Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A holographic analysis of the pion

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A light-front holographic pion with only mass, decay constant, and charge radius as inputs reproduces the measured electromagnetic and transition form factors at low Q².

desk verdict A useful phenomenological paper with a genuine external postdiction, weakened by the absence of any quantitative error analysis on its central claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00526 v1 pith:IPOMXWZE submitted 2024-12-31 hep-ph

Jeff Forshaw , Ruben Sandapen This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.-t13.40.Gp11.25.Tq
keywords pionlight-frontholographyelectromagneticformfactortransition'tHooftpotentialLi–VarylongitudinalwavefunctionAdS3stringequation
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 pion's low-energy behaviour — its mass, decay constant, charge radius, electromagnetic form factor $F_\pi(Q^2)$, and transition form factor $F_{\pi\gamma}(Q^2)$ — follows from a single light-front holographic wavefunction whose free parameters are fixed by just three measured inputs: $M_\pi$, $f_\pi$, and $r_\pi$. The load-bearing move is to let the pion's transverse holographic motion contribute exactly zero mass, so its entire physical mass is generated by longitudinal quark dynamics, modelled either by the 't Hooft potential or by the Li–Vary potential. With the parameters fixed that way, the models postdict the low-$Q^2$ form-factor data, and both produce a longitudinal momentum distribution considerably more peaked about $x\sim 1/2$ — where $x$ is the quark's share of the pion's light-front momentum — than earlier holographic studies. The paper also documents a near-degeneracy between the two longitudinal potentials and notes that one fitted scenario coincides with Vegh's equation for a four-segmented string in $\mathrm{AdS}_3$.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the separation ansatz $U(x,\mathbf{b})=U_\perp(\zeta)+U_\parallel(x)$ with $\zeta=\sqrt{x(1-x)}b$, which splits the light-front equation into a transverse holographic equation and a longitudinal equation. The transverse soft-wall potential $U_{\rm LFH}=\kappa^4\zeta^2+2\kappa^2(J-1)$ has eigenvalues $M_\perp^2=4\kappa^2(n_\perp+J+L/2)$, so its ground state is massless and is identified with the pion. That forces the physical mass to come from the longitudinal sector, and the paper uses two candidate operators: the 't Hooft equation and the Li–Vary operator $V_\parallel^{\rm LV}=-\sigma^2\partial_x[x(1-x)\partial_x]$, whose exact ground state is a power law. A similarity transformation $V_\parallel\to hV_\parallel h^{-1}$ with $h=[x(1-x)]^{n/2}$ generates the three Models A, B, C; the pion data then fix $\kappa$, $m_q$, and the longitudinal coupling, and the observables $f_\pi$, $F_\pi(Q^2)$, $F_{\pi\gamma}(Q^2)$, and $r_\pi$ are computed from the resulting wavefunction. The key identity is $M_\pi^2=M_\parallel^2$ (Eq.~19), which turns the measured pion mass into a constraint on the longitudinal confinement scale.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD calculation of the pion's light-front wavefunction moments would settle the shape: the models predict $X(x)\propto[x(1-x)]^2$ in the Li–Vary case and nearly so for 't Hooft, whereas a broader $\sqrt{x(1-x)}$ longitudinal mode would falsify the central claim. Alternatively, refit with $\kappa$ fixed at the Regge-slope value $\sim 500$ MeV; the paper's fit requires $\kappa\simeq423$ MeV, so showing that no simultaneous fit to $M_\pi$, $f_\pi$, and $r_\pi$ exists at $\kappa=500$ MeV would expose the extracted transverse scale as an artifact of the zero-mass assignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the pion is the massless ground state of the transverse holographic equation, $M_\perp^2=0$, and that its measured mass is carried entirely by the longitudinal equation, $M_\pi^2 = M_\parallel^2$. Choosing the 't Hooft integral operator or the Li–Vary differential operator for $V_\parallel$, and fixing $\kappa$, $m_q$, and $\sigma$ (or $g$) from $f_\pi$, $r_\pi$, and $M_\pi$, the models postdict the measured $F_\pi(Q^2)$ and $Q^2F_{\pi\gamma}(Q^2)$ at low $Q^2$. In the Li–Vary case the ground state is exactly $\chi(x)\propto[x(1-x)]^\beta$ with $\beta=m_q/\sigma\simeq 1.5,1.0,0.5$ for Models A, B, C, so $X(x)=\sqrt{x(1-x)}\,\chi(x)$ is far more concentrated near $x\simeq1/2$ than the $\sqrt{x(1-x)}$ longitudinal mode of earlier holographic studies; the numerically solved 't Hooft ground state is nearly the same power law. The paper is explicit that the comparison is to low-$Q^2$ data because no perturbative QCD evolution is included, and it notes in Appendix B that the chiral-limit models do not all satisfy the ABJ anomaly relation, while the quark-mass-fitted cases give $\Gamma_{\gamma\gamma}\simeq 7.0$–$7.6$ eV against the measured $7.82\pm0.22$ eV.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on the assumption that the pion's transverse motion contributes exactly zero mass, so the measured pion mass is generated entirely by the longitudinal potential; if that zero-mass assignment is wrong, all fitted parameters and every form-factor postdiction shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the zero-transverse-mass assignment is correct, the pion mass is entirely a longitudinal phenomenon and the Gell-Mann–Oakes–Renner behaviour emerges naturally: in the Li–Vary model $M_\pi^2=2\sigma m_q+4m_q^2$, so $M_\pi^2\propto m_q$ for small quark mass.
  • Both longitudinal potentials reproduce the low-$Q^2$ electromagnetic and transition form factors with parameters fixed by $M_\pi$, $f_\pi$, and $r_\pi$ alone.
  • The pion's longitudinal wavefunction is considerably more peaked about $x\simeq1/2$ than the $\sqrt{x(1-x)}$ mode, so observables sensitive to the quark momentum fraction, such as the pion distribution amplitude, should reflect this narrow shape.
  • The 't Hooft and Li–Vary potentials are effectively indistinguishable using pion data; an interpolating one-parameter family (the FS models) connects them, and the parameter choice satisfying $m_q^2=g^2+\sigma^2/4$ maps onto Vegh's four-segmented string quantum spectral curve in $\mathrm{AdS}_3$.
  • The fitted transverse scale is $\kappa\simeq423$ MeV, well below the roughly 500 MeV value used for light-meson Regge slopes, indicating that fixing the pion's decay constant and charge radius does not simultaneously fix the universal holographic confinement scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct discriminator between the two longitudinal potentials would be a lattice or experimental measurement of the pion distribution amplitude: the sharply peaked longitudinal wavefunction found here predicts a much narrower distribution than the asymptotic $6x(1-x)$ shape, and the two potentials, though degenerate for $F_\pi$, would differ in the higher moments of that distribution.
  • If the same soft-wall transverse scale is universal, the $\kappa\simeq 423$ MeV extracted here implies either that other mesons require significant transverse mass, or that pion chiral dynamics effectively renormalises the transverse confining scale downward.
  • The match to Vegh's $\mathrm{AdS}_3$ string equation suggests a concrete derivation path: obtain the longitudinal operator from the four-segmented string dynamics and then predict, rather than fit, the relation $m_q^2=g^2+\sigma^2/4$; the paper stops short of that step.
  • At higher $Q^2$, adding perturbative QCD evolution to the sharply peaked wavefunction predicts a specific $Q^2$ growth of $Q^2F_{\pi\gamma}$ that differs from the asymptotic distribution-amplitude limit; existing BaBar and Belle data could be re-analysed with this evolution to test 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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a light-front holographic model of the pion in which the transverse dynamics are described by the soft-wall holographic Schrödinger equation and the longitudinal dynamics are modeled by either the 't Hooft (tH) potential or the Li-Vary (LV) potential. The parameters of each model are fixed using the measured pion mass, decay constant, and charge radius in three variants (Models A, B, C, corresponding to similarity-transformation exponents n = 0, 1, 2). With these parameters, the authors postdict the pion electromagnetic form factor F_pi(Q^2) and the pion-photon transition form factor F_pi-gamma(Q^2), finding what they describe as excellent low-Q^2 agreement. They also report that the longitudinal wavefunction is considerably more peaked about x ~ 1/2 than in previous holographic studies, explore the degeneracy between the tH and LV potentials, and note a connection between one viable scenario and a string equation derived by Vegh.

Significance. If the central postdiction claim is quantitatively robust, the paper would be a useful step toward extending light-front holography beyond the massless-pion limit, since it treats the pion mass as generated entirely by longitudinal dynamics and compares two candidate longitudinal potentials. The LV model is worked out in closed form, the transition form factor derivation in Appendix A is detailed, and the chiral-limit checks in Appendix B against the ABJ and Brodsky-Lepage relations are valuable. The paper also contains a falsifiable prediction: the low-Q^2 form factors and the specific peak shape of the longitudinal wavefunction. The main weakness is that the postdictions are not supported by any quantitative statistical measure, and some of the claims in the abstract overstate what is actually computed versus what is used as input.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section III] The abstract and conclusions state that the paper computes the pion mass, charge radius, and decay constant, but these three quantities are precisely the inputs used to fix the model parameters: Section III says 'we use their measured values to fix these two parameters' for kappa and beta, and then 'the remaining parameter, sigma, can then be determined from the pion mass'; Section IV follows the same methodology for the tH model. The genuine postdictions are therefore the form factors and the decay width, not the three bulk observables. The text should be rewritten so that this is explicit, otherwise the 'using only the low energy pion data to fix the parameters' framing obscures the circularity of the mass, decay constant, and radius claims.
  2. [Figures 1 and 2; Tables I and II] The central claim of 'very good agreement' and 'excellent agreement' with the form-factor data is not quantitatively supported. Figures 1 and 2 show curves and data on log-scale axes but no chi^2/dof, pulls, or confidence bands, and Tables I and II list parameter values without uncertainties. Since the form-factor data span several orders of magnitude in Q^2, visual comparison alone cannot distinguish a 5% deviation from a 30% deviation. In addition, the uncertainty in the measured f_pi (1.3%) and r_pi (0.6%) is not propagated into the extracted kappa, beta, m_q, sigma, and g, so the claim that the longitudinal wavefunction is 'considerably more peaked' than in previous studies has no stated uncertainty. A quantitative comparison (e.g., chi^2 per data point for Q^2 below a chosen cutoff, or at least a table of residuals) is needed to establish the postdiction claim.
  3. [Section IV, Eqs. (34)-(39)] The numerical solution of the 't Hooft equation is not described: no discretization scheme, grid size, extrapolation, or convergence criterion is given, and no code is provided. The tH entries in Table II and the tH curves in Fig. 2 are therefore not reproducible. Furthermore, the derivation of Eq. (39) is not transparent: integrating Eq. (34) over x and using Eq. (38) yields (m_q^2 - g^2) times the integral of chi/[x(1-x)] equals M^2 times the integral of chi, so Eq. (39) as written appears to require both a drop of the g^2 term and a specific value for the ratio of these integrals. The authors should either derive Eq. (39) explicitly or explain how the numerical solution is used to obtain the quoted parameters, and they should verify consistency with Eq. (36).
  4. [Eqs. (16)-(19)] The paper assumes that the pion's transverse holographic ground state has M_perp^2 = 0, so that the entire physical pion mass is generated by the longitudinal dynamics, M_pi^2 = M_parallel^2 (Eq. (19)). This assumption is load-bearing because M_pi is used to fix sigma or g in Tables I and II. No sensitivity study is presented for a non-zero transverse mass or for transverse-longitudinal mixing in U(x,b). Since a small shift in M_parallel^2 would change the extracted parameters and hence the form-factor postdictions, the paper should either justify the exactness of M_perp = 0 for the pion within the model or quantify the effect of relaxing it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] References [19] and [41] list 'Placeholder Journal' as the publication venue; these should be corrected to the actual journal or clearly marked as arXiv preprints.
  2. [Page 12 and Fig. 3 caption] There are small language errors: 'the the corresponding numbers' should be 'the corresponding numbers', and 'Fig. 3 explore the correlation' should be 'Fig. 3 explores the correlation'.
  3. [Figures 1 and 2] The vertical axis label in the right panels uses F_{\gamma\pi} while the text defines F_{\pi\gamma}(Q^2); the notation should be made consistent.
  4. [Appendix C] The acknowledgements are placed in 'Appendix C'; this is unconventional and should be moved to a standard acknowledgements section.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: fitted pion observables are presented as computed, and the low-Q^2 form-factor slope is tied to the fitted radius by construction; the transition form factor remains an independent postdiction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section III, paragraph before Table I and Eqs. (27)-(29)]
    "Inspired by light-front holography, we compute the pion mass, charge radius, decay constant, electromagnetic form factor and electromagnetic transition form factor. ... Since the decay constant and radius depend only upon κ and β we use their measured values to fix these two parameters. The remaining parameter, σ, can then be determined from the pion mass."

    The three observables M_pi, f_pi and r_pi are exactly the inputs used to solve for kappa, beta and sigma (Tables I and II), so the tabulated 'computed' values of the mass, decay constant and radius are reproductions of the fit inputs by construction. The abstract's 'compute' framing presents fitted inputs as derived outputs; the honest label is parameter extraction. The independent content of the paper lies in the Q^2 dependence of F_pi and in F_pi-gamma, neither of which enters the fit.

  2. self definitional [Section III, Eqs. (21) and (23), and text before Table I]
    "r2π = −6 lim_{Q2→0} dFπ(Q2)/dQ2 = 3/(2κ2) ∫ dx (1−x)/x |χ(x)|2 ... Since the decay constant and radius depend only upon κ and β we use their measured values to fix these two parameters."

    Because r_pi is defined as the Q^2 -> 0 slope of F_pi and r_pi is used to fix beta, the low-Q^2 slope of the 'postdicted' F_pi equals the fitted radius by construction. The statement of 'very good agreement with the low Q2 form factor data' therefore includes a part that is not an independent check; only the nonlinear Q^2 dependence of F_pi and the transition form factor provide independent evidence. The paper gives no chi^2/dof or parameter uncertainties, so the size of the independent contribution is not quantified.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not globally circular: the parameter sets in Tables I and II are obtained by solving for kappa, beta and sigma/g from M_pi, f_pi and r_pi, while the pi->gamma transition form factor and the Q^2-dependent part of F_pi are not used in the fit, so their agreement with data is an independent postdiction. The circularity is partial and appears at two points. First, the abstract lists the pion mass, charge radius and decay constant among the 'computed' quantities even though those three observables are precisely the inputs used to fix the three model parameters; the tabulated values are reproductions of the fit inputs by construction. Second, because r_pi is defined through the Q^2 -> 0 slope of F_pi and r_pi is used to fix beta, the low-Q^2 slope of the postdicted F_pi is guaranteed by the fit; only the curvature of F_pi and the TFF give independent content. The paper's AdS3/Vegh correspondence is explicitly labelled speculative, so that observation is not presented as a confirmed prediction and is not circular. No load-bearing self-citation was found: the authors' earlier work is cited contextually, and the uniqueness arguments for the soft-wall potential come from non-overlapping authors. The M_perp = 0 assumption for the pion ground state is a physical input assumption and a possible correctness risk, but it is not a circular reduction. The absence of chi^2/dof and parameter uncertainties weakens the quantitative support for 'very good agreement' and 'considerably more peaked', but that is a statistical-support concern rather than a circularity.

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

The model's output rests on five modeling choices and axioms, most importantly leading-Fock truncation and factorization of transverse and longitudinal dynamics. The free parameters kappa, m_q, sigma/g are fit to the three precision observables, and n is a discrete model-selection parameter. No new entities are introduced; the FS-A potential is a combination of existing potentials.

free parameters (5)
  • kappa (transverse confinement scale) = 423 MeV
    Fixed using measured f_pi and r_pi together with beta; lower than the typical ~500 MeV Regge-slope value.
  • m_q (light quark mass) = 60.4, 57.0, 49.4 MeV for LV-A/B/C; 59.3, 55.3, 47.2 MeV for tH-A/B/C
    Fixed by the measured decay constant and charge radius through beta = m_q/sigma, with slight model dependence.
  • sigma (Li-Vary potential strength) = 40.3, 56.9, 98.5 MeV for LV-A/B/C
    Determined from the charged pion mass in the LV model.
  • g ('t Hooft coupling) = 30.2, 41.2, 66.5 MeV for tH-A/B/C
    Determined from the charged pion mass in the tH model.
  • n (similarity transformation exponent) = 0, 1, 2 for Models A, B, C
    Discrete model choice; n < 0 diverges in the chiral limit and n >= 3 is claimed to be excluded by pion data, though no detailed fit is shown.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Leading Fock-sector dominance: the pion wavefunction contains only the q-qbar sector, encoded in Eq. (3) normalization.
    Used to derive all observable formulas; higher Fock states and quantum loops are ignored (stated after Eq. (3)).
  • domain assumption Potential separability: U(x,b) = U_perp(zeta) + U_parallel(x), Eq. (4), and the factorized wavefunction Eq. (5).
    This is an assumption that transverse and longitudinal dynamics decouple; no derivation is given.
  • domain assumption Soft-wall holographic transverse potential U_perp = kappa^4 zeta^2 + 2 kappa^2 (J-1), Eq. (15), with pion ground state massless (M_perp = 0, Eq. (16)).
    Taken from Brodsky-de Teramond et al.; the pion's entire mass is then assigned to M_parallel.
  • domain assumption 't Hooft / Li-Vary equations describe longitudinal quark dynamics (Eqs. (25) and (34)).
    These are phenomenological choices, not derived from QCD; the paper tests them against data.
  • standard math tH endpoint behavior chi ~ x^beta with Eq. (36) from hermiticity, used to derive Eq. (39).
    This is a standard boundary analysis of the singular kernel; the authors rely on it to convert the tH equation into the mass relation Eq. (39).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A holographic analysis of the pion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IPOMXWZE

@misc{pith2026250100526,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A holographic analysis of the pion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IPOMXWZE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00526}
}
abstract

Inspired by light-front holography, we compute the pion mass, charge radius, decay constant, electromagnetic form factor and electromagnetic transition form factor. To do so, we model the longitudinal quark dynamics using potentials due to 't Hooft and to Li & Vary. We find a longitudinal wavefunction that is rather more peaked about $x \sim 1/2$ than in previous studies. We also explore the strong degeneracy between these two potentials and conclude by noting that one scenario that accords well with the data also maps onto an equation previously noted by Vegh that describes the dynamics of a four-segmented string in $\mathrm{AdS}_3$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00526 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Postdictions of the LV models for the FF data [29–36] and TFF data [37–40]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Postdictions of the tH models for the FF data [29–36] and TFF data [37–40]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Exploring the correlation between the tH and LV potentials via the FS models. Each point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Loop diagram for the TFF. The black blob represents the pion as a QCD bound state, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The extracted (and degenerate) longitudinal wavefunction, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quest for an Understanding of Pion and Kaon Structure

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A review comparing continuum, phenomenological, and lattice QCD extractions of pion and kaon parton distributions, concluding that no current approach is decisive.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Horn and C

    T. Horn and C. D. Roberts, J. Phys. G 43, 073001 (2016), arXiv:1602.04016 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Gell-Mann, R

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

    1968

  3. [3]

    Estimate of the chiral condensate in quenched lattice QCD

    D. Becirevic and V. Lubicz, Phys. Lett. B 600, 83 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0403044

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  4. [4]

    S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de T´ eramond, H. G. Dosch, and J. Erlich, Phys. Rept. 584, 1 (2015), arXiv:1407.8131 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

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

    arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de T´ eramond,Proceedings, International School of Subnuclear Physics: 45th Course: Searching for the ”Totally Unexpected” in the LHC Era: Erice, Sicily, Italy, August 29-September 7, 2007, Subnucl. Ser. 45, 139 (2009), arXiv:0802.0514 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    J. R. Forshaw and R. Sandapen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 081601 (2012), arXiv:1203.6088 [hep- ph]. 20

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Li and J

    Y. Li and J. P. Vary, Phys. Lett. B 825, 136860 (2022), arXiv:2103.09993 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    G. F. de T´ eramond and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 104, 116009 (2021), arXiv:2103.10950 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ahmady, S

    M. Ahmady, S. Kaur, C. Mondal, and R. Sandapen, Phys. Lett. B 836, 137628 (2023), arXiv:2208.08405 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    C. M. Weller and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 105, 036009 (2022), arXiv:2111.03194 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Ahmady, H

    M. Ahmady, H. Dahiya, S. Kaur, C. Mondal, R. Sandapen, and N. Sharma, Phys. Lett. B 823, 136754 (2021), arXiv:2105.01018 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 75, 461 (1974)

    1974

  6. [14]

    Y. Li, P. Maris, X. Zhao, and J. P. Vary, Phys. Lett. B 758, 118 (2016), arXiv:1509.07212 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Li and J

    Y. Li and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D 105, 114006 (2022), arXiv:2202.05581 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    V. E. Lyubovitskij and I. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 105, 074009 (2022), arXiv:2203.00604 [hep- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Rinaldi, F

    M. Rinaldi, F. A. Ceccopieri, and V. Vento, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 626 (2022), arXiv:2204.09974 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    R. L. Workman and Others (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Vegh, Placeholder Journal (2023), arXiv:2301.07154 [hep-th]

    D. Vegh, Placeholder Journal (2023), arXiv:2301.07154 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    S. J. Brodsky, H.-C. Pauli, and S. S. Pinsky, Phys. Rept. 301, 299 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9705477 [hep-ph]

    1998

  13. [21]

    S. S. Chabysheva and J. R. Hiller, Annals Phys. 337, 143 (2013), arXiv:1207.7128 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    G. F. de T´ eramond and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 081601 (2009), arXiv:0809.4899 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  15. [23]

    (15), is uniquely fixed by the underlying conformal symmetry and holographic mapping to AdS 5

    that the analytic form of U⊥, given by Eq. (15), is uniquely fixed by the underlying conformal symmetry and holographic mapping to AdS 5. The mass scale, κ, in the harmonic (first) term of Eq. (15) does not spoil the conformal symmetry of the underlying action. Then, the holog...

    2020

  16. [24]

    S. J. Brodsky, G. F. De T´ eramond, and H. G. Dosch, Phys. Lett. B729, 3 (2014), arXiv:1302.4105 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Karch, E

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

    2006 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Choi and C.-R

    H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 102, 036005 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de T´ eramond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 201601 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0602252 [hep-ph]. 21

    2006

  20. [28]

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

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de T´ eramond, Phys. Rev. D78, 025032 (2008), arXiv:0804.0452 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. R. Amendolia et al., Nucl. Phys. B 277, 168 (1986)

    1986

  23. [31]

    C. J. Bebek et al., Phys. Rev. D 9, 1229 (1974)

    1974

  24. [32]

    C. J. Bebek et al., Phys. Rev. D 13, 25 (1976)

    1976

  25. [33]

    C. J. Bebek et al., Phys. Rev. D 17, 1693 (1978)

    1978

  26. [34]

    Volmer et al., Phys

    J. Volmer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1713 (2001)

    2001

  27. [35]

    Horn et al., Phys

    T. Horn et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 192001 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    Pedlar et al., Phys

    T. Pedlar et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 261803 (2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    K. K. Seth, S. Dobbs, and A. Tomaradze, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 022002 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Uehara, Y

    S. Uehara, Y. Watanabe, H. Nakazawa, and et al., Phys. Rev. D 86, 092007 (2012), arXiv:1205.3249 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Aubert, Y

    B. Aubert, Y. Karyotakis, J. P. Lees, and et al., Phys. Rev. D 80, 052002 (2009), arXiv:0905.4778 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Gronberg, T

    J. Gronberg, T. S. Hill, R. Kutschke, and et al., Phys. Rev. D 57, 33 (1998), arXiv:hep- ex/9707031 [hep-ex]

    1998

  33. [41]

    H. J. Behrend and et al., Z. Phys. C 49, 401 (1991)

    1991

  34. [42]

    Ambrosino and S

    F. Ambrosino and S. Komatsu, Placeholder Journal (2023), arXiv:2312.15598 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Freese and G

    A. Freese and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 107, 034004 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Vega and I

    A. Vega and I. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 79, 055003 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    Bacchetta, S

    A. Bacchetta, S. Cotogno, and B. Pasquini, Phys. Lett. B 771, 546 (2017), arXiv:1703.07669 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    S. J. Brodsky, F.-G. Cao, and G. F. de T´ eramond, Phys. Rev. D 84, 075012 (2011), arXiv:1105.3999 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. R. Forshaw, R. Sandapen, and G. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D 69, 094013 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0312172

    2004

  40. [48]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2157 (1980)

    1980

  41. [49]

    B. E. Cox, J. R. Forshaw, and R. Sandapen, JHEP 06, 034, arXiv:0905.0102 [hep-ph]. 22

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Ahmady, R

    M. Ahmady, R. Sandapen, and N. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D94, 074018 (2016), arXiv:1605.07665 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Choi and C.-R

    H.-M. Choi and C.-R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 102, 036005 (2020), arXiv:2006.08034 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Chang, S

    Q. Chang, S. J. Brodsky, and X.-Q. Li, Phys. Rev. D 95, 094025 (2017), arXiv:1612.05298 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  45. [53]

    V. M. Braun, G. P. Korchemsky, and D. M¨ uller, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 311 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0306057

    2003 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Khodjamirian, Hadron Form Factors(CRC Press, 2020)

    A. Khodjamirian, Hadron Form Factors(CRC Press, 2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    I. V. Musatov and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D 56, 2713 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9702443

    1997 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.