{1,1}$, $F_{2,0}$, $F_{2,1}$, $F_{4,0}$, $F_{4,1}$, and $F_{5,0}$ of the Ω⁻ baryon over $0\le -t \le 10$ GeV$^2$, and that the resulting gravitational multipole form factors $\epsilon_{0,2}$, $J_{1,3}$, and $D_{0,2,3}$ provide a complete mechanical portrait of the baryon. The paper reports that the monopole component dominates every spatial distribution, that the energy and angular-momentum densities peak together near $r\approx 0.3$ fm, and that the Ω⁻ is more compact than the proton and the Δ baryon. On stability, the global von Laue condition is satisfied and the monopole and $n=3$ components satisfy the local shear and longitudinal-force positivity conditions, while the $n=2$ quadrupole component violates those conditions locally; because the violating component is subdominant, the baryon as a whole remains mechanically stable. The near-vanishing of $D_2$ echoes the chiral-soliton prediction $D_2=0$, but the paper finds nonzero $n=2$ pressure and shear distributions despite that vanishing D-term.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the p-pole form $G(t)=G(0)/(1-g_p\,t)^p$ describes each extracted form factor at all space-like momentum transfers, because the Fourier transforms that produce the spatial densities and the D-terms $D_2$ and $D_3$ integrate the form factors over the entire range $-\infty < t \le 0$, so the assumed large-$|t|$ behavior directly controls the small-$r$ structure and the headline observables; the authors state this limitation explicitly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The generalized D-terms $D_0=-1.93(14)$, $D_2=0.001(3)$, and $D_3=-1.00(7)$ provide concrete targets for future lattice QCD calculations of the Ω⁻ energy-momentum tensor.
  • The monopole mass radius $0.551(32)$ fm and mechanical radius $0.571(40)$ fm imply that the Ω⁻ is more compact than the proton and the Δ baryon, consistent with decuplet radii decreasing as baryon mass increases.
  • The near-vanishing $D_2$ reproduces the chiral-soliton result while still allowing nonzero $n=2$ pressure and shear distributions, so a zero D-term does not mean a vanishing quadrupole deformation of the internal forces.
  • The overlap of the energy and angular-momentum density peaks near $r\approx 0.3$ fm indicates that mass and spin are concentrated in the same central region, a feature that GPD-based extractions could test.
  • The $n=2$ component's local violation of $s(r)>0$ and $F^{\parallel}(r)>0$, together with $D_2\simeq 0$, establishes a stability pattern for spin-3/2 baryons that can be compared directly with the Δ baryon.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the p-pole ansatz is not the true large-$|t|$ behavior of the form factors, the small-$r$ spatial distributions and therefore $D_2$, $D_3$, and the mechanical radii would shift; a lattice determination of the form factors at larger $-t$ would show whether the assumed falloff is correct.
  • The sign differences the paper finds for $\epsilon_2(t)$ and $D_0(t)$ relative to the quark-diquark model suggest that the quadrupole energy deformation is a delicate quantity, and comparing the two approaches on the same observable could isolate which degree of freedom drives the deformation.
  • The same machinery should apply to other decuplet baryons such as $\Sigma^*$, $\Xi^*$, and $\Delta$, and the monotonic decrease of radii with mass could be tested as a universal trend of the decuplet.
  • A future exclusive-process extraction of Ω⁻ GPD moments could probe the same D-terms experimentally and supply an independent check of these sum-rule results.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the gravitational form factors (GFFs) of the Omega^- baryon in QCD sum rules by evaluating a three-point correlation function with the full quark-plus-gluon energy-momentum tensor. The seven conserved GFFs are fitted with a p-pole ansatz over 0 <= -t <= 10 GeV^2; from them, gravitational multipole form factors are constructed and Fourier-transformed to obtain energy, angular-momentum, pressure, shear, and longitudinal-force densities. The paper reports D0 = -1.93(14), D2 = 0.001(3), D3 = -1.00(7), multipole mass and mechanical radii (e.g., monopole mass radius 0.551(32) fm), and a multipole analysis of stability. It claims first determinations of several observables, notably mechanical radii and quadrupole contributions to the pressure and shear distributions, and concludes that the n = 2 quadrupole components are subdominant and locally unstable while the overall baryon remains mechanically stable.

Significance. If the extraction is valid, this is a useful extension of the gravitational-form-factor program to a stable spin-3/2 strange baryon and provides concrete benchmarks for lattice QCD and GPD-based studies. The paper is honest about the limitations of the Breit-frame spatial interpretation and about the role of the p-pole ansatz in the spatial densities, and it passes several internal consistency checks: F1,0(0) = 1.00(8) and F4,0(0) = 1.39(10) are consistent with the expected normalization conditions, the pressure distributions satisfy the von Laue condition, and the monopole mass radius agrees with the quark-diquark result of Ref. [118]. The main weakness is that several headline observables are not direct sum-rule outputs but functionals of an assumed all-t parametrization, and the quoted uncertainties do not include that model dependence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (51) and Sec. V, Eq. (31)] The generalized D-terms D2 and D3 are not t = 0 quantities: Eq. (31) defines D3 = -(5/m^2) integral_{-infinity}^{0} D3(t) dt and D2 = D2(0) + (2/m^2) integral_{-infinity}^{0} D3(t) dt. These integrals receive contributions from the entire space-like region, where the only input beyond the fitted region (0 <= -t <= 10 GeV^2) is the p-pole ansatz of Eq. (51), with fitted exponents p ~ 4-5. The quoted D2 = 0.001(3) is a delicate cancellation between D2(0) = -0.40(3) and the D3(t) integral, and the reported uncertainty does not include the model dependence on the ansatz. The n = 2 spatial instability and the n = 2 mechanical radius of 0.111(29) fm are likewise functionals of the same all-t extrapolation, since they are obtained from Fourier transforms over t <= 0. I therefore ask the authors to quantify the model uncertainty by repeating the analysis with alternative parametrizations (e.g., z-expansion, monopole/dipole forms, or systematically varied p), and to state in the abstract and conclusion that D2, D3, the mechanical radii, and the local-instability finding are first estimates conditional on the assumed large-|t| behavior, not direct sum-rule determinations.
  2. [Sec. III.B, after Eq. (46)] The Omega-specific spectral densities rho_i(s, s', Q^2) that enter the double dispersion integral are not presented; the text refers the reader to Ref. [120] (the Delta baryon calculation) 'to avoid redundancy.' Because the central results of the paper are the extracted GFFs and because the Omega has a different quark mass and condensate, the OPE calculation is not self-contained and cannot be checked against the published material. I request that the explicit spectral densities (or the final Borel-transformed OPE expressions) for the Omega be included in an appendix or in a supplementary file.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (16) and Sec. V, Eq. (52)] The statement that the integral of epsilon0(r) 'accurately reproduces the mass' of the Omega is a consequence of the normalization condition F1,0(0) = 1 imposed in Eq. (16), so it should be framed as a consistency check rather than as an independent prediction of the sum rule.
  2. [Sec. IV, Table II and Fig. 1] The paper does not report the quality of the p-pole fits; please provide chi^2/dof or residual plots for the seven fitted GFFs so that the reader can assess how well the ansatz represents the sum-rule points in the fitted region.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'mutipole' should be 'multipole'.
  4. [Sec. V, text after Eq. (57)] Since D2 is obtained from a delicate cancellation involving the all-t integral of D3(t), the suggestion that the n = 2 local instability 'may also be reflected in its small generalized D-term' is not an independent corroboration; please soften this wording or make the dependence explicit.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Mass check is self-definitional and the 'first determination' quadrupole D-terms and mechanical radii are all-t integrals of the p-pole fit; the paper concedes they are consequences of the ansatz.

  1. self definitional [Sec. II, Eq. (16); Sec. V, Eq. (52) and following text]
    "M0(s′,s) = ∫ d3r Y 0 ε0(r) δs′s = m ∫ d3r [ε0(t)]F T δs′s = mF1,0(0) δs′s, where the normalization condition imposes the constraint F1,0(0) = 1 [4, 115]."

    Equation (16) defines the space integral of the monopole energy density as m F1,0(0), and F1,0(0)=1 is imposed as a normalization constraint. The later statement that ∫ ε0(r)d³r = 1657(135) MeV 'accurately reproduces the mass of the Ω−' is therefore a restatement of the imposed normalization, not an independent check: the mass appears on both sides by construction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV, Eq. (51); Sec. II, Eq. (31); Sec. V, Eqs. (57)-(59)]
    "D2 = D2(0) + 2/m² ∫_0^{-∞} dt D3(t), D3 = −5/m² ∫_0^{-∞} dt D3(t) ... As a result, the spatial mechanical distributions and the corresponding radii are influenced by the assumed large-t behavior and should be regarded as consequences of the p-pole ansatz constrained by our results in the fitting region."

    The GFFs are fit to the p-pole form G(t)=G(0)/(1−gp t)^p on 0≤−t≤10 GeV² and then extrapolated to t→−∞. D2 and D3 are not t=0 values: Eq. (31) makes D2 = D2(0)+(2/m²)∫D3(t)dt and D3 a pure all-t integral of the fitted D3(t); the densities and radii (Eqs. 58-59) are Fourier transforms over the same full t-range, with small-r behavior set by the large-t tail. Hence D2≈0.001, D3=−1.00, the reported n=2 radius 0.111 fm, and the n=2 local instability are outputs of the fitted ansatz, not independent QCD-sum-rule predictions; the paper's own caveat concedes this while the abstract and conclusion present them as first determinations.

full rationale

The QCD sum-rule extraction of the seven conserved GFFs is a genuine calculation: the correlation function is set up with quark and gluon EMT pieces, Borel windows and continuum thresholds are established, and the t=0 values (e.g., D0=D0(0)=−1.93) follow directly from the sum rules rather than from a fit. The delegation of QCD-side algebra to the authors' previous Δ-baryon paper (Ref. [120]) is an omitted proof but not circular, since the Ω− results are not contained in that reference. No uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation is invoked. However, the headline mechanical observables beyond D0 do reduce to the fitted p-pole ansatz: the D-terms of Eq. (31), the densities of Eqs. (21)-(25), and the radii of Eqs. (58)-(59) are integrals of p-pole fits of the same GFFs over the entire space-like t range, including the unmeasured large-t region that controls small r. The near-zero D2=0.001(3) is a delicate cancellation between the t=0 value −0.40(3) and the D3(t) integral, and the reported 'first determination' of quadrupole mechanical radii and local instability is therefore back-calculation from the fitted form, with model uncertainty in the tail not included in the quoted errors. The mass reproduction check is similarly self-definitional because F1,0(0)=1 is imposed. This is partial circularity in the presentation, though not in the underlying sum-rule extraction, so a moderate score is appropriate.

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

The central results rest on five free fit or working parameters (p-pole G(0), gp, and p for each of the seven GFFs, plus the Borel window and continuum threshold), plus several domain assumptions: quark-hadron duality, the Breit-frame static approximation, the p-pole ansatz for all t, transfer of the Delta calculation to Omega, and unproven local stability criteria. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • p-pole fit parameter G(0) for each GFF = F1,0: 1.00; F1,1: -0.64; F2,0: -3.53; F2,1: -1.60; F4,0: 1.39; F4,1: -0.32; F5,0: -0.30
    Fitted to QCD sum rule outputs; these values set the D-terms at t=0 and normalize the spatial distributions.
  • p-pole fit parameter gp = 0.25 to 0.80 GeV^-2 depending on GFF
    Controls the t-dependence and therefore the Fourier-transformed spatial distributions and radii.
  • p-pole fit exponent p = 3.36 to 5.10 depending on GFF
    Controls the large-t asymptotic behavior, which strongly affects small-r distributions and integrated D-terms.
  • Borel mass M^2 working window = 5.5 to 6.5 GeV^2
    Chosen to satisfy pole dominance and OPE convergence; final uncertainties include variation over this window.
  • Continuum threshold s0 = 3.3 to 3.5 GeV^2
    Chosen by standard QCDSR criteria; affects the extracted form factors.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality and continuum subtraction in QCD sum rules
    Standard assumption that the QCD side above the threshold s0 equals the hadronic continuum; invoked in Eqs. (46)-(48).
  • ad hoc to paper The p-pole parametrization G(t)=G(0)/(1-gp t)^p describes the form factors at all t
    Used to perform Fourier transforms; the authors state that spatial distributions and radii are consequences of this ansatz (Section IV).
  • domain assumption The Breit-frame static approximation gives valid spatial densities
    Authors note limitations; rigorous separation requires light-front or Wigner approaches (Section II).
  • ad hoc to paper Local stability criteria F||(r)>0 and s(r)>0 apply to spin-3/2 systems
    Authors explicitly state no formal proof exists for higher-spin systems and use them as phenomenological indicators (Section V).
  • domain assumption The Omega-specific QCD side calculation follows from the Delta calculation in Ref. 120 by substitutions of mass and condensates
    The paper does not present the Omega spectral densities; correctness of the central claim depends on this transfer (Section III.B).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mechanical properties of the $\Omega^-$ baryon from gravitational form factors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LG6UF4ND

@misc{pith2026250714840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mechanical properties of the $\Omega^-$ baryon from gravitational form factors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LG6UF4ND}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14840}
}
abstract

We present a comprehensive investigation of the mechanical properties of the $\Omega^-$ baryon by analyzing its gravitational form factors (GFFs) within the framework of QCD sum rules. These form factors encode rich information about the internal structure of hadrons and offer deep insights into the dynamics that govern their stability. The spin-3/2 nature of the $\Omega^-$ baryon manifests in its gravitational form factors as intricate multipole structures, which encapsulate higher-order deformations and demonstrate the influence of intrinsic spin on internal dynamics. We extract the GFFs of the $\Omega^-$ baryon and apply their specific multipole combinations, gravitational multipole form factors (GMFFs), to quantify key mechanical observables-including energy density, angular momentum, pressure and shear force distributions, mass and mechanical radii, and D-terms-associated with different multipole orders. Notably, this work provides the first determination of several of these observables, such as the mechanical radii and the quadrupole contributions to the pressure and shear force distributions. Our analysis shows that the quadrupole contributions to the mechanical properties are generally subdominant compared to those from the monopole component. We further investigate the mechanical stability of the $\Omega^-$ through a multipole analysis of its internal force distributions. These results enhance our understanding of the mechanical structure of spin-3/2 hadrons and provide useful benchmarks for future theoretical and lattice QCD studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14840 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The seven conserved gravitational form factors of th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The GMFFs of the Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Monopole contribution to the spatial distribution o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The mutipole contributions to the spatial distribut [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Tensor form factors of decuplet hyperons in QCD

    hep-ph 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    QCD sum rules yield numerical tensor form factors for Ω^-, Σ^{*+}, and Ξ^{*-} up to 10 GeV² together with forward-limit quark tensor charges.

  2. Gluon Gravitational $ D$-Form Factor: The $\sigma$-Meson as a Dilaton Confronted with Lattice Data II

    hep-ph 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Lattice fits to gluon gravitational form factors support the sigma meson as dilaton with new predictions for rho and delta, reinforcing evidence for scale symmetry in low-energy QCD.

  3. Gluon Gravitational $ D$-Form Factor: The $\sigma$-Meson as a Dilaton Confronted with Lattice Data II

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    σ-pole residues in gluon D-form factors for π, N, ρ and Δ are consistent with dilaton effective theory predictions within large uncertainties.

  4. Gravitational form factors of the nucleon in the Skyrme model based on scale-invariant chiral perturbation theory

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Skyrme model with a dilaton field attributes the proton's negative internal pressure and confining force to the gluonic scale anomaly, and reproduces the lattice QCD D(t) form factor.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [118]

    Alharazin, B

    H. Alharazin, B. D. Sun, E. Epelbaum, J. Gegelia and U. G . Meißner, JHEP 02, 163 (2023) [arXiv:2212.11505 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [120]

    J. Wang, D. Fu and Y. Dong, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.1, 79 (2024) [arXiv:2311.07149 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    I. Y. Kobzarev and L. B. Okun’, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 43, 1904-1909 (1962)

    1962

  4. [2]

    Pagels, Phys

    H. Pagels, Phys. Rev. 144, 1250-1260 (1966)

    1966

  5. [3]

    M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 555, 57-62 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0210165 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2003

  6. [4]

    to ordinary partial derivatives. The QCD sum rule technique is fundamentally based on the evaluation o f the correlation function in two distinct representations: the physical (phenomenological) side and the QC D (theoretical) side. The gravitational form factors are extracted by equating the coefficients of corresponding Lore ntz structures from both repre...

  7. [5]

    M. V. Polyakov and P. Schweitzer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, no.26, 1830025 (2018) [arXiv:1805.06596 [hep-ph]]. 23

    arXiv 2018

  8. [6]

    V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri, F. X. Girod, C. Lorc´ e, P. S chweitzer and P. E. Shanahan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, no.4, 041002 (2023) [arXiv:2303.08347 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 141 references
  1. [7]

    J. C. Collins, L. Frankfurt and M. Strikman, Phys. Rev. D 56, 2982-3006 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9611433 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  2. [8]

    X. D. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 610-613 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9603249 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  3. [9]

    X. D. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 55, 7114-7125 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9609381 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  4. [10]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D 56, 5524-5557 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9704207 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  5. [11]

    I. V. Anikin, N. Baltzell, M. Boer, S. J. Brodsky, V. M. Br aun, A. Camsonne, L. Colaneri, W. C. Chang, S. Dobbs and A. V. Efremov, et al. Acta Phys. Polon. B 49, 741-784 (2018) [arXiv:1712.04198 [nucl-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Kumeriˇ cki,Nature 570, no.7759, E1-E2 (2019)

    K. Kumeriˇ cki,Nature 570, no.7759, E1-E2 (2019)

    2019

  7. [13]

    V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri and F. X. Girod, Nature 557, no.7705, 396-399 (2018)

    2018

  8. [14]

    O. V. Selyugin and O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 87, no.4, 518-522 (2024) [arXiv:2311.12988 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [15]

    X. Wang, Z. Xing, M. Ding, K. Raya and L. Chang, [arXiv:2406.09644 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  10. [16]

    Dutrieux, C

    H. Dutrieux, C. Lorc´ e, H. Moutarde, P. Sznajder, A. Tra wi´ nski and J. Wagner, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.4, 300 (2021) [arXiv:2101.03855 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [17]

    X. Wang, Z. Xing, L. Chang, M. Ding, K. Raya and C. D. Rober ts, Phys. Lett. B 862, 139280 (2025) [arXiv:2410.13068 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Goharipour et al

    M. Goharipour et al. [MMGPDs], Phys. Rev. D 112, no.1, 014016 (2025) [arXiv:2501.16257 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Goharipour et al

    M. Goharipour et al. [MMGPDs], Phys. Lett. B 864, 139423 (2025) [arXiv:2408.01783 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Hashamipour, M

    H. Hashamipour, M. Goharipour, K. Azizi and S. V. Golosk okov, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.9, 096005 (2023) [arXiv:2211.09522 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [21]

    K. A. Mamo and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.8, 086003 (2020) [arXiv:1910.04707 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, X. Gao, A. M etz, J. Miller, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, F. Steffens and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.1, 014507 (2023) [arXiv:2305.11117 [hep-lat]]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [23]

    H. Y. Won, H. C. Kim and J. Y. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.9, 094018 (2023) [arXiv:2307.00740 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Shuryak and I

    E. Shuryak and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.9, 094005 (2023) [arXiv:2301.12238 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [25]

    X. Chen, S. Kumano, R. Kunitomo, S. Wu and Y. P. Xie, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 208 (2024) [arXiv:2401.11440 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Bhattacharya, Y

    S. Bhattacharya, Y. Hatta and W. Vogelsang, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.1, 014029 (2023) [arXiv:2305.09431 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Ji and Y

    X. Ji and Y. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.3, 034028 (2022) [arXiv:2110.14781 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Freese and G

    A. Freese and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 103, 094023 (2021) [arXiv:2102.01683 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Freese and G

    A. Freese and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.1, 014024 (2021) [arXiv:2104.03213 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [30]

    V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri and F. X. Girod, [arXiv:2104.02031 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv

  25. [31]

    H. D. Son and P. T. P. Hutauruk, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.5, 5 (2025) [arXiv:2411.18130 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Mamedov, M

    S. Mamedov, M. Allahverdiyeva and N. Akbarova, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, no.3, 361 (2025) [arXiv:2412.17407 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [33]

    P. C. Tandy, [arXiv:2505.00583 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  28. [34]

    D. Fu, B. D. Sun and Y. Dong, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.11, 116012 (2022) [arXiv:2209.12161 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [35]

    D. Fu, B. D. Sun and Y. Dong, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.11, 116021 (2023) [arXiv:2305.02680 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [36]

    D. Fu, Y. Dong and S. Kumano, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.9, 096006 (2024) [arXiv:2402.11561 [hep-ph]]

    2024

  31. [37]

    Kumano, Q

    S. Kumano, Q. T. Song and O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.1, 014020 (2018) [arXiv:1711.08088 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Ahmed, R

    Z. Ahmed, R. S. Evans, I. Goel, G. M. Huber, S. J. D. Kay, W. B. Li, L. Preet and A. Usman, Comput. Phys. Commun. 308, 109444 (2025) [arXiv:2403.06000 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [39]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, M. G¨ ockeler, R. R¨ odl, A. Sch¨ af er and A. Sternbeck, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.1, 014507 (2019) [arXiv:1812.08256 [hep-lat]]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, M. Constantinou, P. Dimopou los, J. Finkenrath, R. Frezzotti, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jan sen, B. Kostrzewa and G. Koutsou, et al. Phys. Rev. D 101, no.3, 034519 (2020) [arXiv:1908.10706 [hep-lat]]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Lin and T

    S. Lin and T. Jia-Yuan, Acta Phys. Sin. 72, no.7, 071201 (2023) [arXiv:2302.12450 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Garcia Martin-Caro, M

    A. Garcia Martin-Caro, M. Huidobro and Y. Hatta, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.3, 034014 (2023) [arXiv:2304.05994 [nucl-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [43]

    Kou and X

    W. Kou and X. Chen, Phys. Lett. B 846, 138199 (2023) [arXiv:2305.19078 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Alharazin, Phys

    H. Alharazin, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.1, 016009 (2024) [arXiv:2312.09675 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Garc ´ ıa Mart ´ ın-Caro, M

    A. Garc ´ ıa Mart ´ ın-Caro, M. Huidobro and Y. Hatta,Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 034002 (2024) [arXiv:2312.12984 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Z. Q. Yao, Y. Z. Xu, D. Binosi, Z. F. Cui, M. Ding, K. Raya, C . D. Roberts, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero and S. M. Schmidt, Eur. Phys. J. A 61, no.5, 92 (2025) [arXiv:2409.15547 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [47]

    X. Cao, Y. Li and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.5, 056026 (2023) [arXiv:2308.06812 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [48]

    J. Y. Panteleeva, E. Epelbaum, J. Gegelia and U. G. Meißn er, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.7, 617 (2023) [arXiv:2211.09596 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [49]

    J. Y. Panteleeva and M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.1, 014008 (2021) [arXiv:2102.10902 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [50]

    J. Y. Panteleeva and M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 809, 135707 (2020) [arXiv:2004.02912 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [51]

    H. Y. Won, J. Y. Kim and H. C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.11, 114009 (2022) [arXiv:2210.03320 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Hatta, Phys

    Y. Hatta, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.5, L051502 (2024) [arXiv:2311.14470 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Choudhary, B

    P. Choudhary, B. Gurjar, D. Chakrabarti and A. Mukherje e, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.7, 076004 (2022) [arXiv:2206.12206 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [54]

    M. J. Neubelt, A. Sampino, J. Hudson, K. Tezgin and P. Sch weitzer, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.3, 034013 (2020) [arXiv:1911.08906 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [55]

    X. B. Tong, J. P. Ma and F. Yuan, JHEP 10, 046 (2022) [arXiv:2203.13493 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [56]

    X. Cao, Y. Li and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.7, 076025 (2024) [arXiv:2408.09535 [hep-ph]]. 24

    2024 arXiv

  51. [57]

    Hagiwara, X

    Y. Hagiwara, X. B. Tong and B. W. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.5, L051503 (2025) [arXiv:2401.12840 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [58]

    S. Nair, C. Mondal, S. Xu, X. Zhao and J. P. Vary, [arXiv:2506.07554 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  53. [59]

    Sugimoto and T

    S. Sugimoto and T. Tsukamoto, [arXiv:2503.19492 [hep-th]]

  54. [60]

    A. Sain, P. Choudhary, B. Gurjar, C. Mondal, D. Chakraba rti and A. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.9, 094011 (2025) [arXiv:2503.12574 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [61]

    Fujii, M

    D. Fujii, M. Kawaguchi and M. Tanaka, Phys. Lett. B 866, 139559 (2025) [arXiv:2503.09686 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  56. [62]

    X. H. Cao, F. K. Guo, Q. Z. Li, B. W. Wu and D. L. Yao, [arXiv:2507.05375 [hep-ph]]

  57. [63]

    Kaur and C

    S. Kaur and C. Mondal, [arXiv:2507.01506 [hep-ph]]

  58. [64]

    Pentchev and E

    L. Pentchev and E. Chudakov, [arXiv:2404.18776 [nucl-ex]]

  59. [65]

    Fujii, A

    D. Fujii, A. Iwanaka and M. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.9, L091501 (2024) [arXiv:2407.21113 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [66]

    B. D. Sun, [arXiv:2503.20435 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  61. [67]

    Hatta and J

    Y. Hatta and J. Schoenleber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, no.25, 251901 (2025) [arXiv:2502.12061 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  62. [68]

    Tanaka, Phys

    K. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 98, no.3, 034009 (2018) [arXiv:1806.10591 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [69]

    Freese, Phys

    A. Freese, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.12, 125012 (2022) [arXiv:2112.00047 [hep-th]]

    2022

  64. [70]

    Freese, [arXiv:2506.04510 [hep-ph]]

    A. Freese, [arXiv:2506.04510 [hep-ph]]

  65. [71]

    Z. E. Meziani, PoS SPIN2023, 168 (2024) [arXiv:2403.08423 [nucl-ex]]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [72]

    J. More, A. Mukherjee, S. Nair and S. Saha, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.11, 116005 (2023) [arXiv:2302.11906 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [73]

    Y. Guo, X. Ji, Y. Liu and J. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.3, 034003 (2023) [arXiv:2305.06992 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [74]

    Y. Guo, X. Ji and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.1, 014014 (2024) [arXiv:2308.13006 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [75]

    Duran, Z

    B. Duran, Z. E. Meziani, S. Joosten, M. K. Jones, S. Prasa d, C. Peng, W. Armstrong, H. Atac, E. Chudakov and H. Bhatt, et al. Nature 615, no.7954, 813-816 (2023) [arXiv:2207.05212 [nucl-ex]]

    2023 arXiv

  70. [76]

    Z. Fan, H. W. Lin and M. Zeilbeck, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.3, 034505 (2023) [arXiv:2208.00980 [hep-lat]]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [77]

    K. A. Mamo and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.9, 094010 (2021) [arXiv:2103.03186 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  72. [78]

    X. B. Tong, J. P. Ma and F. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B 823, 136751 (2021) [arXiv:2101.02395 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  73. [79]

    P. E. Shanahan and W. Detmold, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.1, 014511 (2019) [arXiv:1810.04626 [hep-lat]]

    2019 arXiv

  74. [80]

    D. A. Pefkou, D. C. Hackett and P. E. Shanahan, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.5, 054509 (2022) [arXiv:2107.10368 [hep-lat]]

    2022 arXiv

  75. [81]

    Lorc´ e and Q

    C. Lorc´ e and Q. T. Song, Phys. Lett. B 843, 138016 (2023) [arXiv:2303.11538 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [82]

    I. V. Anikin, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.9, 094026 (2019) [arXiv:1902.00094 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  77. [83]

    Azizi and U

    K. Azizi and U. ¨Ozdem, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.2, 104 (2020) [arXiv:1908.06143 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  78. [84]

    Dehghan, F

    Z. Dehghan, F. Almaksusi and K. Azizi, JHEP 06, 025 (2025) [arXiv:2502.16689 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  79. [85]

    Freese and I

    A. Freese and I. C. Clo¨ et, Phys. Rev. C 100, no.1, 015201 (2019) [erratum: Phys. Rev. C 105, no.5, 059901 (2022)] [arXiv:1903.09222 [nucl-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  80. [86]

    T. M. Aliev, K. S ¸im¸ sek and T. Barakat, Phys. Rev. D 103, 054001 (2021) [arXiv:2009.07926 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  81. [87]

    J. More, A. Mukherjee, S. Nair and S. Saha, Few Body Syst. 64, no.3, 68 (2023) [arXiv:2306.08683 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [88]

    X. Y. Wang, F. Zeng and J. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C 48, no.5, 054102 (2024) [arXiv:2308.04644 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  83. [89]

    D. C. Hackett, D. A. Pefkou and P. E. Shanahan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, no.25, 251904 (2024) [arXiv:2310.08484 [hep-lat]]

    2024 arXiv

  84. [90]

    Voronin, [arXiv:2507.06025 [hep-ph]]

    V. Voronin, [arXiv:2507.06025 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  85. [91]

    Fujii, A

    D. Fujii, A. Iwanaka and M. Tanaka, [arXiv:2507.18690 [hep-ph]]

  86. [92]

    X. H. Cao, F. K. Guo, Q. Z. Li and D. L. Yao, [arXiv:2411.13398 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  87. [93]

    Tanaka, D

    M. Tanaka, D. Fujii and M. Kawaguchi, [arXiv:2507.21220 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  88. [94]

    Fujii and M

    D. Fujii and M. Tanaka, [arXiv:2507.23786 [hep-ph]]

  89. [95]

    Cosyn, S

    W. Cosyn, S. Cotogno, A. Freese and C. Lorc´ e, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no.6, 476 (2019) [arXiv:1903.00408 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  90. [96]

    M. V. Polyakov and B. D. Sun, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.3, 036003 (2019) [arXiv:1903.02738 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  91. [97]

    B. D. Sun and Y. B. Dong, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.9, 096008 (2020) [arXiv:2002.02648 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  92. [98]

    Epelbaum, J

    E. Epelbaum, J. Gegelia, U. G. Meißner and M. V. Polyakov , Phys. Rev. D 105, no.1, 016018 (2022) [arXiv:2109.10826 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  93. [99]

    J. Y. Kim, B. D. Sun, D. Fu and H. C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.5, 054007 (2023) [arXiv:2208.01240 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  94. [100]

    Freese and W

    A. Freese and W. Cosyn, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.11, 114013 (2022) [arXiv:2207.10787 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  95. [101]

    Freese and W

    A. Freese and W. Cosyn, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.11, 114014 (2022) [arXiv:2207.10788 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  96. [102]

    Nozawa and D

    S. Nozawa and D. B. Leinweber, Phys. Rev. D 42, 3567-3571 (1990)

    1990

  97. [103]

    Kotulla, J

    M. Kotulla, J. Ahrens, J. R. M. Annand, R. Beck, G. Casel otti, L. S. Fog, D. Hornidge, S. Janssen, B. Krusche and J. C. McGeorge, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 272001 (2002) [arXiv:nucl-ex/0210040 [nucl-ex]]

    2002 arXiv

  98. [104]

    Pascalutsa, M

    V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen and S. N. Yang, Phys. Rept. 437, 125-232 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0609004 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  99. [105]

    Azizi, Eur

    K. Azizi, Eur. Phys. J. C 61, 311-319 (2009) [arXiv:0811.2670 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  100. [106]

    Boinepalli, D

    S. Boinepalli, D. B. Leinweber, P. J. Moran, A. G. Willi ams, J. M. Zanotti and J. B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 80, 054505 (2009) [arXiv:0902.4046 [hep-lat]]

    2009 arXiv

  101. [107]

    Alexandrou, T

    C. Alexandrou, T. Korzec, G. Koutsou, J. W. Negele and Y . Proestos, Phys. Rev. D 82, 034504 (2010) [arXiv:1006.0558 [hep-lat]]

    2010 arXiv

  102. [108]

    J. Y. Kim and H. C. Kim, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no.7, 570 (2019) [arXiv:1905.04017 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  103. [109]

    Ramalho, Phys

    G. Ramalho, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.7, 074018 (2021) [arXiv:2012.11710 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  104. [110]

    D. Fu, B. D. Sun and Y. Dong, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.9, 096002 (2022) [arXiv:2201.08059 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  105. [111]

    K. H. Hong, J. Y. Kim and H. C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.7, 074004 (2023) [arXiv:2301.09267 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  106. [112]

    D. Fu, J. J. Xie and Y. Dong, [arXiv:2505.03363 [hep-ph]]. 25

    arXiv

  107. [113]

    I. A. Perevalova, M. V. Polyakov and P. Schweitzer, Phys. Rev. D 94, no.5, 054024 (2016) [arXiv:1607.07008 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  108. [114]

    Cotogno, C

    S. Cotogno, C. Lorc´ e, P. Lowdon and M. Morales, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.5, 056016 (2020) [arXiv:1912.08749 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  109. [115]

    J. Y. Kim, H. C. Kim and M. V. Polyakov, JHEP 11, 039 (2021) [arXiv:2110.05889 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  110. [116]

    J. Y. Kim and B. D. Sun, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.1, 85 (2021) [arXiv:2011.00292 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  111. [117]

    Alharazin, E

    H. Alharazin, E. Epelbaum, J. Gegelia, U. G. Meißner an d B. D. Sun, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.10, 907 (2022) [arXiv:2209.01233 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  112. [119]

    D. Fu, J. Wang and Y. Dong, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.7, 076023 (2023) [arXiv:2306.04869 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Dehghan, K

    Z. Dehghan, K. Azizi and U. ¨Ozdem, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.9, 094037 (2023) [arXiv:2307.14880 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  114. [122]

    J. Y. Kim, Phys. Lett. B 834, 137442 (2022) [arXiv:2206.10202 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  115. [123]

    ¨Ozdem and K

    U. ¨Ozdem and K. Azizi, JHEP 03, 048 (2023) [arXiv:2212.07290 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  116. [124]

    J. Y. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.3, 034024 (2023) [arXiv:2305.12714 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Alharazin, B

    H. Alharazin, B. D. Sun, E. Epelbaum, J. Gegelia and U. G . Meißner, JHEP 03, 007 (2024) [arXiv:2312.05193 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Goharipour et al

    M. Goharipour et al. [MMGPDs], Phys. Rev. D 109, no.7, 074042 (2024) [arXiv:2403.19384 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Lorc´ e,Phys

    C. Lorc´ e,Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, no.23, 232002 (2020) [arXiv:2007.05318 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  120. [128]

    R. G. Sachs, Phys. Rev. 126, 2256-2260 (1962)

    1962

  121. [129]

    G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 112001 (2007) [arXiv:0705.2409 [nucl-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  122. [130]

    M. V. Polyakov and P. Schweitzer, PoS SPIN2018, 066 (2019) [arXiv:1812.06143 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Lorc´ e, L

    C. Lorc´ e, L. Mantovani and B. Pasquini, Phys. Lett. B 776, 38-47 (2018) [arXiv:1704.08557 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  124. [132]

    Schweitzer and K

    P. Schweitzer and K. Tezgin, Phys. Lett. B 796, 47-51 (2019) [arXiv:1905.12336 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  125. [133]

    Azizi, N

    K. Azizi, N. Er and H. Sundu, Phys. Rev. D 94, no.11, 114002 (2016) [arXiv:1610.09368 [nucl-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  126. [134]

    Khodjamirian, CRC Press, 2020, ISBN 978-1-138-30675-2, 978-1-315-14200 -5

    A. Khodjamirian, CRC Press, 2020, ISBN 978-1-138-30675-2, 978-1-315-14200 -5

    2020

  127. [135]

    Colangelo and A

    P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, [arXiv:hep-ph/0010175 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  128. [136]

    T. M. Aliev, K. Azizi and H. Sundu, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no.4, 222 (2017) [arXiv:1612.03661 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  129. [137]

    V. M. Belyaev and B. L. Ioffe, Sov. Phys. JETP 56, 493-501 (1982) ITEP-59-1982

    1982

  130. [138]

    Abreu et al

    P. Abreu et al. [DELPHI], Phys. Lett. B 311, 408-424 (1993)

    1993

  131. [139]

    V. M. Belyaev and B. L. Ioffe, Sov. Phys. JETP 57, 716-721 (1983) ITEP-132-1982

    1983

  132. [140]

    M. V. Polyakov and C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D 60, 114017 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9902451 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  133. [141]

    D. A. Varshalovich, A. N. Moskalev and V. K. Khersonski i, World Scientific Publishing Company, 1988, ISBN 978-981-44 15-49-1, 978-9971-5-0107-5

    1988

Pith tools

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