Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

The nucleon structure from an AdS/QCD model in the Veneziano limit

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The VQCD holographic model, with quark flavor included, yields the proton mass spectrum, deep-inelastic structure functions, electromagnetic form factors, and gravitational form factors from a single five-dimensional background, matching…

desk verdict An exploratory application of VQCD to proton DIS and gravitational form factors, but the "excellent agreement" claim is undercut by per-observable parameter tuning and an unproven delta-function approximation. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00771 v1 pith:GTUNW3AH submitted 2025-02-02 nucl-th hep-ph

Jiali Deng (CCNU) , Defu Hou (CCNU) This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-ph
keywords holographicQCDVQCDmodelprotonmassspectrumdeepinelasticscatteringstructurefunctionselectromagneticformfactorsgravitationalBjorkenx
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 uses the holographic VQCD model, a five-dimensional gravity description of QCD that includes quark flavor through a tachyon Dirac-Born-Infeld action, to compute four aspects of proton structure from one background: the mass spectrum, the deep-inelastic structure function F2, the electromagnetic Dirac and Pauli form factors, and the gravitational form factors A and B. The central claim is that the same model, with a small set of parameters, reproduces experimental and lattice values across all four sectors, and therefore offers a practical way to extract nucleon properties from QCD-like holography. The key improvement over earlier holographic treatments is that quark flavor is built into the metric and the fields that propagate on it, which is what makes the description of the proton's internal structure more realistic.

What carries the argument

The central object is the VQCD background: a five-dimensional metric ds2 = $e^{{2A(z)}}$(−dt2 + d\vec{x}^2 + dz2) obtained by solving Einstein's equations together with a gluon potential Vg(λ) and a flavor tachyon DBI action Vf(λ, τ). The proton spinor reduces to a Schrödinger-like equation, −φ''_{R/L}(z) + [$m5^{2}$ $e^{{2A_S(z)}}$ ± m5 $e^{{A_S(z)}}$ A_S'(z)]φ_{R/L}(z) = $M_n^{2}$ φ_{R/L}(z), whose eigenfunctions are both the target proton wave function and the final-state hadron wave functions. Each observable is an overlap integral of these wave functions with bulk propagators: a photon field φ(z) for electromagnetic form factors, a graviton field H(q2, z) for gravitational form factors, and a phase-space density (∂$M_n^{2}$/∂n)^{−1} for deep-inelastic structure functions. The mechanism that carries the argument is that one dynamically determined metric, with flavor effects, supplies every wave function and propagator used in the four calculations.

What would settle it

Compute the deep-inelastic structure function with the full phase-space integral over Kaluza-Klein states, keeping the n = 1 final state for x = 0.56 and 0.65; if the predicted F2 no longer follows the measured high-x data, the reported agreement depends on those modeling choices.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the VQCD model works because the proton can be treated as a Kaluza-Klein mode of a five-dimensional Dirac fermion in a dynamically deformed AdS space, with the five-dimensional mass m5 = |Δcan − 2| + γ corrected by an anomalous dimension. Solving the resulting Schrödinger-like equation gives the proton ground state and its excited states with errors under 3 percent relative to experimental masses. The deep-inelastic structure function F2(x, Q2) follows from the same wave functions and a bulk photon field, with an effective coupling fitted for each Bjorken x. Electromagnetic form factors are derived from a photon equation of motion that includes flavor-field background effects, and gravitational form factors from a graviton with an effective mass m generated by chiral symmetry breaking. The paper claims that these outputs agree with data and lattice results, with the flavor-aware photon equation giving better large-Q2 behavior than the comparisons shown.

Load-bearing premise

The structure-function result assumes that the final-state phase space can be replaced by a smooth density formula and that the ground-state hadron must be excluded at x = 0.56 and 0.65; if either choice is wrong, the apparent agreement with scattering data changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The proton's excited-state masses are predicted within 3 percent, so fixing the anomalous dimension from the ground state yields testable values for the Roper and higher resonances.
  • Flavor effects in the electromagnetic field equation give proton form factors that track experiment to larger Q2 than the light-front holographic comparison does.
  • Gravitational form factors A(Q2) and B(Q2) match lattice results when the graviton carries an effective mass, with different values of m for the two form factors.
  • The effective coupling in F2 decreases as Bjorken x increases, and the ground-state final hadron must be excluded only at the lower x values studied, matching the physical picture that smaller x leaves the final system with more energy.
  • The same parameter set c = 0.25, λ0 = 58π2, m5 = 0.279 GeV serves the mass spectrum and gravitational form factors, while a different m5 = 0.229 GeV is used for the deep-inelastic final states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the VQCD wave functions are as accurate as the paper claims, the same overlap-integral machinery should apply to the neutron using the SU(6) effective charges quoted here, giving testable predictions for neutron electromagnetic and gravitational form factors.
  • The need for different effective graviton masses for A(Q2) and B(Q2) suggests the single-propagator ansatz is a placeholder for a fuller tensor decomposition; a natural next step is to compute the D-term form factor from the same background.
  • The structure-function agreement rests on a fitted coupling for each x and on the phase-space approximation; replacing Eq. (50) with an explicit sum over Kaluza-Klein final states would give a sharper test of whether the underlying wave functions, not just the fitted couplings, are correct.
  • The same flavor-improved background could be used to compute parton distribution moments or meson structure functions, providing independent checks of the quark-flavor effects the model claims to capture.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript employs the holographic VQCD model, a deformed AdS/QCD construction with dynamical flavor effects, to compute four sets of proton observables: the mass spectrum, deep inelastic structure functions, electromagnetic form factors, and gravitational form factors. For each observable the authors report agreement with experimental data or lattice QCD and conclude that the VQCD model is validated as a robust tool for studying proton properties. The mass spectrum is obtained from a Schrödinger-like equation for bulk spinor modes with an anomalous-dimension-corrected five-dimensional mass, the structure function is computed by summing over Kaluza-Klein final states, and the form factors are extracted from bulk photon and graviton equations of motion.

Significance. The ambition of treating mass spectrum, DIS, electromagnetic form factors, and gravitational form factors within a single holographic framework is scientifically valuable, and the numerical implementation of the VQCD background is nontrivial. The excited-state mass splittings in Table I and the qualitative behavior of the form-factor curves are genuine model outputs that could be of interest to the holographic QCD community. However, the central claim of simultaneous predictive power is not currently supported: each observable is tuned through parameters fitted to the data (or to the analogue observable), and the structure-function section uses a five-dimensional mass different from that used for the mass spectrum. If the claims were established, the result would be significant; in the present form, the paper demonstrates a collection of holographic fits rather than a validated predictive model.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (23), Table I] The five-dimensional mass m5 is fixed by requiring the ground-state proton mass to match experiment: Eq. (23) introduces the anomalous dimension γ, and the text states that γ is fixed by the ground-state mass. Consequently, the ground-state row of Table I (0.107% error) is a fit, not a prediction. The meaningful predictive content is limited to the excitation spacings for n=2 through n=6, which is a legitimate but much weaker result. The paper should not count the fitted ground state as evidence of 'excellent agreement' and should phrase the mass-spectrum claim accordingly.
  2. [Section IV, Eqs. (43)-(51), Fig. 3] The structure-function calculation rests on three unsupported adjustments that directly affect the claimed agreement with SLAC data. First, Eq. (50) replaces the momentum-conservation delta function by a discretized density of states, δ(M_X^2 − (p+q)^2) ∝ (∂M_n^2/∂n)^{-1} ∼ (2π s^{1/2}Λ)^{-1}, without derivation, a specified prefactor, or a stability check. Second, the target proton is described with m5 = 0.229 GeV in this section, whereas the mass-spectrum section uses m5 = 0.279 GeV to reproduce the physical proton mass; the text's justification that the final DIS state is not an excited proton does not explain why the initial-state proton should require a different five-dimensional mass. Third, the effective coupling g_eff is refitted separately for each x value (2.92, 2.42, 1.66, 1.08), and the ground-state final hadron is excluded for x = 0.56 and 0.65 with only a verbal justification. The curves in Fig. 3 are therefore not predictions of the VQCD model, and the agreement cannot validate the model as claimed.
  3. [Section VI, Eqs. (63)-(68), Figs. 7-8] The gravitational form factors are obtained from a homogeneous graviton equation of motion, Eq. (63), that contains an effective graviton mass m introduced as a free parameter. The paper sets m^2 = 0.02 for A(Q^2) and m^2 = 0.08 for B(Q^2) and justifies the difference by assuming that the two form factors are dominated by different components of the proton energy-momentum tensor. The text itself acknowledges that the right-hand side of the graviton equation is zero and calls this 'incomplete'. With two free parameters and an unverified assumption about the energy-momentum components, the lattice agreement in Figs. 7 and 8 is a fit rather than a test of the VQCD model.
  4. [Section V, Eqs. (54) and (56)] The absolute normalization of the electromagnetic form factors is not established. Equations (54) and (56) express F1 and F2 as integrals over the bulk spinor modes χ_{R/L}, but the paper never states the normalization condition for these modes or for the electromagnetic bulk field. Without such a normalization, the value of the Dirac form factor at Q^2 = 0 (the proton charge) is not fixed by the model. In addition, the effective charges in Eq. (57) are imported from the SU(6) quark model rather than derived within VQCD. The comparison with data in Figs. 5 and 6 is therefore qualitative, not a quantitative prediction.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (6)] The gluon potential is written with sqrt(1 + Log(1 + λ/λ0)) in the denominator; please clarify whether the logarithm is meant to be squared, as in the standard VQCD literature, and define all symbols consistently.
  2. [Page 12, after Eq. (52)] The sentence 'the final state remains a nucleus' should read 'a nucleon'.
  3. [Section VI, paragraph before Eq. (68)] The text says 'Fig. 7 shows the relationship between proton gravitational form factor B(Q^2)' and then presents Fig. 8 for B(Q^2); the figure references should be corrected.
  4. [Eqs. (16)-(17)] The mode decomposition is notationally confusing: Ψ^{(4)}(x^μ) is introduced, but the expansion is written in terms of Ψ_n^{R/L}(x^μ)χ_n^{R/L}(z); the relation between these objects and the normalization convention should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Eq. (50)] The Mandelstam variable s and the scale Λ are not defined in the text, which makes the proposed discretization of the delta function difficult to assess.
  6. [Table I] The experimental masses are quoted as ranges (e.g., 1.360 to 1.380 GeV), but the percentage errors in the last column are computed without explaining which value in the range is used as the reference.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The structure-function and gravitational-form-factor 'agreements' are partly fitted: g_eff is fit per Bjorken x to the same F2 data, and the graviton mass m^2 is a free parameter chosen separately for A and B; only the excited-state spectrum and the q^2 shapes carry independent predictive content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Eq. (51), Figure 3]
    "The effective coupling constants are obtained by fitting the proton structure function, and the corresponding coupling constants are 2.92, 2.42, 1.66, and 1.08 for x from small to large."

    Equation (51) defines F2(x,q^2) = g_eff^2/(8 M_X) (q^2/x)(I_R^2+I_L^2), so g_eff is an overall multiplicative normalization for the F2 curve at each fixed x. Fitting g_eff to the experimental proton structure function at those same x values forces the magnitude of each theoretical curve to match the data; the plotted 'agreement' at x = 0.56, 0.65, 0.75, and 0.85 is therefore partly true by construction. Only the q^2 dependence of each curve is an independent prediction. Presenting this as validation of VQCD without separating the fitted normalization from the predicted shape is a fitted-input-called-prediction step.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section VI, Eqs. (63)-(68), Figures 7-8]
    "In our model, the background spacetime is not a pure AdS spacetime, it exists in a matter field (i.e. quark flavor and proton action), so we introduce an effective mass m, which is a free parameter. ... solid line is our result with m2 = 0.02. ... solid line is our result with m2 = 0.08."

    The graviton equation of motion (63) contains m^2, and the paper explicitly calls m a free parameter. It sets m^2 = 0.02 for A(Q^2) and m^2 = 0.08 for B(Q^2), one tuned parameter per lattice curve, and then reports consistency with lattice data. The two form-factor calculations are therefore benchmarked with parameters chosen after the fact; their agreement with lattice is a fit-quality statement rather than a parameter-free VQCD prediction. The extra freedom is essential to the quoted agreement, so the central validation claim is weakened by construction.

full rationale

The paper's strongest claim is that VQCD is validated as a robust tool for proton properties because several observables agree with experiment and lattice QCD. The mass spectrum is not circular in a damaging sense: m5 (through the anomalous dimension gamma) is fixed by the proton ground state, and the excited-state masses are then genuine predictions; the n = 1 entry is exact by construction, but the paper does not present the ground state as a prediction. The structure function calculation is partially circular: at each Bjorken x, the effective coupling g_eff in Eq. (51) is fitted to the same structure-function data shown in Figure 3, so the overall normalization of each F2 curve is forced. What remains predictive is the q^2 shape, which is independent content. The gravitational form factors are also fit-quality results: the effective graviton mass m is a free parameter set separately (0.02 for A, 0.08 for B) to obtain the agreement with lattice. Additional load-bearing modeling choices, such as the discretized delta-function approximation in Eq. (50), the x-dependent exclusion of the ground-state final hadron, and the use of m5 = 0.229 GeV in Section IV versus m5 = 0.279 GeV in Section III, are correctness risks and parameter inconsistencies rather than construction-circularity per se. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: the references for the delta-function form are external, not the authors' own prior work. Overall, the central 'excellent agreement' claim is partly forced by per-observable fitting, giving a partial-circularity score of 6.

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

The central claims rest on the VQCD action and background imported from Refs. [59-62], on the AdS/QCD dictionary for spinors and currents, on several fitted parameters (gamma/m5, geff per x, effective graviton mass), and on unproven approximations (DIS spectral density, energy-momentum tensor ansatz). The free-parameter count is high relative to the number of observables.

free parameters (7)
  • anomalous dimension gamma (entering m5 = |Delta_can - 2| + gamma) = implicitly via m5 = 0.279 GeV for mass spectrum; m5 = 0.229 GeV for structure functions
    Chosen to reproduce the ground-state proton mass; a different value is effectively used in the DIS section.
  • five-dimensional proton mass m5 = 0.279 GeV (Secs. III, VI) and 0.229 GeV (Sec. IV)
    Fixed by the ground-state mass but not kept consistent across sections.
  • effective coupling constants geff in F2 = 2.92, 2.42, 1.66, 1.08 for x = 0.56, 0.65, 0.75, 0.85
    Fitted to SLAC structure function data at each x value.
  • effective graviton mass squared m^2 = 0.02 GeV^2 (form factor A), 0.08 GeV^2 (form factor B)
    Free parameters chosen to match lattice results separately for A and B.
  • IR asymptotics coefficient c = 0.25 GeV^2
    Chosen for the soft-wall-like background appearing in A(z) = -c z^2.
  • UV regulator lambda0 = 58 pi^2
    Free parameter in the gluon potential to avoid higher-order UV terms.
  • xf = Nf/Nc (Veneziano ratio) = not stated
    The ratio is central to VQCD but its numerical value is never given in the paper.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT duality maps the proton to a massive spinor field in AdS5.
    Foundational assumption of the holographic approach, used throughout the paper.
  • domain assumption The VQCD action (Eqs. 2-8) describes QCD with finite xf.
    Taken from Refs. [59-62]; the potential forms and their QCD match are imported without derivation.
  • domain assumption IR asymptotic expansion A(z) = -c z^2 and soft-wall-like boundary conditions.
    Used to solve the background and the Schrodinger-like equation; c is chosen, not derived.
  • domain assumption The DIS phase-space delta function takes the approximate form of Eq. (50).
    Imported from Refs. [23,24] as an approximation for the spectral density.
  • ad hoc to paper The proton energy-momentum tensor is dominated by the simple fermion term Eq. (65).
    A minimal ansatz; the Lagrangian term L is not specified and the tensor is not derived from the VQCD action.
  • ad hoc to paper The graviton equation with effective mass m and zero source (Eq. 63).
    The right-hand side source is set to zero and an ad hoc mass is introduced because the authors state the source term is 'incomplete'.
  • ad hoc to paper Different effective masses for A(Q^2) and B(Q^2) correspond to different components of T^{mu nu}.
    Introduced to justify why m^2 = 0.02 and m^2 = 0.08 are needed for the two form factors.
invented entities (1)
  • effective graviton mass m
    purpose: Compensates for the neglected source term in the graviton equation of motion and makes the gravitational form factors match lattice data.
    No independent prediction or mechanism is given; two different values are fitted for A and B, so this is an ad hoc parameter wearing the guise of an entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The nucleon structure from an AdS/QCD model in the Veneziano limit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GTUNW3AH

@misc{pith2026250200771,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The nucleon structure from an AdS/QCD model in the Veneziano limit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GTUNW3AH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00771}
}
abstract

We employ the VQCD model, a holographic approach that dynamically simulates essential QCD characteristics, including linear mass spectra, confinement, asymptotic freedom, and magnetic charge screening, while incorporating quark flavor effects. Using this model, we first calculate the proton mass spectrum and the wave function, incorporating anomalous dimensions to refine our results. Next, we compute the proton structure functions across a range of Bjorken $x$ values using consistent parameters. Furthermore, we derive the proton electromagnetic form factor by solving the electromagnetic field's motion equation, accounting for background effects, and demonstrate qualitative consistency with results from free electromagnetic fields coupled to fermions. Finally, we calculate the gravitational form factors by introducing an effective graviton mass $m$ arising from chiral symmetry breaking and the proton energy-momentum tensor. Our calculations yield results that are in excellent agreement with experimental data and lattice QCD computations, validating the VQCD model as a robust tool for studying proton properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00771 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Deep inelastic scattering of a proton and an electron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Chiral wave functions of the target proton with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison between our theoretical results and SLAC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Elastic scattering of a proton and an electron by exch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of Dirac form factor our result with exper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of Pauli form factor our result with exper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of gravitational form factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison of gravitational form factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Gravitational form factors of the pion in light-front holographic QCD

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An effective light-front wave function whose five-dimensional piece comes from holographic QCD yields pion gravitational form factors A(Q^{2}) and D(Q^{2}) that match lattice results after parameter tuning.

  2. Nucleon spectra and wave functions from holographic models with dual Einstein-dilaton and Starobinsky-dilaton gravities

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Adding a fitted λ parameter and Starobinsky αR² corrections lets holographic Einstein-dilaton models reproduce the nucleon radial-excitation spectrum with errors as low as 0.29%.

  3. Proton Structure from a Soft-Wall Holographic QCD Model: Mass Spectrum, Form Factors, and Mechanical Properties

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A soft-wall holographic model reproduces proton spectroscopy, form factors, radii, and J/ψ photoproduction, though the gravitational form factor D is an input-dependent ansatz.

  4. Mechanical properties of the proton from a deformed AdS holographic model

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A deformed AdS holographic model with a Dirac proton computes the gluon gravitational form factor A in good agreement with lattice QCD after normalizing the zero point, but the D-term and derived pressure/shear distri...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Guidal, H

    M. Guidal, H. Moutarde, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Rept. Prog. Phys. 76, 066202 (2013) , arXiv:1303.6600 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998) , arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Witten, Adv

    E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253 (1998) , arXiv:hep-th/9802150

    arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    Aharony, S

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y . Oz, Phys. Rept. 323, 183 (2000) , arXiv:hep-th/9905111

    arXiv 2000

  5. [5]

    Karch, E

    A. Karch, E. Katz, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D 74, 015005 (2006) , arXiv:hep-ph/0602229

    arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    S. He, M. Huang, Q.-S. Yan, and Y. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. C 66, 187 (2010) , arXiv:0710.0988 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    Polchinski and M

    J. Polchinski and M. J. Strassler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 031601 (2002) , arXiv:hep-th/0109174

    arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    Boschi-Filho and N

    H. Boschi-Filho and N. R. F. Braga, JHEP 05, 009 (2003) , arXiv:hep-th/0212207

    arXiv 2003

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Georgi and H

    H. Georgi and H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. D 9, 416 (1974)

    1974

  2. [10]

    Jaroszewicz, Phys

    T. Jaroszewicz, Phys. Lett. B 116, 291 (1982)

    1982

  3. [11]

    Erlich, E

    J. Erlich, E. Katz, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 261602 (2005) , arXiv:hep-ph/0501128

    2005 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Da Rold and A

    L. Da Rold and A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B 721, 79 (2005) , arXiv:hep-ph/0501218

    2005 arXiv

  5. [13]

    G. F. de Teramond and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 201601 (2005) , arXiv:hep-th/0501022

    2005 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Li and B.-Q

    Z. Li and B.-Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 89, 015014 (2014) , arXiv:1312.3451 [hep-ph] . 20

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Vega and I

    A. Vega and I. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 79, 055003 (2009) , arXiv:0811.4638 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Branz, T

    T. Branz, T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, I. Schmidt, an d A. Vega, Phys. Rev. D 82, 074022 (2010) , arXiv:1008.0268 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gutsche, V

    T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, I. Schmidt, and A. Vega, Phys. Rev. D 85, 076003 (2012) , arXiv:1108.0346 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Z. Fang, D. Li, and Y.-L. Wu, Phys. Lett. B 754, 343 (2016) , arXiv:1602.00379 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Andreev, Phys

    O. Andreev, Phys. Rev. D 73, 107901 (2006) , arXiv:hep-th/0603170

    2006 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Forkel, M

    H. Forkel, M. Beyer, and T. Frederico, JHEP 07, 077 (2007) , arXiv:0705.1857 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Rinaldi and V

    M. Rinaldi and V. Vento, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 151 (2018) , arXiv:1710.09225 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Folco Capossoli, M

    E. Folco Capossoli, M. A. Mart ´ ın Contreras, D. Li, A. Ve ga, and H. Boschi-Filho, Chin. Phys. C 44, 064104 (2020) , arXiv:1903.06269 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Polchinski and M

    J. Polchinski and M. J. Strassler, JHEP 05, 012 (2003) , arXiv:hep-th/0209211

    2003 arXiv

  16. [24]

    C. A. Ballon Bayona, H. Boschi-Filho, and N. R. F. Braga, JHEP 10, 088 (2008) , arXiv:0712.3530 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  17. [25]

    C. A. Ballon Bayona, H. Boschi-Filho, and N. R. F. Braga, JHEP 03, 064 (2008) , arXiv:0711.0221 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  18. [26]

    B. Pire, C. Roiesnel, L. Szymanowski, and S. Wallon, Phys. Lett. B 670, 84 (2008) , arXiv:0805.4346 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Taliotis, Nucl

    A. Taliotis, Nucl. Phys. A 830, 299C (2009) , arXiv:0907.4204 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Yoshida, Prog

    Y. Yoshida, Prog. Theor. Phys. 123, 79 (2010) , arXiv:0902.1015 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Cornalba, M

    L. Cornalba, M. S. Costa, and J. Penedones, JHEP 03, 133 (2010) , arXiv:0911.0043 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  22. [30]

    R. C. Brower, M. Djuric, I. Sarcevic, and C.-I. Tan, JHEP 11, 051 (2010) , arXiv:1007.2259 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Koile, N

    E. Koile, N. Kovensky, and M. Schvellinger, JHEP 05, 001 (2015) , arXiv:1412.6509 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Gao and Z.-G

    J.-H. Gao and Z.-G. Mou, Phys. Rev. D 90, 075018 (2014) , arXiv:1406.7576 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Folco Capossoli and H

    E. Folco Capossoli and H. Boschi-Filho, Phys. Rev. D 92, 126012 (2015) , arXiv:1509.01761 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Folco Capossoli, M

    E. Folco Capossoli, M. A. Mart ´ ın Contreras, D. Li, A. Ve ga, and H. Boschi-Filho, Phys. Rev. D 102, 086004 (2020) , arXiv:2007.09283 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Tahery, X

    S. Tahery, X. Wang, and X. Chen, Chin. Phys. C 47, 013101 (2023) , arXiv:2111.06616 [hep-ph] . 21

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    S. J. Brodsky and S. D. Drell, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2236 (1980)

    1980

  29. [37]

    Pacetti, R

    S. Pacetti, R. Baldini Ferroli, and E. Tomasi-Gustafss on, Phys. Rept. 550-551, 1 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Punjabi, C

    V. Punjabi, C. F. Perdrisat, M. K. Jones, E. J. Brash, and C. E. Carlson, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 79 (2015) , arXiv:1503.01452 [nucl-ex]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Janssens, R

    T. Janssens, R. Hofstadter, E. B. Hughes, and M. R. Yeari an, Phys. Rev. 142, 922 (1966)

    1966

  32. [40]

    Punjabi et al

    V. Punjabi et al. , Phys. Rev. C 71, 055202 (2005) , [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 71, 069902 (2005)], arXiv:nucl-ex/0501018

    2005 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A. J. R. Puckett et al. , Phys. Rev. C 85, 045203 (2012) , arXiv:1102.5737 [nucl-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  34. [42]

    G. F. de Teramond, in 7th Workshop on Continuous Advances in QCD (2006) pp. 110–116, arXiv:hep-ph/0606143

    2006 arXiv

  35. [43]

    H. R. Grigoryan and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B 650, 421 (2007) , arXiv:hep-ph/0703069

    2007 arXiv

  36. [44]

    H. R. Grigoryan and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D 76, 095007 (2007) , arXiv:0706.1543 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  37. [45]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, Phys. Rev. D 77, 056007 (2008) , arXiv:0707.3859 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Abidin and C

    Z. Abidin and C. E. Carlson, Phys. Rev. D 79, 115003 (2009) , arXiv:0903.4818 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  39. [47]

    S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de Teramond, H. G. Dosch, and J. Erlic h, Phys. Rept. 584, 1 (2015) , arXiv:1407.8131 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Mondal, Phys

    C. Mondal, Phys. Rev. D 94, 073001 (2016) , arXiv:1609.07759 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    R. S. Sufian, G. F. de T´ eramond, S. J. Brodsky, A. Deur, an d H. G. Dosch, Phys. Rev. D 95, 014011 (2017) , arXiv:1609.06688 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Mamedov, B

    S. Mamedov, B. B. Sirvanli, I. Atayev, and N. Huseynova, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 56, 1861 (2017) , arXiv:1609.00167 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    K. A. Mamo and I. Zahed, Nucl. Phys. B 997, 116388 (2023) , arXiv:2106.00752 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    S. J. Brodsky, D. S. Hwang, B.-Q. Ma, and I. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. B 593, 311 (2001) , arXiv:hep-th/0003082

    2001 arXiv

  45. [53]

    V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri, F. X. Girod, C. Lorc´ e, P. Schweitzer, and P. E. Shanahan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 041002 (2023) , arXiv:2303.08347 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    S. Nair, C. Mondal, S. Xu, X. Zhao, A. Mukherjee, and J. P. Vary (BLFQ), Phys. Rev. D 110, 056027 (2024) , arXiv:2403.11702 [hep-ph] . 22

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, Phys. Rev. D 78, 025032 (2008) , arXiv:0804.0452 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Abidin and C

    Z. Abidin and C. E. Carlson, Phys. Rev. D 77, 095007 (2008) , arXiv:0801.3839 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Hatta and D.-L

    Y. Hatta and D.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 98, 074003 (2018) , arXiv:1808.02163 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [58]

    K. A. Mamo and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D 103, 094010 (2021) , arXiv:2103.03186 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Gursoy and E

    U. Gursoy and E. Kiritsis, JHEP 02, 032 (2008) , arXiv:0707.1324 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Gursoy, E

    U. Gursoy, E. Kiritsis, and F. Nitti, JHEP 02, 019 (2008) , arXiv:0707.1349 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Jarvinen and E

    M. Jarvinen and E. Kiritsis, JHEP 03, 002 (2012) , arXiv:1112.1261 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Are´ an, I

    D. Are´ an, I. Iatrakis, M. J¨ arvinen, and E. Kiritsis, JHEP 11, 068 (2013) , arXiv:1309.2286 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Boschi-Filho, N

    H. Boschi-Filho, N. R. F. Braga, F. Jugeau, and M. A. C. To rres, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2540 (2013) , arXiv:1208.2291 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Folco Capossoli, D

    E. Folco Capossoli, D. Li, and H. Boschi-Filho, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 320 (2016) , arXiv:1604.01647 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  57. [65]

    D. M. Rodrigues, E. Folco Capossoli, and H. Boschi-Filh o, EPL 122, 21001 (2018) , arXiv:1611.09817 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Klempt and J.-M

    E. Klempt and J.-M. Richard, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1095 (2010) , arXiv:0901.2055 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  59. [67]

    R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    Riordan et al

    S. Riordan et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 262302 (2010) , arXiv:1008.1738 [nucl-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  61. [69]

    I. A. Qattan and J. Arrington, Phys. Rev. C 86, 065210 (2012) , arXiv:1209.0683 [nucl-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  62. [70]

    D. C. Hackett, D. A. Pefkou, and P. E. Shanahan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 251904 (2024) , arXiv:2310.08484 [hep-lat] . 23

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.