Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

The Electromagnetic Form Factors of Pseudoscalar Mesons within the Light-Front Quark Model

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a single light-front quark model with Gaussian wavefunctions and decay-constant-fitted parameters reproduces the measured pion and kaon form factors and predicts how quark mass asymmetry controls the charge radii and…

desk verdict A solid, standard LFQM calculation of pseudoscalar EMFFs whose two headline trend claims are overstated in the abstract and conclusions. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07523 v1 pith:JKDVEPXH submitted 2025-07-10 hep-ph

Shuai Xu , Xiao-Nan Li , Xing-Gang Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 13.40.Gp12.39.Ki
keywords light-frontquarkmodelpseudoscalarmesonselectromagneticformfactorschargeradiimassasymmetrypionfactorkaonheavy
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 tries to establish that one relatively simple light-front quark model, with Gaussian wavefunctions and parameters fixed by mesonic decay constants, can describe the electromagnetic size and charge shape of every pseudoscalar meson. It reproduces the measured pion and kaon form factors at low momentum transfer and their charge radii, and it predicts systematic trends: heavier quark content shrinks the charge radius, while the constituent quark mass difference sets the height of the form-factor peak. If the picture is right, the internal charge structure of heavy D and B mesons follows a clean, mass-asymmetry-dominated pattern that upcoming experiments can test.

What carries the argument

The central object is the light-front quark model expression for the electromagnetic form factor, F_P($Q^{2}$) = e_q I(m_q, m_bar{q}, $Q^{2}$) + e_bar{q} I(m_bar{q}, m_q, $Q^{2}$), where I is an overlap integral over the longitudinal momentum fraction x and transverse momentum k_perp of a Gaussian radial wavefunction. The quark mass asymmetry enters through the invariant mass M_0 and the Jacobian of the variable transformation, and the Gaussian parameter $\beta$ controls the bound-state size. This machinery converts quark masses, charges, and one width parameter into the full $Q^{2}$ dependence of every pseudoscalar meson's form factor and charge radius.

What would settle it

Measure the D+ or B+ electromagnetic form factor at JLab or the EIC up to $Q^{2}$ of roughly 10 $GeV^{2}$ and compare the peak of $Q^{2}$ F_P($Q^{2}$) and its position with the model's predictions of 3.06 and 9.12, respectively; also measure the K0 charge radius to check the predicted negative mean square radius near -0.090 $fm^{2}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that the light-front quark model yields electromagnetic form factors whose charged- and neutral-meson endpoint behaviors differ significantly, because the slope at $Q^{2}$ = 0 encodes the spatial separation of quark and antiquark charges; for neutral mesons the outer, lighter quark's charge dominates, so the mean square charge radius becomes negative. They further claim that for charged mesons the peak value of $Q^{2}$ F_P($Q^{2}$) is approximately proportional to the mass difference between constituent quarks, that the charge radius decreases as the meson mass increases, and that for neutral mesons the heavy quark's electric charge primarily determines the radius. These trends are presented as predictions for heavy-flavor mesons, with the pion and kaon results serving as validation.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the plus-component electromagnetic current in the q^+ = 0 frame is saturated by the one-body valence diagram, so any omitted zero-mode or pair-creation contribution would change the predicted form factors and charge radii.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The pion and kaon form factors in the low-Q^2 region are reproduced, so the model can serve as a benchmark for extracting charge radii from future low-Q^2 experiments.
  • The predicted form factor shapes for D and B mesons give concrete targets for JLab and EIC measurements at moderate and high momentum transfer.
  • The neutral kaon's negative mean square charge radius is reproduced, supporting a picture where the lighter, oppositely charged quark sits farther from the center than the heavy quark.
  • Heavy-meson charge radii decrease with meson mass, with B_c predicted to have the smallest radius among the states considered, a trend that can be checked once heavy-meson radii are measured.
  • The model reaches the perturbative 1/Q^2 asymptotic behavior earlier than current lattice results, a difference that future high-Q^2 data can discriminate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If the mass-asymmetry pattern holds, the charge radius of any unmeasured pseudoscalar meson could be estimated from its constituent quark masses and charges alone, without a full dynamical calculation.
  • Inference: A precise measurement of the K0 charge radius would be a sharp test of the charge-separation mechanism, since the model ties its negative sign to the unequal spatial extent of the d and s quark charge distributions.
  • Inference: The Gaussian wavefunction ansatz may be too rigid to describe the very high-Q^2 tail; the early onset of asymptotic behavior could be an artifact of that ansatz rather than a physical prediction, so lattice results at higher Q^2 would clarify this.
  • Inference: The same formalism could be extended to other current components or to include zero-mode contributions, which would quantify how much of the predicted endpoint behavior depends on the one-body valence approximation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the electromagnetic form factors and charge radii of pseudoscalar mesons (π, K, D, D_s, B, B_s, B_c) in the light-front quark model with Gaussian wavefunctions, Eq. (6). The model parameters (constituent quark masses and Gaussian widths β) are fixed by mesonic decay constants rather than by form-factor data. The authors report good agreement with low-Q² pion and kaon data, compare their radii with lattice QCD and other models, and propose two global trends: the peak of Q²F_P(Q²) is approximately proportional to the constituent mass difference Δm, and charged-meson charge radii decrease with increasing meson mass. They also claim that neutral-meson radii are governed by the heavy-quark charge and call for future experimental tests.

Significance. If the central results hold, the paper provides a unified set of predictions for heavy-meson form factors and charge radii from a simple, transparent model whose parameters are not fitted to the form-factor data themselves. The honest comparison with NA7, JLab, and recent lattice data for π and K, and the explicit agreement of the pion charge radius with the PDG value, are genuine strengths. The paper is also careful to list parameter uncertainties and to compare with several other approaches. The significance is diminished, however, by the overstatement of the global trend claims, which are not supported by the table that supposedly demonstrates them; these claims are the paper's main phenomenological message beyond the π/K comparison.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section III.B, Table III] The statement that the peak values of Q²F_P(Q²) are approximately proportional to Δm is contradicted by Table III as written. The pion has Δm=0 but a peak Q²F of 0.361, so a proportionality through the origin cannot hold. Among the other charged mesons, the ratio peak/Δm varies from about 1.32 (B_c) to 2.01 (D_s), a spread of roughly 50%. The same issue affects the neutral-meson statement in the Conclusions. The authors should either fit a quantitative relation (e.g., with an intercept or a power law) and quote its quality, or soften the claim to a qualitative ordering.
  2. [Section III.B and Table III] The claim that charged-meson charge radii decrease with increasing meson mass is not supported by Table III: B⁺ (m≈5.28 GeV) has √<r²>=0.564 fm, while D⁺ (m≈1.87 GeV) has 0.411 fm. The proposed phenomenological relation √<r²> ∝ e_h Δm_l / β^{3/2} m_s^h in Section III.B is not derived, not fitted, and not used quantitatively, and its symbols are undefined. The authors should replace the global monotonic statement with the actual dependencies on β, quark charges, and mass asymmetry, or present a quantitative fit that is actually compared with the table.
  3. [Section III.A, Fig. 1 and footnote 1] The claim of 'obvious asymptotic behavior earlier than LQCD' is misleading. With the Gaussian wavefunction Eq. (6), the overlap integral in Eq. (4) acquires an exp(-x̄² Q²/(4β²)) suppression at large q⊥, which does not reproduce the pQCD 1/Q² tail that the authors themselves cite from Ref. [67]. Footnote 1 concedes a possible higher-twist explanation 'in preparation'. Until that analysis is provided, the high-Q² behavior should be described as model-dependent rather than asymptotic.
  4. [Section II, Eqs. (1)–(4)] The calculation keeps only the one-body valence diagram in the q⁺=0 frame and neglects zero-mode and pair contributions. This approximation is known to be delicate for neutral mesons and at endpoint regions x→0,1. Since the charged/neutral endpoint differences are a central result of the paper, the authors should either provide a consistency check (e.g., comparison with the covariant light-front approach or with an alternative current component) or explicitly state this limitation in the discussion of the endpoint behavior.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'parameters derived from the confinement of mesonic decay constants' should be 'parameters fitted to mesonic decay constants' or 'constrained by mesonic decay constants'.
  2. [Section II] The sentence 'It is straightly to extract FP(Q²) from Eq.(1)' should read 'It is straightforward to extract FP(Q²) from Eq. (1)'.
  3. [Table II and Table III] The uncertainties in the Gaussian parameters β are quoted in Table II, but the text does not explain how these uncertainties are propagated into the charge radii in Table III; a brief statement would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Fig. 2] The symbol '/s32' appearing in the figure legend and caption appears to be a rendering artifact; the meson labels should be cleanly typeset.
  5. [Section III.A] The sentence 'the one ⟨r²⟩_{K0} = −0.090 fm²' should be 'our ⟨r²⟩_{K0} = −0.090 fm²'.
  6. [Section III.B] The empirical relation √<r²>_P ∝ e_h Δm_l / β^{3/2} m_s^h uses undefined symbols and appears dimensionally inconsistent as written; the authors should define all symbols and state the intended dimensionality, or remove the formula.
  7. [References] Reference [59] is a self-citation to a preprint by the same authors; its status (published or in preparation) should be clarified in the bibliography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the EMFFs and charge radii are genuine predictions from decay-constant-fitted parameters, with no EMFF or charge-radius data used in the fit.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The quark masses and Gaussian widths β in Tables I-II are fitted to mesonic decay constants from the PDG, not to electromagnetic form factor or charge-radius data. Equations (3)-(6) then predict F_P(Q^2), and Eq. (7) gives the charge radius from its slope; thus the π and K comparisons and the heavy-meson values are external checks or predictions rather than fits renamed as results. The only same-author citations, Refs. [50] and [59], are used for parameter comparison and for remarks on covariance/self-consistency of the LFQM formalism; neither is load-bearing for the form-factor derivation, which follows the standard Choi-Ji LFQM expressions in Refs. [60,61]. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to the quantity it claims to predict. The abstract's trend statements (peak values approximately proportional to Δm; radii decreasing with meson mass) are model-generated claims; whether Table III fully supports them, e.g. the ordering of B+ and D+ radii, is a correctness or consistency concern, not a circularity of the derivation. Hence no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. Its predictions depend on 11 free parameters fitted to decay constants and on the Gaussian wavefunction and one-body current approximation inherited from LFQM.

free parameters (11)
  • m_q (u,d) = 0.25 ± 0.01 GeV
    Fitted to mesonic decay constants from PDG, as stated in Section III.
  • m_s = 0.50 ± 0.02 GeV
    Fitted to mesonic decay constants from PDG.
  • m_c = 1.80 ± 0.09 GeV
    Fitted to mesonic decay constants from PDG.
  • m_b = 5.10 ± 0.25 GeV
    Fitted to mesonic decay constants from PDG.
  • β_q qbar = 0.321 ± 0.016 GeV
    Gaussian width parameter fitted to decay constants.
  • β_q sbar = 0.352 ± 0.017 GeV
    Gaussian width parameter fitted to decay constants.
  • β_q cbar = 0.465 ± 0.023 GeV
    Gaussian width parameter fitted to decay constants.
  • β_s cbar = 0.522 ± 0.026 GeV
    Gaussian width parameter fitted to decay constants.
  • β_q bbar = 0.535 ± 0.026 GeV
    Gaussian width parameter fitted to decay constants.
  • β_s bbar = 0.594 ± 0.03 GeV
    Gaussian width parameter fitted to decay constants.
  • β_c bbar = 0.883 ± 0.044 GeV
    Gaussian width parameter fitted to decay constants.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Gaussian-type radial wavefunction ϕR(x,k⊥) (Eq. 6) with width β.
    The choice of Gaussian wavefunction and the relation of β to the bound-state size are model assumptions taken from prior LFQM literature; results depend on this shape.
  • domain assumption The electromagnetic current is approximated by the one-body quark current (Eq. 2); zero modes and non-valence pair contributions are neglected.
    The LFQM calculation uses only the valence wavefunction overlap in the Drell-Yan-West frame q+=0 (Eqs. (3)-(4)); this is an approximation known to affect endpoint behavior, especially for neutral mesons.
  • domain assumption The internal momentum k_z = (x-1/2)M0 + (m_q^2 - m_qbar^2)/(2M0) with the invariant mass M0 (Eq. 5) defines the wavefunction; this is the standard LFQM kinematics.
    The Jacobian and variable transformation are standard in LFQM but are assumptions about the bound-state dynamics.
  • domain assumption Constituent quark masses m_q and model parameters β fitted to decay constants (Tables I and II).
    The parameters are taken from fits to mesonic decay constants, which is external data, but the quark masses themselves are model parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Electromagnetic Form Factors of Pseudoscalar Mesons within the Light-Front Quark Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JKDVEPXH

@misc{pith2026250707523,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Electromagnetic Form Factors of Pseudoscalar Mesons within the Light-Front Quark Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JKDVEPXH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07523}
}
abstract

In this paper, we investigate the electromagnetic form factors (EMFFs) and charge radii of pseudoscalar mesons within the light-front quark model (LFQM). Using parameters derived from the confinement of mesonic decay constants, we obtain numerical results, which indicate the following: (i) The EMFFs of charged and neutral mesons exhibit significant differences in their endpoint behaviors but show similar asymptotic behavior in the high momentum transfer ($Q^2$) regions. For the EMFFs of light mesons such as $\pi$ and $K^+$, our results are in excellent agreement with experimental data in the low $Q^2$ regions. For the charge radii of mesons, our results also show rough consistency with predictions from other approaches. (ii) For charged mesons, the peak values of $Q^2 F_P(Q^2)$ are approximately proportional to the mass difference $\Delta m$ between their constituent quarks. Moreover, the mean square radii $\left\langle r^2 \right\rangle_P$ of charged mesons decrease with increasing meson mass and decreasing $\Delta m$. For neutral mesons, their charge radii are primarily determined by the electric charge of the heavy quark. These results indicate that quark mass asymmetry significantly influences the behavior of the EMFFs and charge radii of mesons. Experimental data to test these predictions would thus be of great interest.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07523 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Left: The EMFF of the charged pion obtained from the LFQM, compared with experimental data from Refs. [5, 11, 14– [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

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. Electromagnetic properties of heavy-light mesons

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Bethe-Salpeter calculation with a flavour-dependent effective interaction reproduces pion and kaon form factors and predicts heavy-light meson charge radii.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [67]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Lett. B 87, 359 (1979)

    1979

  2. [1]

    E. B. Dally, et al. Phys. Rev. D 24, 1718 (1981)

    work page 1981

  3. [2]

    E. B. Dally, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 375 (1982)

    work page 1982

  4. [3]

    E. B. Dally, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 232 (1980)

    work page 1980

  5. [4]

    S. R. Amendolia, et al. [NA7], Phys. Lett. B 146, 116 (1984)

    work page 1984

  6. [5]

    S. R. Amendolia, et al. [NA7], Nucl. Phys. B 277, 168 (1986)

    work page 1986

  7. [6]

    S. R. Amendolia, et al. Phys. Lett. B 178, 435 (1986)

    work page 1986

  8. [7]

    Arrington, et al

    J. Arrington, et al. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 127, 103985 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 67 references
  1. [8]

    Dudek, et al

    J. Dudek, et al. Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 187 (2012)

    2012

  2. [9]

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

    1976

  3. [10]

    C. J. Bebek, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 1326 (1976)

    1976

  4. [11]

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

    1978

  5. [12]

    Kunszt and E

    Z. Kunszt and E. Pietarinen, Z. Phys. C 2, 355 (1979)

    1979

  6. [13]

    Ackermann, et al

    H. Ackermann, et al. Nucl. Phys. B 137, 294 (1978)

    1978

  7. [14]

    Volmer et al

    J. Volmer et al. [Jefferson Lab F(pi)], Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1713 (2001)

    2001

  8. [15]

    Horn et al

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

    2006

  9. [16]

    Tadevosyan et al

    V. Tadevosyan et al. [Jefferson Lab F(pi)], Phys. Rev. C 75, 055205 (2007)

    2007

  10. [17]

    H. P. Blok et al. [Jefferson Lab], Phys. Rev. C 78, 045202 (2008)

    2008

  11. [18]

    G. M. Huber et al. [Jefferson Lab], Phys. Rev. C 78, 045203 (2008)

    2008

  12. [19]

    Carmignotto, et al

    M. Carmignotto, et al. Phys. Rev. C 97, 025204 (2018)

    2018

  13. [20]

    Abdul Khalek, et al

    R. Abdul Khalek, et al. Nucl. Phys. A 1026, 122447 (2022)

    2022

  14. [21]

    Li and Y

    N. Li and Y. J. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 56 (2017)

    2017

  15. [22]

    H. T. Ding, X. Gao, A. D. Hanlon, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, Q. Shi, S. Syritsyn, R. Zhang and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 181902 (2024)

    2024

  16. [23]

    V. A. Nesterenko and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Lett. B 115, 410 (1982)

    1982

  17. [24]

    C. D. Roberts and A. G. Williams, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 33, 477 (1994)

    1994

  18. [25]

    Maris and P

    P. Maris and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. C 60, 055214 (1999)

    1999

  19. [26]

    S. X. Qin, L. Chang, Y. X. Liu, C. D. Roberts and D. J. Wilson, Phys. Rev. C 84, 042202 (2011)

    2011

  20. [27]

    Y. Z. Xu, D. Binosi, Z. F. Cui, B. L. Li, C. D. Roberts, S. S. Xu and H. S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D 100, 114038 (2019) 7

    2019

  21. [28]

    Y. Z. Xu, C. Shi, X. T. He and H. S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D 102, 114011 (2020)

    2020

  22. [29]

    Maris and C

    P. Maris and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C 56, 3369 (1997)

    1997

  23. [30]

    P. Qin, S. X. Qin and Y. X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 101, 114014 (2020)

    2020

  24. [31]

    Y. Z. Xu, JHEP 07, 118 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    R. M. Moita, J. P. B. C. de Melo, K. Tsushima and T. Frederico, Phys. Rev. D 104, 096020 (2021)

    2021

  26. [33]

    Y. L. Luan, X. L. Chen and W. Z. Deng, Chin. Phys. C 39, 113103 (2015)

    2015

  27. [34]

    R. J. Hern´ andez-Pinto, L. X. Guti´ errez-Guerrero, A. Bashir, M. A. Bedolla and I. M. Higuera-Angulo, Phys. Rev. D107, 054002 (2023)

    2023

  28. [35]

    Almeida-Zamora, J

    B. Almeida-Zamora, J. J. Cobos-Mart ´ ınez, A. Bashir, K. Raya, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D109, 014016 (2024)

    2024

  29. [36]

    Huang, X

    T. Huang, X. G. Wu and X. H. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 70, 053007 (2004)

    2004

  30. [37]

    Huang and X

    T. Huang and X. G. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 70, 093013 (2004)

    2004

  31. [38]

    X. G. Wu and T. Huang, JHEP 04, 043 (2008)

    2008

  32. [39]

    B. Wang, B. Yang, L. Meng and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 100, 016019 (2019)

    2019

  33. [40]

    T. Das, D. K. Choudhury and N. S. Bordoloi, [arXiv:1608.06896 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  34. [41]

    T. M. Aliev, S. Bilmis and M. Savci, Phys. Rev. D 101, 054009 (2020)

    2020

  35. [42]

    Simonis, Eur

    V. Simonis, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 90 (2016)

    2016

  36. [43]

    S. K. Bose and L. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. D 22, 773 (1980)

    1980

  37. [44]

    T. A. Lahde, Nucl. Phys. A 714, 183 (2003)

    2003

  38. [45]

    S. J. Brodsky and J. R. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 46, 2141 (1992)

    1992

  39. [46]

    Jaus, Phys

    W. Jaus, Phys. Rev. D 60, 054026 (1999)

    1999

  40. [47]

    I. L. Grach and L. A. Kondratyuk, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 39, 198 (1984)

    1984

  41. [48]

    P. L. Chung, W. N. Polyzou, F. Coester and B. D. Keister, Phys. Rev. C 37, 2000 (1988)

    1988

  42. [49]

    C. W. Hwang, Eur. Phys. J. C 23, 585 (2002)

    2002

  43. [50]

    Chang, L

    Q. Chang, L. T. Wang and X. N. Li, JHEP 1912, 102 (2019)

    2019

  44. [51]

    Chang, X

    Q. Chang, X. N. Li, X. Q. Li, F. Su and Y. D. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 98, 114018 (2018)

    2018

  45. [52]

    Chang, X

    Q. Chang, X. N. Li and L. T. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 422 (2019)

    2019

  46. [53]

    Jaus, Phys

    W. Jaus, Phys. Rev. D 41, 3394 (1990)

    1990

  47. [54]

    Jaus, Phys

    W. Jaus, Phys. Rev. D 53, 1349 (1996)

    1996

  48. [55]

    H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua and C. W. Hwang, Phys. Rev. D 69, 074025 (2004)

    2004

  49. [56]

    H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 89, 033011 (2014)

    2014

  50. [57]

    T. M. S., A. Hazra, N. Sharma and R. Dhir, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 204 (2025)

    2025

  51. [58]

    H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 95, 056002 (2017)

    2017

  52. [59]

    S. Xu, X. N. Li and X. G. Wu, [arXiv:2505.02419 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  53. [60]

    H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 59, 074015 (1999)

    1999

  54. [61]

    H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Lett. B 460, 461 (1999)

    1999

  55. [62]

    H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 80, 054016 (2009)

    2009

  56. [63]

    C. W. Hwang, Phys. Rev. D 81, 114024 (2010)

    2010

  57. [64]

    R. C. Verma, J. Phys. G 39, 025005 (2012)

    2012

  58. [65]

    H. M. Choi, C. R. Ji, Z. Li and H. Y. Ryu, Phys. Rev. C 92, 055203 (2015)

    2015

  59. [66]

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

    2022

Pith tools

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