Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Pion generalized parton distributions at zero skewness

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single model reproduces pion quark distributions, form factors, and charge radii from one unified object: the pion GPD at zero skewness.

desk verdict Solid but conditional NJL calculation of pion GPDs; the PDF 'excellent agreement' is undermined by an ad hoc DGLAP initial scale. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.22947 v2 pith:VHSRJPBS submitted 2025-11-28 hep-ph

Fernando Chandra , Parada T. P. Hutauruk , Terry Mart This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords piongeneralizedpartondistributionsNambu-Jona-Lasiniomodelproper-timeregularizationdistributionfunctionsformfactorschargeradiiDGLAPevolution
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 aims to show that pion generalized parton distributions (GPDs) at zero skewness, computed in the covariant Nambu–Jona-Lasinio model with proper-time regularization, form a single source for the pion's quark distributions and its scalar, vector, and tensor form factors. In the forward limit the GPD reduces to the valence quark distribution, which after DGLAP evolution from a low model scale agrees with measured pion Drell-Yan data and a recent global QCD analysis at both 4 and 27 GeV^2. The first Mellin moments of the same GPDs yield the vector and tensor form factors, and the twist-3 scalar GPD yields the scalar form factor; once the quark-photon vertex is dressed, these match recent lattice QCD results. From the slopes of these form factors the paper obtains charge radii r_S = 0.56 fm, r_V = 0.63 fm, and r_T = 0.83 fm, ordered r_T >= r_V >= r_S. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that a single low-energy model can organize multiple pion observables into one consistent internal-structure picture.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pion GPD trio at zero skewness — vector H^u(x, xi=0, t), tensor E^u(x, xi=0, t), and twist-3 scalar H^u_S(x, xi=0, t) — computed from quark-loop diagrams in the covariant NJL model. The proper-time regularization scheme, with infrared cutoff Lambda_IR = 240 MeV and ultraviolet cutoff Lambda_UV = 645 MeV, removes ultraviolet divergences and mimics confinement. The forward limit t=0, xi=0 turns the vector GPD into the valence PDF; the first Mellin moments turn the vector and tensor GPDs into generalized form factors; and the twist-3 GPD yields the scalar form factor. A dressed quark-photon vertex, rather than the bare gamma^+, is the additional piece needed to bring t

What would settle it

Compute or measure the pion valence PDF at a third scale, for example mu^2 = 10 GeV^2, after DGLAP evolution from mu0^2 = 0.18 GeV^2; if it disagrees with new data by more than the experimental errors, the central claim collapses. Alternatively, a lattice or experimental determination of the tensor charge radius below about 0.7 fm would contradict the predicted ordering and values.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the zero-skewness pion GPDs from the covariant NJL model are quantitatively reliable across three separate observables. The forward limit H^u(x,0,0) gives the valence pion PDF; evolved from the model scale mu0^2 = 0.18 GeV^2 to mu^2 = 27 and 4 GeV^2, it reproduces the measured Drell-Yan data and a global QCD analysis, including the (1-x) behavior near x to 1. The n=0 Mellin moments of the vector and tensor GPDs give the pion electromagnetic and tensor form factors, and the twist-3 scalar GPD gives the scalar form factor; with a dressed quark-photon vertex these match lattice QCD. The resulting charge radii satisfy r_T >= r_V >= r_S, consistent with lattice ordering.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the valence-only PDF at the arbitrarily chosen initial scale mu0^2 = 0.18 GeV^2, together with the proper-time regulator parameters, is the correct nonperturbative input; if that scale is chosen differently, the claimed agreement with data may not survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same GPD that matches PDF data also predicts vector, tensor, and scalar form factors, so a future measurement of pion GPDs at nonzero momentum transfer would test the model's internal consistency directly.
  • The model's valence PDF falls as (1-x)^1 as x approaches 1, matching the global analysis, whereas some other QCD-inspired models predict (1-x)^2; this difference is observable at large x.
  • The predicted ordering r_T >= r_V >= r_S for the pion's charge radii is a concrete signature that can be checked against future lattice and experimental determinations.
  • Agreement at two different renormalization scales from a single initial scale supports the use of mu0^2 = 0.18 GeV^2 as a nonperturbative input for DGLAP evolution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the derivation holds, extending the same GPDs to nonzero skewness would give access to the pion's transverse spatial tomography and to gravitational form factors, which the zero-skewness limit cannot reach; the paper does not perform this extension.
  • Because the model scale contains only valence quarks, all sea-quark effects seen at high scales are generated by DGLAP evolution; a precise small-x measurement of the pion's sea would stress-test this input.
  • A sharper test would be to treat mu0^2 and the regulator parameters as fit parameters constrained simultaneously by PDF, form-factor, and charge-radius data; the current paper fixes them from mass and decay constant and then checks the observables.
  • The paper's finding that the dressed scalar form factor underestimates lattice data suggests the twist-3 sector may need additional physics beyond the dressed vertex; investigating that mismatch could refine the model.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates pion generalized parton distributions (GPDs) at zero skewness in the covariant Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model with proper-time regularization. Starting from explicit one-loop expressions for the vector, tensor, and twist-3 scalar pion GPDs, the authors extract the valence pion PDF from the forward limit and the scalar, vector, and tensor generalized form factors from the relevant Mellin moments. The PDFs are evolved via DGLAP from a model scale μ0²=0.18 GeV² to μ²=27 and 4 GeV² and compared with E615 data and the JAM global analysis. The form factors are compared with lattice QCD and experimental data, with 'dressed' results obtained by inserting an external quark form factor F1_Qbar(Q²) from Ref. 12. The authors report excellent agreement for the PDFs and dressed vector/tensor form factors, and obtain charge radii r_Sπ=0.56 fm, r_Vπ=0.63 fm, r_Tπ=0.83 fm.

Significance. If robust, the paper provides a transparent, relatively simple model calculation of all three pion GPDs at zero skewness and shows that the resulting PDFs can match phenomenological extractions after QCD evolution. The explicit formulas and the use of a small number of parameters are strengths. However, the central 'excellent agreement' claim is not quantified and rests on an initial evolution scale that is not fixed by the model, and the dressed form-factor agreement depends on an external fitted input. The paper would be a useful contribution if these dependencies were assessed and reported; in its current form the predictive content is difficult to evaluate.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Fig. 4] The PDF comparison is the load-bearing quantitative claim, but it is only asserted as 'excellent agreement' without a chi-square or similar measure. More importantly, the comparison is made after DGLAP evolution from the initial scale μ0²=0.18 GeV², which is not determined by the model inputs (M_q, Λ_IR, G_π, Λ_UV are fixed by m_π and f_π). The model-scale PDF is also assumed valence-only. Since the final shape after evolution depends strongly on μ0² and on the regulator, the reader cannot distinguish a prediction from a tuned input. Please provide a sensitivity scan over μ0² (e.g., 0.1–0.3 GeV²) and the proper-time scales, a quantitative measure of agreement, and a discussion of the valence-only assumption.
  2. [§4.3, Fig. 5] The dressed vector and tensor form factors use the external quark form factor F1_Qbar(Q²) from Ref. 12, which itself was fitted to data. The good agreement of the dressed form factors with lattice/experimental data is therefore not an independent prediction of this work. This should be stated more prominently, and the sensitivity of the dressed results to the parameterization of F1_Qbar should be quantified. The scalar case, where the dressed form factor underestimates lattice data, deserves a brief discussion of what this implies for the twist-3 GPD calculation or the dressing prescription.
  3. [§4.1, Eq. (15)] The text states that H^u(x,0,0) 'equals unity' in the valence region x∈[0,1], but Eq. (15) identifies H^u(x,0,0)=u_v^π(x), which is not a constant and must integrate to 1. Please correct this inconsistent statement.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General] The statement of the DGLAP evolution should specify the order (LO/NLO), the number of active flavors, and how gluons and sea quarks are initialized at μ0². Reference 21 is a code description; the actual settings used here are not given.
  2. [Eq. (10c)] The definition of the scalar GPD appears garbled: 'Mu/P + H^q_S' likely should be something like (M_u/P^+) H_S^q(x,ξ,t). Please clarify the notation.
  3. [Eqs. (22)–(24)] Several exponents are not typeset correctly (e.g., 'β1(1−β1−β t' appears missing a closing parenthesis and possibly a factor). Please proofread the formulas carefully.
  4. [Sec. 2, Eq. (1)] A parenthesis appears missing in the Lagrangian: after '(ψ̄_q ψ_q)^2' the bracket should be closed; also 'h i' typesetting artifacts should be fixed.
  5. [Sec. 4.3] In the description of the scalar form factor, 'at intermediate values of x' should presumably be 'at intermediate values of Q²'. Please correct.
  6. [Fig. 5] The panels are on different vertical scales; it would help to include a small inset or a common scale for at least the vector and tensor panels to facilitate visual comparison.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Dressed form-factor 'agreement' is a fitted input from a coauthor's prior paper; PDF comparison is weakened by an ad hoc DGLAP initial scale.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.3 (Pion generalized form factors), paragraph after Fig. 5; also used for charge radii in Sec. 4.4]
    "It is worth mentioning that the scalar, vector, and tensor pion form factors derived from the pion GPDs are the bare form factors, which are insufficient to describe the experimental data and lattice QCD data. Therefore, we have to consider the form factors with dressing to fit the data. In the dressed pion form factors, the used quark-photon vertex is Γ_{γQ}=γ^μ F1_{\bar Q}(Q^2), where \bar Q=(U,D) and F1_{\bar Q}(Q^2) is the dressed quark form factors. A more related comprehensive discussion is given in Ref. 12."

    The dressed vector and tensor form factors are the bare GPD moments with the quark-photon vertex replaced by γ^μ F1_Qbar(Q^2). The paper says the dressing is introduced 'to fit the data', and F1_Qbar is imported from Ref. 12, a prior paper by coauthor Hutauruk et al., rather than derived here. The subsequent 'excellent agreement' with experimental/lattice data and the charge radii obtained from these dressed slopes is therefore the fitted F1_Qbar restated as a result, not an independent prediction of the GPD calculation. The bare form factors fail on the same data, confirming that the agreement is supplied by the imported fitted input.

full rationale

The GPD-to-PDF part of the paper is not circular: the forward limit and Mellin moments are standard definitions, and H^u(x,0,0) is computed from the NJL Lagrangian after fixing G_pi and Lambda_UV by m_pi and f_pi. DGLAP evolution is a real transformation, so the comparison with E615/JAM is a genuine, if weak, test; it is not a formal reduction to an input. However, the initial scale mu0^2=0.18 GeV^2 and valence-only model PDF are additional inputs that control the final shape, and no sensitivity study is reported, so the 'excellent agreement' is conditional on that choice, though not definitionally forced. The central circularity is in the dressed generalized form factors: the paper explicitly says dressing is applied 'to fit the data' and obtains the dressing from Ref. 12, a coauthor's previous work. The good agreement with lattice/experimental form factors and the derived charge radii are thus inherited from a fitted quark form factor rather than derived from the pion GPDs. The admitted scalar-form-factor discrepancy shows the model is not uniformly tuned, which keeps the overall circularity partial (6/10) rather than total.

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

All parameters are model inputs; the central PDF comparison is a genuine test since parameters are fit to m_pi and f_pi, not to PDF data. However, the dressed vector/tensor form factors depend on the quark form factor from Ref. 12, a previous paper by the same group, introducing a circular element. No new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • M_q = 400 MeV dynamical quark mass = 400 MeV
    Chosen dynamical quark mass (Sec. 4); sets the scale of all GPDs; not derived within the paper.
  • Lambda_IR = 240 MeV = 240 MeV
    IR cutoff in proper-time regularization; chosen to simulate confinement and match Lambda_QCD (Sec. 2).
  • Lambda_UV = 645 MeV and G_pi = 19.03 GeV^-2 = 645 MeV, 19.03 GeV^-2
    Fixed by fitting pion mass (140 MeV) and decay constant (93 MeV) (Sec. 4).
  • mu0^2 = 0.18 GeV^2 = 0.18 GeV^2
    Initial scale for DGLAP evolution of PDFs; chosen in model, affects comparison with data (Sec 4.2).
  • Dressed quark form factor F1_Qbar(Q^2) from Ref. 12 = unspecified in this paper
    External function used to dress pion form factors; parameters fitted in prior work by one of the authors (Sec 4.3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The NJL model is a valid effective theory for pion structure at low energy
    Used throughout; the paper computes GPDs from NJL quark propagators.
  • domain assumption Proper-time regularization with IR cutoff simulates quark confinement
    Sec. 2: 'to cure the divergence simultaneously to simulate the confinement'.
  • standard math DGLAP evolution equations apply from the model scale to experimental scales
    Sec. 4.2 uses Ref. 21 evolution; assumes leading-twist evolution is valid for NJL model PDFs.
  • standard math GPD polynomiality condition relates Mellin moments to form factors
    Eqs. (16)-(20) in Sec. 3.
  • domain assumption SU(2) isospin symmetry with m_u=m_d
    Sec. 2; reduces computations to one flavor.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pion generalized parton distributions at zero skewness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VHSRJPBS

@misc{pith2026251122947,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pion generalized parton distributions at zero skewness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VHSRJPBS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.22947}
}
abstract

In this paper, we systematically study the generalized parton distributions (GPDs) of the pion Goldstone Boson at zero skewness ($\xi =0$) in the framework of the covariant Nambu--Jona-Lasinio model with the help of the proper time regularization scheme to cure the divergence simultaneously to simulate the confinement. To this end, we evaluate the generalized form factors and parton distribution functions derived, respectively, from the first Mellin moments and the forward limit pion GPDs, in comparison to existing experimental data, recent lattice QCD simulations, and JAM global QCD analyses. We find that the pion parton distribution functions derived from the pion GPDs have excellent agreement with the experimental data and JAM analysis at renormalization scale $\mu^2 =$ 4 and 27 GeV$^2$. In addition, our results for the pion generalized form factors involving the scalar, vector, and tensor dressed form factors are consistent with recent lattice data and existing data. We then compute the charge radii for those dressed generalized form factors, and we obtain $r_{S}^{\pi} =$ 0.56 fm, $ r_V^{\pi} =$ 0.63 fm, and $r_{T}^{\pi} =$ 0.83 fm for the pion scalar, vector, and tensor form factors, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.22947 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. This illustrated how the shape of the vector pion GPDs evolves with increas￾ing t. As expected, Hu (x, 0, 0) vanishes in the region x ∈ [−1, 0] for ξ = 0, while in the valence region x ∈ [0, 1] it equals unity. This reflects the fact that the NJL model contains only valence quarks and no sea-quark (quark singlet) contributions at its intrinsic model scale. As momentum transfer t increases, Hu (x, 0, 0) decreases, pa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Same as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pion PDFs at µ 2 = 27 (left panel) and 4 (right panel) GeV2 . The pion PDFs are evolved from the initial model scale µ 2 0 = 0.18 GeV2 . Note that the pion PDFs are computed from the pion GPDs. Experimental and JAM data are taken from Refs.,14 and,15 respectively. mali…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The vector pion form factors F V π (Q2 ) = A1,0(t) (upper left panel), scalar pion form factors F S π (Q2 ) (bottom center panel), and tensor pion form factors F T π (Q2 ) = B1,0(t) (upper right panel) in comparison with the recent lattice QCD22 and experimental data.3…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Charge radii for the vector, tensor, and scalar in comparison with experimental data, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    B. W. Lee and J. Zinn-Justin, Phys. Rev. D5, 3121-3137 (1972)

    1972

  2. [2]

    H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rept.14, 129-180 (1974)

    1974

  3. [3]

    Gross, E

    F. Gross, E. Klempt, S. J. Brodsky, A. J. Buras, V. D. Burkert, G. Heinrich, K. Jakobs, C. A. Meyer, K. Orginos and M. Strickland,et al.Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1125 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Diakonov, [arXiv:hep-ph/9802298]

    D. Diakonov, [arXiv:hep-ph/9802298]

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Praszalowicz and A

    M. Praszalowicz and A. Rostworowski, Phys. Rev. D64, 074003 (2001)

    2001

  6. [6]

    P. T. P. Hutauruk, Symmetry17, no.6, 971 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    H. D. Son and P. T. P. Hutauruk, Phys. Rev. D111, no.5, 5 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    P. T. P. Hutauruk and S. i. Nam, Phys. Rev. D109, no.5, 054040 (2024)

    2024

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    W. Y. Liu, E. Shuryak, C. Weiss and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D110, no.5, 054021 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    H. J. Kwee and R. F. Lebed, JHEP01, 027 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    Abidin and P

    Z. Abidin and P. T. P. Hutauruk, Phys. Rev. D100, no.5, 054026 (2019). December 1, 2025 2:57 main 16Fernando Chandra et al.,

    2019

  4. [12]

    P. T. P. Hutauruk, I. C. Cloet and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C94, no.3, 035201 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Chang and A

    L. Chang and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B749, 547-550 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    J. S. Conwayet al.[E615], Phys. Rev. D39, 92-122 (1989)

    1989

  7. [15]

    P. C. Barryet al.[Jefferson Lab Angular Momentum (JAM)], Phys. Rev. Lett.127, no.23, 232001 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Arrington, C

    J. Arrington, C. A. Gayoso, P. C. Barry, V. Berdnikov, D. Binosi, L. Chang, M. Diefen- thaler, M. Ding, R. Ent and T. Frederico,et al.J. Phys. G48, no.7, 075106 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    D. P. Anderle, V. Bertone, X. Cao, L. Chang, N. Chang, G. Chen, X. Chen, Z. Chen, Z. Cui and L. Dai,et al.Front. Phys. (Beijing)16, no.6, 64701 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Sawada, W

    T. Sawada, W. C. Chang, S. Kumano, J. C. Peng, S. Sawada and K. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D93, no.11, 114034 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Accardi, P

    A. Accardi, P. Achenbach, D. Adhikari, A. Afanasev, C. S. Akondi, N. Akopov, M. Al- baladejo, H. Albataineh, M. Albrecht and B. Almeida-Zamora,et al.Eur. Phys. J. A 60, no.9, 173 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Adams, C

    B. Adams, C. A. Aidala, R. Akhunzyanov, G. D. Alexeev, M. G. Alexeev, A. Amoroso, V. Andrieux, N. V. Anfimov, V. Anosov and A. Antoshkin,et al.[arXiv:1808.00848

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Miyama and S

    M. Miyama and S. Kumano, Comput. Phys. Commun.94, 185-215 (1996)

    1996

  14. [22]

    Alexandrouet al.[ETM], Phys

    C. Alexandrouet al.[ETM], Phys. Rev. D105, no.5, 054502 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Ninomiya, W

    Y. Ninomiya, W. Bentz and I. C. Clo¨ et, Phys. Rev. C91, no.2, 025202 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    P. T. P. Hutauruk, W. Bentz, I. C. Clo¨ et and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C97, no.5, 055210 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Bentz, A

    W. Bentz, A. Kotzinian, H. H. Matevosyan, Y. Ninomiya, A. W. Thomas and K. Yazaki, Phys. Rev. D94, no.3, 034004 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Ninomiya, W

    Y. Ninomiya, W. Bentz and I. C. Clo¨ et, Phys. Rev. C96, no.4, 045206 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    M. E. Carrillo-Serrano, W. Bentz, I. C. Clo¨ et and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C92, no.1, 015212 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    P. T. P. Hutauruk, T. Mart and K. Tsushima, [arXiv:2508.20501

  21. [29]

    Bentz and A

    W. Bentz and A. W. Thomas, Nucl. Phys. A696, 138-172 (2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    K. Noro, W. Bentz, I. C. Clo¨ et and T. Kitabayashi, Phys. Rev. C109, no.2, 025205 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    S. R. Amendolia, B. Badelek, G. Batignani, G. A. Beck, F. Bedeschi, E. H. Bellamy, E. Bertolucci, D. Bettoni, H. Bilokon and G. Bologna,et al.Phys. Lett. B146, 116-120 (1984)

    1984

  24. [32]

    S. R. Amendoliaet al.[NA7], Nucl. Phys. B277, 168 (1986)

    1986

  25. [33]

    Hornet al.[Jefferson Lab F(pi)-2], Phys

    T. Hornet al.[Jefferson Lab F(pi)-2], Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 192001 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    Tadevosyanet al.[Jefferson Lab F(pi)], Phys

    V. Tadevosyanet al.[Jefferson Lab F(pi)], Phys. Rev. C75, 055205 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    G. M. Huberet al.[Jefferson Lab], Phys. Rev. C78, 045203 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    H. P. Bloket al.[Jefferson Lab], Phys. Rev. C78, 045202 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Z. F. Cui, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts and S. M. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B822, 136631 (2021). [arXiv:2108.04948 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Patrignaniet al.[Particle Data Group], Chin

    C. Patrignaniet al.[Particle Data Group], Chin. Phys. C40, no.10, 100001 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    X. Gao, N. Karthik, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, S. Syritsyn and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D104, no.11, 114515 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Gifari, P

    G. Gifari, P. T. P. Hutauruk and T. Mart, Phys. Rev. D110, no.1, 1 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    G¨ ulpers, G

    V. G¨ ulpers, G. von Hippel and H. Wittig, Phys. Rev. D89, no.9, 094503 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    G¨ ulpers, G

    V. G¨ ulpers, G. von Hippel and H. Wittig, Eur. Phys. J. A51, no.12, 158 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Puhan and H

    S. Puhan and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D111, no.11, 114039 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    X. Wang, Z. Xing, J. Kang, K. Raya and L. Chang, Phys. Rev. D106, no.5, 054016 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.