Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

An improved moment sum rule uniquely fixes the continuum threshold and ground-state mass without subjective Borel-window criteria.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 04:54 UTC pith:AEKCHG6U

load-bearing objection Solid methodological fix for moment sum rules that restores duality and removes most of the usual window-picking; residual subjectivity sits only in the linear η-extrapolation and ε choice. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11536 v1 pith:AEKCHG6U submitted 2026-07-13 hep-ph hep-ex

An improved moment QCD sum rule

Jin-Peng Zhang , Xu-Liang Chen , Wei Chen This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords QCD sum rulesmoment sum rulesLaplace sum rulesquark-hadron dualitycontinuum thresholdtetraquarkoperator product expansion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

QCD sum rules extract hadron masses from correlators, but the two standard versions disagree and each has a built-in flaw: Laplace sum rules need hand-chosen windows of OPE convergence and pole dominance, while ordinary moment sum rules cannot extract the current coupling and systematically overestimate the ground-state mass. This paper shows that the mass discrepancy arises because conventional moments integrate the OPE spectral density to infinity, thereby including higher states. By cutting the integral at a continuum threshold s0 (i.e., imposing quark-hadron duality) and requiring that the OPE-side continuum ratios δ'n and δ'n+1 become equal, the improved moment sum rule recovers a mass formula that depends on three parameters (s0, Q0^{2}, n). Dependence conditions that force the extracted mass to be stable under small changes of the two unphysical parameters Q0^{2} and n, together with an extrapolation of the approximation residual η to its ideal value 1, then fix a unique optimal s0 and therefore a unique mass and coupling. Applied to a light pseudoscalar tetraquark current the procedure yields s0 = 3.42 ± 0.03 GeV^{2} and a mass that matches the authors’ earlier Laplace result, without ever invoking the usual subjective windows.

Core claim

The improved moment sum rule, obtained by truncating the OPE spectral integral at s0 and imposing the matching condition δ'n(s0,Q0^{2})≈δ'n+1(s0,Q0^{2}) together with quantitative stability of mX^{2} under variations of the auxiliary parameters Q0^{2} and n, uniquely determines both the continuum threshold and the ground-state mass (and simultaneously the current coupling) without any ad-hoc OPE-convergence or pole-dominance criteria.

What carries the argument

The OPE-side approximation residual η(s0,Q0^{2},n)=δ'n/δ'n+1 together with the two dependence inequalities |∂mX^{2}/∂Q0^{2}|≤ε and |∂mX^{2}/∂n|≤ε; these jointly convert the three free parameters into a discrete sequence that can be extrapolated to the unique physical point η=1.

Load-bearing premise

That a linear extrapolation of the discrete sequence of minima (s0★, ηmin) obtained over finite n-intervals correctly recovers the physical continuum threshold when η reaches 1.

What would settle it

Repeat the entire numerical procedure on the same OPE expression with a different functional form for the extrapolation (quadratic or exponential) or with a substantially different tolerance ε; if the extrapolated s0 and mass shift by more than their quoted uncertainties, the uniqueness claim fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an improved moment QCD sum rule (IMSR) that restores quark-hadron duality to the conventional moment method. After truncating the OPE spectral integral at a continuum threshold s0, the authors introduce the OPE-side approximation δ′n(s0,Q0^{2})≈δ′n+1(s0,Q0^{2}) (mirroring the usual phenomenological approximation) and define dependence conditions |∂mX^{2}/∂Q0^{2}|≤ε and |∂mX^{2}/∂n|≤ε that quantify the influence of the unphysical parameters. The resulting procedure is claimed to fix both the optimal s0 and the ground-state mass (and, via Eq. (3.9), the current coupling) without the conventional OPE-convergence or pole-dominance windows. Applied to the same pseudoscalar udd̄s̄ tetraquark current previously studied with Laplace sum rules, the method yields s0=3.42±0.03 GeV^{2} and a mass consistent with the earlier LSR result. An appendix proves that the ratio η=δ′n/δ′n+1 is strictly greater than unity and monotonically decreasing in n under positivity of the spectral density.

Significance. If the procedure is robust, IMSR would remove a long-standing source of subjectivity in QCD sum-rule analyses and reconcile the historically discrepant mass predictions of the Laplace and moment formulations. The algebraic steps from the dualized moments to the mass formula (Eq. 3.6) and the coupling formula (Eq. 3.9) are clean, and the monotonicity proof in Appendix A is rigorous under standard positivity assumptions. The numerical scans are documented with explicit grids, ε values and n-intervals, which is a genuine improvement in transparency over many conventional sum-rule papers. The simultaneous extraction of the current coupling is a clear practical advantage over the conventional MSR. These strengths make the work a potentially useful methodological contribution to the non-perturbative toolkit, provided the residual freedom in the extrapolation step is better controlled.

major comments (3)
  1. Sec. 3.3 and Figs. 6–7: the uniqueness claim rests on a linear fit s0(η)=aη+b of the discrete sequence (s0★(ηmin),ηmin) followed by extrapolation to the ideal point η=1 (Eq. (4.4)). Nothing in the derivation or in the Appendix A monotonicity proof requires that the approach of s0★ to its limiting value be linear in η. The concrete tolerance ε that defines the allowed (Q0^{2},n) region is likewise free (the authors try 10^{-3}, 1/4 imes10^{-3}, 10^{-4}). The stability checks in Fig. 7 only probe step-size and ε variations inside the same linear ansatz; they do not test alternative extrapolants (e.g., quadratic, 1/n, or exponential). Without such tests the extrapolated s0 can shift and the claim that s0 is uniquely determined without ad-hoc criteria is overstated.
  2. Sec. 4 and comparison with Ref. [28]: the sole numerical illustration uses the identical OPE expression (Eq. (4.2)) and the same tetraquark current previously analyzed by the same group with Laplace sum rules. Once duality is restored, numerical agreement is partly expected and does not constitute an independent validation. A second, independent channel (e.g., a conventional light meson or a heavy-quark system with a known experimental mass) is needed to demonstrate that the IMSR procedure recovers a physical continuum threshold when the answer is not already known from the authors’ own LSR analysis.
  3. Eqs. (3.10)–(3.11): the dependence conditions are introduced as a quantitative measure of parametric independence, yet the common tolerance ε is chosen by hand and then tightened iteratively. The manuscript never derives a first-principles criterion for an acceptable ε, nor does it show how the final mass and coupling uncertainties propagate from the residual ε dependence. Without an error budget that includes this residual freedom, the quoted uncertainty s0=3.42±0.03 GeV^{2} understates the true systematic uncertainty of the method.
minor comments (4)
  1. Fig. 1 caption: the mass is written “mX=1.61 GeV^{2}”; the unit should be GeV.
  2. Eq. (2.11) and surrounding text: the critique of the conventional pole contribution is well taken, but a short remark on whether an analogous continuum-subtracted ratio can be defined inside IMSR would help the reader.
  3. Sec. 5: the observation that Q0^{2}/n remains approximately constant (≈1.1 GeV^{2}) inside the allowed region is interesting; a brief analytic argument relating this ratio to the Borel mass would strengthen the claimed equivalence of the two frameworks.
  4. References: several recent methodological papers on continuum-threshold optimization and inverse-problem sum rules are cited, but a short comparison with the variable-continuum-threshold approach of Ref. [15] would clarify the novelty relative to existing attempts to reduce subjectivity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: IMSR derivation and s0 extraction are self-contained from OPE + duality consistency; self-comparison to prior LSR is validation only, not a load-bearing input.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract; Sec. 5 (paragraphs comparing s0 and Borel window); Ref. [28]]
    "Applying the IMSR to a pseudoscalar udd¯s¯ tetraquark system, the results are in excellent agreement with our previous LSR analyses, validating the effectiveness of the proposed scheme. … The present result, s0=3.42±0.03 GeV^{2}, is fully consistent with the earlier value s0=3.3±0.2 GeV^{2}."

    The sole external benchmark used to claim that IMSR ‘validates’ and ‘eliminates subjectivity’ is the authors’ own prior LSR analysis of the identical current and OPE. The agreement is therefore partly expected once duality is restored, and the citation is not an independent, machine-checked or externally falsifiable result. However the citation is not load-bearing for the derivation of the mass formula or the η-extrapolation procedure itself; it only supports the post-hoc effectiveness claim. Hence only a minor elevation of the score.

full rationale

The core chain (Secs. 3.1–3.3) starts from the conventional moment ratio, inserts quark-hadron duality to truncate the OPE integral at s0 (Eqs. 3.1–3.2), imposes the consistency requirement δ′n(s0,Q0^{2}) oδ′n+1 so that η o1 (Eqs. 3.4–3.5, 3.12–3.14), and adds the dependence conditions | abla mX^{2}| o0 on the unphysical parameters (Eq. 3.11). The numerical procedure then scans the resulting (s0,Q0^{2},n) space, extracts the discrete sequence of ηmin minima, and linearly extrapolates s0(η) o1. None of these steps inserts the prior LSR mass or s0 of Ref. [28] as an input; the OPE spectral density is used once, and s0 and mX are re-determined. The linear ansatz and the concrete tolerance ε are free methodological choices (and therefore residual subjectivity), but they do not reduce any claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, nor do they rest on a uniqueness theorem or ansatz smuggled from overlapping authors. The only self-citation is the post-hoc numerical agreement with the authors’ earlier LSR result for the same current (Sec. 5 and abstract), which serves as external validation rather than a premise of the derivation. Hence the paper is essentially self-contained; circularity score remains at the minor-self-citation floor.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard QCD-sum-rule axioms (OPE, quark-hadron duality, narrow-resonance saturation) plus two paper-specific modeling choices: the quantitative tolerance ε that defines “independence” of unphysical parameters, and the assumption that a linear extrapolation of s0(η_min) to η=1 recovers the physical continuum threshold. No new dynamical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • tolerance ε = 1/4 imes 10^{-3} (primary), 10^{-4} (cross-check)
    Hand-chosen small number (10^{-3} down to 10^{-4}) that defines the allowed region of the unphysical parameters (Q0^{2},n); different ε values shrink or expand the viable s0 interval.
  • n-interval endpoints and step
    Discrete ranges [40,60]…[120,140] and step Δn=10 or 20 are chosen by the analyst; they control which (s0★,η_min) points enter the linear fit.
  • Q0^{2} grid spacing = 0.5–1 GeV^{2}
    Discretization step (½ or 1 GeV^{2}) used to scan the continuous Euclidean momentum; affects the precise location of the η minimum.
  • linear-fit coefficients a,b of s0(η)=aη+b = s0(η=1)=3.42±0.03 GeV^{2}
    The functional form of the extrapolation to η=1 is assumed linear; the intercept is the reported physical s0.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Quark-hadron duality: the continuum spectral density above s0 may be replaced by the OPE spectral density (global duality, Eq. 2.6).
    Standard working hypothesis of all QCD sum rules; invoked to truncate the moment integral and to equate δ′_n with δ_n.
  • domain assumption For sufficiently large n the continuum contamination ratios satisfy δ_n(sh,Q0^{2})≈δ_{n+1}(sh,Q0^{2}) (and likewise for the OPE-side δ′).
    Inherited from conventional moment sum rules; the paper elevates the OPE-side version to a quantitative constraint but does not derive it from first principles.
  • ad hoc to paper The extracted mass m_X must be essentially independent of the unphysical parameters Q0^{2} and n (dependence conditions Eq. 3.11).
    The quantitative form with a single tolerance ε is introduced by the authors; it replaces the traditional Borel-window criteria.
  • domain assumption Operator-product expansion truncated at dimension 8 is adequate for the chosen current and kinematics.
    Standard truncation used throughout the light-tetraquark sum-rule literature; higher-dimensional condensates are neglected.
  • domain assumption Narrow-resonance plus continuum parametrization of the phenomenological spectral density (Eq. 2.4).
    Universal assumption of QCD sum rules; excited-state and continuum contributions are absorbed into the duality threshold.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 22365 in / 3789 out tokens · 40463 ms · 2026-07-14T04:54:16.746635+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

QCD sum rules are among the most important non-perturbative tools in hadron physics, with the Laplace sum rule (LSR) and moment sum rule (MSR) being the two most commonly used formulations. Despite their widespread application, both approaches have significant shortcomings: the LSR relies on subjective criteria -- namely OPE convergence and pole dominance -- to constrain the parameter space, while the conventional MSR cannot extract the coupling constant of the interpolating current. More critically, the ground-state masses obtained from these two methods are often inconsistent. In this work, we propose an improved moment sum rule (IMSR) framework that resolves these issues simultaneously. Our method explicitly incorporates quark-hadron duality, which introduces the approximation condition on the OPE side and provides a natural a posteriori constraint on the parameters. We impose rigorous dependence conditions on the unphysical parameters $(Q^2_0,n)$ to quantify and control their influence. As a result, our framework uniquely determines both the optimal value of the duality parameter and the ground-state mass, without invoking any ad hoc or subjective criteria. It also allows for the simultaneous extraction of the current coupling. Applying the IMSR to a pseudoscalar $ud\Bar{d}\Bar{s}$ tetraquark system, the results are in excellent agreement with our previous LSR analyses, validating the effectiveness of the proposed scheme. The IMSR method substantially enhances the robustness and reliability of QCD sum rules, effectively eliminating the subjectivity that has long plagued conventional formulations.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 31 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Shifman, A.I

    M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov,QCD and Resonance Physics. Theoretical Foundations,Nucl. Phys. B147(1979) 385

    1979

  2. [2]

    Shifman, A.I

    M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov,QCD and Resonance Physics: Applications,Nucl. Phys. B147(1979) 448

    1979

  3. [3]

    Reinders, H

    L.J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki,Hadron Properties from QCD Sum Rules,Phys. Rept.127(1985) 1

    1985

  4. [4]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S.-L. Zhu,The hidden-charm pentaquark and tetraquark states,Phys. Rept.639(2016) 1 [1601.02092]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Lebed, R.E

    R.F. Lebed, R.E. Mitchell and E.S. Swanson,Heavy-Quark QCD Exotica,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.93(2017) 143 [1610.04528]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Esposito, A

    A. Esposito, A. Pilloni and A.D. Polosa,Multiquark Resonances,Phys. Rept.668(2017) 1 [1611.07920]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, U.-G. Meißner, Q. Wang, Q. Zhao and B.-S. Zou,Hadronic molecules,Rev. Mod. Phys.90(2018) 015004 [1705.00141]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Liu, H.-X

    Y.-R. Liu, H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu and S.-L. Zhu,Pentaquark and Tetraquark states, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.107(2019) 237 [1903.11976]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C.-P. Shen, C.E. Thomas et al.,The XY Zstates: experimental and theoretical status and perspectives,Phys. Rept.873(2020) 1 [1907.07583]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y.-R. Liu and S.-L. Zhu,An updated review of the new hadron states,Rept. Prog. Phys.86(2023) 026201 [2204.02649]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    L. Meng, B. Wang, G.-J. Wang and S.-L. Zhu,Chiral perturbation theory for heavy hadrons and chiral effective field theory for heavy hadronic molecules,Phys. Rept.1019(2023) 1 [2204.08716]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Liu, Y.-W

    M.-Z. Liu, Y.-W. Pan, Z.-W. Liu, T.-W. Wu, J.-X. Lu and L.-S. Geng,Three ways to decipher the nature of exotic hadrons: Multiplets, three-body hadronic molecules, and correlation functions,Phys. Rept.1108(2025) 1 [2404.06399]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Wang,Review of the QCD sum rules for exotic states,Front

    Z.-G. Wang,Review of the QCD sum rules for exotic states,Front. Phys. (Beijing)21(2026) 016300 [2502.11351]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Leinweber,QCD sum rules for skeptics,Annals Phys.254(1997) 328 [nucl-th/9510051]

    D.B. Leinweber,QCD sum rules for skeptics,Annals Phys.254(1997) 328 [nucl-th/9510051]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  15. [15]

    Carvunis, F

    A. Carvunis, F. Mahmoudi and Y. Monceaux,Potential of light-cone sum rules without semiglobal quark-hadron duality,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 114008 [2404.01290]. – 18 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Li and H

    H.-n. Li and H. Umeeda,QCD sum rules with spectral densities solved in inverse problems, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 114014 [2006.16593]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Xiong, T

    A.-S. Xiong, T. Wei and F.-S. Yu,Inverse Problem Approach for Non-Perturbative QCD: Foundation,2211.13753

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Li,Dispersive analysis of glueball masses,Phys

    H.-n. Li,Dispersive analysis of glueball masses,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 114017 [2109.04956]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Li,Dispersive derivation of the pion distribution amplitude,Phys

    H.-n. Li,Dispersive derivation of the pion distribution amplitude,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 034015 [2205.06746]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Li,Dispersive Analysis of Excited Glueball States,Chin

    H.-n. Li,Dispersive Analysis of Excited Glueball States,Chin. Phys. Lett.41(2024) 101101 [2408.06738]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Zhao, Y.-P

    Z.-X. Zhao, Y.-P. Xing and R.-H. Li,A progress in the inverse matrix method in QCD sum rules,Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) 1105 [2407.09819]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Ou-Yang, P

    Z.-X. Ou-Yang, P. Gubler, M. Oka, G.-J. Wang and J.-J. Wu,Resonance sum rules: An application to the square-well potential,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 114034 [2509.24336]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Colangelo and A

    P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian,QCD sum rules, a modern perspective,hep-ph/0010175

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    T. Kojo, A. Hayashigaki and D. Jido,Pentaquark state in pole-dominated QCD sum rules, Phys. Rev. C74(2006) 045206 [hep-ph/0602004]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  25. [25]

    Lucha, D

    W. Lucha, D. Melikhov and S. Simula,Systematic uncertainties of hadron parameters obtained with QCD sum rules,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 036002 [0705.0470]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  26. [26]

    Shifman,Quark hadron duality, in8th International Symposium on Heavy Flavor Physics, vol

    M.A. Shifman,Quark hadron duality, in8th International Symposium on Heavy Flavor Physics, vol. 3, (Singapore), pp. 1447–1494, World Scientific, 7, 2000, DOI [hep-ph/0009131]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  27. [27]

    Shifman,QCD sum rules: Bridging the gap between short and large distances,Nucl

    M. Shifman,QCD sum rules: Bridging the gap between short and large distances,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.207-208(2010) 298 [1101.1122]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  28. [28]

    Zhang, X.-L

    J.-P. Zhang, X.-L. Chen, Z.-X. Ou-Yang, X. Yu, W. Chen and J.-J. Wu,Unraveling K(1690) as a pseudoscalar udd¯s¯tetraquark state,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 094047 [2507.05726]. [29]Particle Data Groupcollaboration,Review of particle physics,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 030001

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Narison,QCD parameter correlations from heavy quarkonia,Int

    S. Narison,QCD parameter correlations from heavy quarkonia,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33 (2018) 1850045 [1801.00592]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Narison,QCD condensates andαs fromτ-decay: Summary,J

    S. Narison,QCD condensates andαs fromτ-decay: Summary,J. Subatomic Part. Cosmol.3 (2025) 100038 [2501.08369]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Jin, J.G

    H.Y. Jin, J.G. Korner and T.G. Steele,Improved determination of the mass of the 1-+ light hybrid meson from QCD sum rules,Phys. Rev. D67(2003) 014025 [hep-ph/0211304]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  32. [32]

    Huang, H.-Y

    Z.-R. Huang, H.-Y. Jin and Z.-F. Zhang,New predictions on the mass of the1 −+ light hybrid meson from QCD sum rules,JHEP04(2015) 004 [1411.2224]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  33. [33]

    Di Giacomo, K

    A. Di Giacomo, K. Fabricius and G. Paffuti,Trilinear Gluon Condensation Parameter From Lattice QCD,Phys. Lett. B118(1982) 129

    1982

  34. [34]

    Benmerrouche, G

    M. Benmerrouche, G. Orlandini and T.G. Steele,Constraints on QCD sum rules from the Holder inequalities,Phys. Lett. B356(1995) 573 [hep-ph/9507304]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  35. [35]

    Xu, X.-L

    G.-F. Xu, X.-L. Chen, J.-P. Zhang, N. Li and W. Chen,Possible bound states in the triple-η c and triple-J/ψsystems,Chin. Phys. Lett.42(2025) 070201 [2504.08665]. – 19 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Li, W.-Y

    S.-H. Li, W.-Y. Lai and H.-Y. Jin,Probing Excitedq¯qMesons via QCD Sum Rules, 2512.16637

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Li, Z.-R

    S.-H. Li, Z.-R. Huang, W. Chen and H.-Y. Jin,Revising the mass of light hybrid mesons: NLO QCD sum rules point toϕ(2170) as a prime candidate,JHEP03(2026) 087 [2506.22412]

    arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Chen, X.-L

    Z.-Z. Chen, X.-L. Chen, P.-F. Yang and W. Chen,P-wave fully charm and fully bottom tetraquark states,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 094011 [2402.03117]. – 20 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024