Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 73 references

Nucleon masses from proton to N(1880) follow a holographic Schrödinger equation once a dilaton coupling and an R² curvature term are tuned.

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 00:10 UTC pith:XQGBMUFK

load-bearing objection Useful phenomenological extension, but the printed effective mass definition makes the central Schrödinger potential inconsistent with the paper's own boundary expansion; if that is not a typo, the spectra solve a different model. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26319 v1 pith:XQGBMUFK submitted 2026-07-28 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

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

Ad\~ao S. da Silva Junior , Juan M. Z. Pretel , Henrique Boschi-Filho This is my paper
classification hep-th gr-qchep-ph
keywords holographic QCDnucleon spectrumEinstein-dilaton gravityStarobinsky-dilaton gravityRegge trajectoryradial excitationssoft-wall modelSchrödinger-like equation
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.

This paper claims that the four lowest positive-parity nucleon states—the ground-state nucleon and the N(1440), N(1710), and N(1880) resonances—can be described as radial excitations in bottom-up holographic models, provided one adds a tunable parameter λ to the five-dimensional fermion effective mass and, in a second class of models, an αR² curvature correction to the bulk gravity action. In the Einstein-dilaton case, λ=0.4 with conformal dimension Δ=7/2 brings the third excited state to within 1.3% of experiment; in the Starobinsky-dilaton case with λ=0.5 and α=10^-11.1, the same state lands at 0.8%. The authors argue that both modifications do meaningful physical work—λ controls the slope of the Regge trajectory, and α strengthens confinement in the infrared, pushing higher excitations upward—so that the resulting spectra consistently beat the standard soft-wall model, whose errors on the same states are roughly 20–29%. If right, this provides a controlled, semi-analytic route to baryon radial excitations without lattice methods.

Core claim

Working from a five-dimensional Dirac action in a string-frame metric, the authors derive a Schrödinger-like eigenvalue equation for the right- and left-handed components of the nucleon field, with potentials U_{R/L} = (M_eff/ζ_s)² ± ∂_z(M_eff/ζ_s). The novelty is the effective mass M_eff = λϕ'ζ_s + m_5ζ_s, where the new term λϕ'ζ_s couples the dilaton derivative to the fermion; for large z this makes the potential grow as 4λ²z², so λ sets the spacing of the radial spectrum. In the Starobinsky extension, the bulk action f(R)=R+αR² with α>0 modifies the dilaton profile and string-frame scale factor, steepening the infrared potential without changing the ultraviolet AdS behavior. The paper sho

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective mass M_eff = λϕ'ζ_s + m_5ζ_s entering the Schrödinger potentials U_{R/L} for the right- and left-handed nucleon modes; its λ-term is the handle on the excitation spectrum because it determines the 4λ²z² growth of the potential at large z and therefore the Regge slope. In the Starobinsky-dilaton variant, the αR² term in the bulk action changes the dilaton profile ϕ(z,k,α) and the string-frame scale factor ζ_s, deepening the confinement potential in the infrared and selectively raising the masses of the higher radial states while leaving the ground state pinned. The parameter k is fixed for each λ and Δ to reproduce the nucleon ground state; λ and α are then

Load-bearing premise

The four states N(938), N(1440), N(1710), and N(1880) are assumed to be the n=0,1,2,3 radial excitations of one and the same Schrödinger trajectory, an assignment asserted without supporting evidence in the paper; if, say, N(1440) belongs to a different valence configuration, the quoted errors compare the model to the wrong experimental states and the best-fit conclusion loses its meaning.

What would settle it

Take the best ED parameter set (λ=0.4, Δ=7/2) and compute the n=4, 5, and 6 masses from the fitted Regge line m² = 0.849n + 0.884 GeV²; if the predicted resonances disagree with observed nucleon states by more than a few percent, the radial-trajectory claim is disconfirmed. Alternatively, establish from lattice or quark-model data that N(1440) is not the first radial excitation of the same valence state—that alone would void the comparison in the tables.

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

If this is right

  • With λ and α tuned, the model gives explicit Regge trajectories (e.g., m² ≈ 0.849n + 0.884 for ED λ=0.4, Δ=7/2) that can be extrapolated and tested against higher nucleon resonances.
  • The Starobinsky correction makes the spectrum nonlinear: the fitted exponent ν in m² = a(n+b)^ν rises from 1 in the ED limit to roughly 1.8–2.0 as α grows, predicting a measurable departure from linear Regge behavior in baryon spectra.
  • The same Schrödinger machinery transfers directly to other positive-parity baryons and to spin excitations, extensions the paper itself identifies as natural next steps.
  • Because the ground state is fixed by k and the excited states then emerge without further per-state tuning, the model's error pattern (1.3–8.5% for the best ED case) quantifies how rigidly the bottom-up holographic description constrains the radial spectrum.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the four fitted states truly form one radial trajectory, the same parameter set should predict the n=4 and n=5 masses; a quick check is to extrapolate the Regge line and compare with known higher nucleon resonances, which the paper does not do.
  • The α values used (10^-13.5 to 10^-11.1) are many orders of magnitude smaller than the α typically discussed in inflationary Starobinsky cosmology, so the connection to Starobinsky gravity is structurally suggestive rather than numerically tied to cosmology; one could test whether α is fixed by the nucleon data independently of k or merely absorbs the fit.
  • The choice Δ=7/2 is justified by earlier phenomenological work, but the paper shows spectra for both Δ=7/2 and 9/2; a deeper consistency test would be whether the same Δ reproduces other nucleon observables, such as form factors or structure functions, in the same model.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies positive-parity nucleon spectra in two bottom-up holographic frameworks: Einstein-dilaton (ED) gravity and Starobinsky-dilaton (SD) gravity. The novelty is the introduction of a parameter λ in the effective mass term of the bulk Dirac action and the inclusion of αR² corrections in the SD model. For various choices of λ, m5 (or conformal dimension Δ), and α, the authors fix the infrared scale k by reproducing the ground-state mass N(938), then compare the first three excited-state masses with N(1440), N(1710), N(1880). They report relative errors as low as 0.29% and conclude that ED with λ=0.4 gives the best overall agreement, outperforming the soft-wall model.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a modest but useful phenomenological improvement in bottom-up holographic QCD by showing that a small modification of the five-dimensional effective mass and a Starobinsky curvature correction can reproduce the nucleon radial-excitation pattern better than the simple soft-wall model. The derivation of the Schrödinger-like equation from the Dirac action is standard, and the numerical spectra are internally plausible. However, the central claim is undermined by an internal inconsistency between the defined effective mass and the boundary expansion of the potential used to identify conformal dimensions; this must be resolved before the numerical results can be interpreted as predictions of the stated model.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (4.17), (2.6), (5.1), (6.3), (3.32), (3.34)] The definition M_eff = λϕ'ζ_s + m_5 ζ_s gives M_eff/ζ_s = m_5 + λϕ'. Using the boundary expansions quoted in Eqs. (3.32) and (3.34), ϕ' → 3√k (ED) and 3√{k(1+8α)} (SD), so M_eff/ζ_s is finite at z=0. Consequently U_R/L = (M_eff/ζ_s)^2 ± ∂_z(M_eff/ζ_s) has no 1/z² or 1/z term. Eq. (5.1) and Eq. (6.3), however, claim the standard singular behavior (Δ−2)((Δ−2)∓1)/z², which requires M_eff/ζ_s ~ m_5/z near the boundary. The numerically solved Schrödinger problem is therefore not the one defined by the action in Eqs. (2.1)–(4.17); the quoted spectra and the Δ assignments are not those of the stated model. This is a load-bearing inconsistency that invalidates the central claim as written.
  2. [Eq. (4.18) and Tables 1–7] The relation Δ = 2 + m_5 is derived for a constant bulk mass m_5. In the paper's Eq. (4.17) the m_5 term is multiplied by ζ_s, so near the boundary the effective mass is m_5 + λϕ'(0), not m_5. The conformal dimensions Δ = 7/2 and 9/2 used throughout to fix m_5 = 3/2 and 5/2 are therefore not realized by the action as written. The authors must either redefine the effective mass to M_eff = m_5 + λϕ'ζ_s (or an equivalent form that supplies the m_5/z boundary behavior) and re-derive/re-run the spectra, or provide a different justification for the Δ assignments.
  3. [Section 4 and Tables 2–7] The four positive-parity states N(938), N(1440), N(1710), N(1880) are treated as the n=0,1,2,3 radial excitations of a single Schrödinger trajectory without any support from quark models, lattice QCD, or the Particle Data Group classification. While N(1440) is commonly identified as the Roper resonance (first radial excitation), the assignments of N(1710) and especially N(1880) to a single radial trajectory are non-trivial and contested. If these assignments are incorrect, the % errors in Tables 2, 4, 6, and 7 are comparisons to the wrong states and the 'best fit' conclusion is vacuous. The authors should provide supporting evidence for the assignment or at least test sensitivity to the identification.
  4. [Tables 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and Section 7] The fitting protocol fixes k separately for each (λ, Δ) pair to reproduce the ground state (Table 1), then scans λ (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) and α (10^-13.5, 10^-12, 10^-11.1) and selects the cases with the smallest excited-state errors. With four free parameters (k, λ, m_5, α) and four experimental masses, the reported small errors (e.g. 0.29% in Table 7) reflect the scan and selection process rather than a predictive model. The conclusion 'ED with λ=0.4 provides the best overall agreement' is a statement about the scanned grid, not about a fixed model. Report a goodness-of-fit measure that penalizes the number of parameters, and provide the complete grid or a leave-one-out analysis to assess the robustness of the 'best' choices.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] There are several typos: 'veilbein' should be 'vielbein', 'operador' should be 'operator', and the author name 'Ad˜ao' should be 'Adão'.
  2. [Eq. (6.3)] The expression in Eq. (6.3) contains apparent typographical errors: '(3−4∆+8)' and '(18±4+20∆−40)' are unclear; please check the intended coefficients.
  3. [Numerical method] The paper does not specify the numerical method used to solve the Schrödinger equation (e.g., shooting method, boundary conditions at z=0 and z→∞, or convergence criteria). Adding these details would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Error treatment] The experimental uncertainties in Tables 2, 4, 6, and 7 are listed but not propagated into the relative errors; if the experimental errors matter for the comparison, include them in the % calculation or state that they are negligible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No prediction reduces to its inputs by construction; the flagged UV inconsistency is a correctness defect, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the sense of the rubric. The ground-state mass is fixed by choosing k in Table 1 ('For each choice of Δ and λ, the corresponding value of k is fixed to reproduce the nucleon mass in the ground state correctly'), and the excited masses are then computed as eigenvalues of the Schrödinger equation; this is a standard one-point calibration, not a prediction of the fitted value. The choices λ=0.4,0.5,0.6 and α=0,10^-13.5,10^-12,10^-11.1 are explicitly scanned/selected by comparing the resulting excited masses to experimental data, so the 'best agreement' conclusion is a model-selection statement, not an independent prediction claimed to be parameter-free. The only self-citation is Ref. [44], co-authored by one of the present authors, used to justify the M_eff ansatz ('According to the detailed discussion in Ref. [44], an effective mass of the form given in Eq. (4.17) is required...'); this is load-bearing for the model setup but the subsequent λ- and α-variation and the external comparison give independent content, so it does not make the central claim circular. A serious non-circular internal inconsistency should be flagged separately: substituting the paper's own UV dilaton expansion (3.32) into (4.17) gives M_eff/ζ_s = m5 + 3λ√k + O(z²), a finite constant, so the potential has no 1/z² or 1/z terms; the singular expansion (5.1) (and similarly (5.2) for large z) does not follow from the stated model and the Δ=2+m5 assignments are not the boundary asymptotics of (4.17). This is a mathematical/correctness problem that undermines the reported spectra, but it is not a by-construction equivalence between input and output, so the circularity score remains low. The identification of N(1440), N(1710), N(1880) as n=1,2,3 radial excitations is also an unsupported assumption, again a physics/correctness concern rather than circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new ontology. It adds a fitted coupling λ to an existing effective-mass ansatz and uses a known f(R)=R+αR² gravity. All load-bearing freedom is in parameters, not entities.

free parameters (4)
  • k (infrared scale) = (0.364 GeV)^2 to (0.539 GeV)^2 depending on λ and Δ (Table 1)
    Chosen for each (λ, Δ) pair to force the ground-state nucleon mass to 0.938 GeV; no independent determination.
  • λ = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 (scanned; λ=0.4 selected as best)
    Introduced in M_eff Eq. (4.17) to improve the fit; values are not derived from QCD or any external input.
  • m5 (conformal dimension Δ) = m5=3/2 (Δ=7/2) or m5=5/2 (Δ=9/2)
    Two values are considered; Δ=7/2 assumes an anomalous-dimension contribution motivated by Ref. [69], not derived here.
  • α (Starobinsky coupling) = 10^-13.5, 10^-12, 10^-11.1 (SD models A/B)
    Positive α values scanned to bring excited-state masses closer to experiment; no hadronic or independent constraint beyond cosmological positivity.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT dictionary: bulk fermion mass m5 maps to boundary operator dimension Δ=2+m5 (Eq. 4.18).
    Used to choose m5=3/2 or 5/2; standard but not derived within the paper.
  • domain assumption Scale-factor ansatz ζ(z,k)=z exp(2k z²/3) (Eq. 3.29).
    Assumed from prior ED glueball/meson studies; not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Effective mass M_eff = λϕ'ζs + m5ζs (Eq. 4.17) is the correct bulk fermion coupling.
    The λ term is introduced to improve the fit; no action-level derivation is given, only citation to asymptotically linear spectra in [44].
  • domain assumption The four positive-parity states N(938), N(1440), N(1710), N(1880) are radial excitations n=0..3 of one nucleon trajectory.
    Assumed in Sec. 4; load-bearing for the error comparison; no spectroscopic or operator justification.
  • domain assumption Confinement criterion: string-frame scale factor must have a non-zero minimum (Sec. 3.4, Ref. [64]).
    Used to restrict α>0; standard Wilson-loop criterion.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 3885 in / 4084 out tokens · 158151 ms · 2026-08-01T00:10:02.801321+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the nucleon spectra in two holographic set-ups: Einstein-dilaton and Starobinsky-dilaton gravity models. The Einstein-dilaton holographic model, also known as improved holographic QCD, have been proposed some time ago to describe confinement and glueball spectra. Recently, it has been applied to the case of mesons and nucleons. In this work, we reconsider the Einstein-dilaton holographic model to discuss the nucleon spectra introducing new parameters that allow us to improve the comparison with experimental data. Then, we extend this idea to the context of Starobinsky-dilaton gravity defining another improved holographic model. We use this new holographic model to reanalyse the nucleon spectra and also compare them with soft-wall model and experimental data.

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

73 extracted references · 51 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Ultraviolet Behavior of Nonabelian Gauge Theories,

    D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, “Ultraviolet Behavior of Nonabelian Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett.30(1973) 1343–1346

    1973

  2. [2]

    Reliable Perturbative Results for Strong Interactions?,

    H. D. Politzer, “Reliable Perturbative Results for Strong Interactions?,” Phys. Rev. Lett.30(1973) 1346–1349

    1973

  3. [3]

    Nucleon mass: From lattice QCD to the chiral limit,

    M. Procura, B. U. Musch, T. Wollenweber, T. R. Hemmert, and W. Weise, “Nucleon mass: From lattice QCD to the chiral limit,” Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 114510,arXiv:hep-lat/0603001. [4]BMWCollaboration, S. Durr et al., “Ab-Initio Determination of Light Hadron Masses,” Science322(2008) 1224–1227,arXiv:0906.3599 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  4. [5]

    Excited state baryon spectroscopy from lattice QCD,

    R. G. Edwards, J. J. Dudek, D. G. Richards, and S. J. Wallace, “Excited state baryon spectroscopy from lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 074508, arXiv:1104.5152 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  5. [6]

    Quark models of baryon masses and decays,

    S. Capstick and W. Roberts, “Quark models of baryon masses and decays,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.45(2000) S241–S331,arXiv:nucl-th/0008028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  6. [7]

    The hypercentral Constituent Quark Model and its application to baryon properties,

    M. M. Giannini and E. Santopinto, “The hypercentral Constituent Quark Model and its application to baryon properties,” Chin. J. Phys.53(2015) 020301, arXiv:1501.03722 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [8]

    Cutoff schemes in chiral perturbation theory and the quark mass expansion of the nucleon mass,

    V. Bernard, T. R. Hemmert, and U.-G. Meissner, “Cutoff schemes in chiral perturbation theory and the quark mass expansion of the nucleon mass,” Nucl. Phys. A732(2004) 149–170,arXiv:hep-ph/0307115

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  8. [9]

    Nucleons, nuclear matter and quark matter: A Unified NJL approach,

    S. Lawley, W. Bentz, and A. W. Thomas, “Nucleons, nuclear matter and quark matter: A Unified NJL approach,” J. Phys. G32(2006) 667–680, arXiv:nucl-th/0602014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  9. [10]

    Spectrum of light- and heavy-baryons,

    S.-x. Qin, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, “Spectrum of light- and heavy-baryons,” Few Body Syst.60no. 2, (2019) 26,arXiv:1902.00026 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [11]

    Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields,

    P. W. Higgs, “Broken symmetries, massless particles and gauge fields,” Phys. Lett. 12(1964) 132–133

    1964

  11. [12]

    Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons,

    P. W. Higgs, “Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons,” Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 508–509

    1964

  12. [13]

    Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons,

    F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons,” Phys. Rev. Lett.13(1964) 321–323. – 31 –

    1964

  13. [14]

    Origin of the Proton Mass,

    C. D. Roberts, “Origin of the Proton Mass,” EPJ Web Conf.282(2023) 01006, arXiv:2211.09905 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [15]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, SUPERSTRING THEORY. VOL. 1: INTRODUCTION. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. 7, 1988

    1988

  15. [16]

    The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The LargeNlimit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Int. J. Theor. Phys.38no. 4, (1999) 1113–1133, arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  16. [17]

    Anti de Sitter space and holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2 (1998) 253–291,arXiv:hep-th/9802150

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  17. [18]

    Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,” Phys. Lett. B428(1998) 105–114, arXiv:hep-th/9802109

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  18. [19]

    Baryons in AdS/QCD,

    D. K. Hong, T. Inami, and H.-U. Yee, “Baryons in AdS/QCD,” Phys. Lett. B646 (2007) 165–171,arXiv:hep-ph/0609270

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  19. [20]

    IR-improved Soft-wall AdS/QCD Model for Baryons,

    Z. Fang, D. Li, and Y.-L. Wu, “IR-improved Soft-wall AdS/QCD Model for Baryons,” Phys. Lett. B754(2016) 343–348,arXiv:1602.00379 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [21]

    Holographic model for the baryon octet,

    Z. Fang, “Holographic model for the baryon octet,” Phys. Rev. D94no. 7, (2016) 074017,arXiv:1607.06197 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  21. [22]

    Dilaton in a soft-wall holographic approach to mesons and baryons,

    T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, I. Schmidt, and A. Vega, “Dilaton in a soft-wall holographic approach to mesons and baryons,” Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 076003, arXiv:1108.0346 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  22. [23]

    Electromagnetic structure of nucleon and Roper in soft-wall AdS/QCD,

    T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, and I. Schmidt, “Electromagnetic structure of nucleon and Roper in soft-wall AdS/QCD,” Phys. Rev. D97no. 5, (2018) 054011, arXiv:1712.08410 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [24]

    Hadronic spectra from deformed AdS backgrounds,

    E. Folco Capossoli, M. A. Mart ´ ın Contreras, D. Li, A. Vega, and H. Boschi-Filho, “Hadronic spectra from deformed AdS backgrounds,” Chin. Phys. C44no. 6, (2020) 064104,arXiv:1903.06269 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [25]

    Proton structure functions from an AdS/QCD model with a deformed background,

    E. Folco Capossoli, M. A. Mart ´ ın Contreras, D. Li, A. Vega, and H. Boschi-Filho, “Proton structure functions from an AdS/QCD model with a deformed background,” Phys. Rev. D102no. 8, (2020) 086004,arXiv:2007.09283 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [26]

    Proton and neutron form factors from deformed gravity/gauge duality,

    M. A. M. Contreras, E. F. Capossoli, D. Li, A. Vega, and H. Boschi-Filho, “Proton and neutron form factors from deformed gravity/gauge duality,” Phys. Lett. B822 (2021) 136638,arXiv:2108.05427 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [27]

    Mechanical Properties of the Proton from a Deformed AdS Holographic Model,

    A. Nascimento and H. Boschi-Filho, “Mechanical Properties of the Proton from a Deformed AdS Holographic Model,”arXiv:2511.20715 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [28]

    Low energy hadron physics in holographic QCD,

    T. Sakai and S. Sugimoto, “Low energy hadron physics in holographic QCD,” Prog. Theor. Phys.113(2005) 843–882,arXiv:hep-th/0412141. – 32 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  28. [29]

    More on a holographic dual of QCD,

    T. Sakai and S. Sugimoto, “More on a holographic dual of QCD,” Prog. Theor. Phys.114(2005) 1083–1118,arXiv:hep-th/0507073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  29. [30]

    Baryons from instantons in holographic QCD,

    H. Hata, T. Sakai, S. Sugimoto, and S. Yamato, “Baryons from instantons in holographic QCD,” Prog. Theor. Phys.117(2007) 1157,arXiv:hep-th/0701280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  30. [31]

    Generalized baryon form factors and proton structure functions in the Sakai-Sugimoto model,

    C. A. B. Bayona, H. Boschi-Filho, N. R. F. Braga, M. Ihl, and M. A. C. Torres, “Generalized baryon form factors and proton structure functions in the Sakai-Sugimoto model,” Nucl. Phys. B866(2013) 124–156,arXiv:1112.1439 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  31. [32]

    Production of negative parity baryons in the holographic Sakai-Sugimoto model,

    A. Ballon-Bayona, H. Boschi-Filho, N. R. F. Braga, M. Ihl, and M. A. C. Torres, “Production of negative parity baryons in the holographic Sakai-Sugimoto model,” Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 126002,arXiv:1209.6020 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  32. [33]

    Tachyon-dependent Chern-Simons terms and the V-QCD baryon,

    M. J¨ arvinen, E. Kiritsis, F. Nitti, and E. Pr´ eau, “Tachyon-dependent Chern-Simons terms and the V-QCD baryon,” JHEP12(2022) 160,arXiv:2209.05868 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  33. [34]

    The V-QCD baryon: numerical solution and baryon spectrum,

    M. J¨ arvinen, E. Kiritsis, F. Nitti, and E. Pr´ eau, “The V-QCD baryon: numerical solution and baryon spectrum,” JHEP05(2023) 081,arXiv:2212.06747 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [35]

    Nucleon structure from an AdS/QCD model in the Veneziano limit,

    J. Deng and D. Hou, “Nucleon structure from an AdS/QCD model in the Veneziano limit,” Phys. Rev. D112no. 3, (2025) 036011,arXiv:2502.00771 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [36]

    Gravitational form factors of the proton in the improved holographic QCD model,

    A. Hippel¨ ainen, N. Jokela, and M. J¨ arvinen, “Gravitational form factors of the proton in the improved holographic QCD model,”arXiv:2601.14939 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  36. [37]

    Exploring improved holographic theories for QCD: Part I,

    U. Gursoy and E. Kiritsis, “Exploring improved holographic theories for QCD: Part I,” JHEP02(2008) 032,arXiv:0707.1324 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  37. [38]

    Exploring improved holographic theories for QCD: Part II,

    U. Gursoy, E. Kiritsis, and F. Nitti, “Exploring improved holographic theories for QCD: Part II,” JHEP02(2008) 019,arXiv:0707.1349 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  38. [39]

    Hadron spectra and pion form factor in dynamical holographic QCD model with anomalous 5D mass of scalar field*,

    R. Chen, D. Li, K. Bitaghsir Fadafan, and M. Huang, “Hadron spectra and pion form factor in dynamical holographic QCD model with anomalous 5D mass of scalar field*,” Chin. Phys. C47no. 6, (2023) 063106,arXiv:2212.10363 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [40]

    Dynamical holographic QCD model for glueball and light meson spectra,

    D. Li and M. Huang, “Dynamical holographic QCD model for glueball and light meson spectra,” JHEP11(2013) 088,arXiv:1303.6929 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [41]

    Dynamical holographic QCD model for spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking and confinement,

    A. Ballon-Bayona, T. Frederico, L. A. H. Mamani, and W. de Paula, “Dynamical holographic QCD model for spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking and confinement,” Phys. Rev. D108no. 10, (2023) 106016,arXiv:2308.07503 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [42]

    Pomeron and Odderon Regge Trajectories from a Dynamical Holographic Model,

    E. Folco Capossoli, D. Li, and H. Boschi-Filho, “Pomeron and Odderon Regge Trajectories from a Dynamical Holographic Model,” Phys. Lett. B760(2016) 101–105,arXiv:1601.05114 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [43]

    Soft Pomeron in Holographic QCD,

    A. Ballon-Bayona, R. Carcass´ es Quevedo, M. S. Costa, and M. Djuri´ c, “Soft Pomeron in Holographic QCD,” Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 035005,arXiv:1508.00008 [hep-ph]. – 33 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [44]

    Nucleons and vector mesons in a confining holographic QCD model,

    A. Ballon-Bayona and A. a. S. d. S. Junior, “Nucleons and vector mesons in a confining holographic QCD model,” Phys. Rev. D109no. 9, (2024) 094050, arXiv:2402.17950 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [45]

    Proton Structure Functions from Holographic Einstein-Dilaton Models,

    A. d. C. P. d. Nascimento, H. Boschi-Filho, and J. Noronha, “Proton Structure Functions from Holographic Einstein-Dilaton Models,”arXiv:2505.13649 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  45. [46]

    A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,

    A. A. Starobinsky, “A new type of isotropic cosmological models without singularity,” Phys. Lett. B91no. 1, (1980) 99

    1980

  46. [47]

    f(R) theories,

    A. D. Felice and S. Tsujikawa, “f(R) theories,” Living Rev. Relativ.13(2010) 3

    2010

  47. [48]

    Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: From f(R) theory to lorentz non-invariant models,

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, “Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: From f(R) theory to lorentz non-invariant models,” Phys. Rep.505no. 2, (2011) 59–144

    2011

  48. [49]

    Planck 2018 results - X. constraints on inflation,

    Y. Akrami et al., “Planck 2018 results - X. constraints on inflation,” A&A641 (2020) A10

    2018

  49. [50]

    Vector mesons from a holographic QCD model inf(R)-dilaton gravity,

    A. S. da Silva Junior and J. M. Z. Pretel, “Vector mesons from a holographic QCD model inf(R)-dilaton gravity,” Nucl. Phys. A1073(2026) 123439, arXiv:2502.07920 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [51]

    Effective holographic models for QCD: glueball spectrum and trace anomaly,

    A. Ballon-Bayona, H. Boschi-Filho, L. A. H. Mamani, A. S. Miranda, and V. T. Zanchin, “Effective holographic models for QCD: glueball spectrum and trace anomaly,” Phys. Rev. D97no. 4, (2018) 046001,arXiv:1708.08968 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [52]

    f(R) theories of gravity,

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, “f(R) theories of gravity,” Rev. Mod. Phys.82 (2010) 451–497

    2010

  52. [53]

    Extended theories of gravity,

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, “Extended theories of gravity,” Phys. Rep.509 no. 4, (2011) 167 – 321

    2011

  53. [54]

    Modified gravity and cosmology,

    T. Clifton et al., “Modified gravity and cosmology,” Phys. Rep.513no. 1, (2012) 1–189

    2012

  54. [55]

    Modified gravity theories on a nutshell: Inflation, bounce and late-time evolution,

    S. Nojiri, S. Odintsov, and V. Oikonomou, “Modified gravity theories on a nutshell: Inflation, bounce and late-time evolution,” Phys. Rep.692(2017) 1–104

    2017

  55. [56]

    Unifying inflation with early and late-time dark energy inf(R) gravity,

    S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and V. Oikonomou, “Unifying inflation with early and late-time dark energy inf(R) gravity,” Phys. Dark Univ.29(2020) 100602

    2020

  56. [57]

    Nonperturbative models of quark stars inf(R) gravity,

    A. V. Astashenok, S. Capozziello, and S. D. Odintsov, “Nonperturbative models of quark stars inf(R) gravity,” Phys. Lett. B742(2015) 160

    2015

  57. [58]

    Extended gravity description for the GW190814 supermassive neutron star,

    A. V. Astashenok, S. Capozziello, S. D. Odintsov, and V. K. Oikonomou, “Extended gravity description for the GW190814 supermassive neutron star,” Phys. Lett. B 811(2020) 135910

    2020

  58. [59]

    Charged quark stars in metricf(R) gravity,

    J. M. Z. Pretel et al., “Charged quark stars in metricf(R) gravity,” JCAP09 (2022) 058

    2022

  59. [60]

    Revisiting compact star in – 34 – F(R) gravity: Roles of chameleon potential and energy conditions,

    K. Numajiri, Y.-X. Cui, T. Katsuragawa, and S. Nojiri, “Revisiting compact star in – 34 – F(R) gravity: Roles of chameleon potential and energy conditions,” Phys. Rev. D 107(2023) 104019

    2023

  60. [61]

    Black holes and their shadows inf(R) gravity,

    S. Nojiri and S. Odintsov, “Black holes and their shadows inf(R) gravity,” Phys. Dark Univ.47(2025) 101785

    2025

  61. [62]

    Wilson loops in large N field theories,

    J. M. Maldacena, “Wilson loops in large N field theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett.80 (1998) 4859–4862,arXiv:hep-th/9803002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  62. [63]

    Wilson loops, confinement, and phase transitions in large N gauge theories from supergravity,

    A. Brandhuber, N. Itzhaki, J. Sonnenschein, and S. Yankielowicz, “Wilson loops, confinement, and phase transitions in large N gauge theories from supergravity,” JHEP06(1998) 001,arXiv:hep-th/9803263

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  63. [64]

    Q anti-Q potential from strings in curved space-time: Classical results,

    Y. Kinar, E. Schreiber, and J. Sonnenschein, “Q anti-Q potential from strings in curved space-time: Classical results,” Nucl. Phys. B566(2000) 103–125, arXiv:hep-th/9811192

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  64. [65]

    Boundary terms in the AdS / CFT correspondence for spinor fields,

    M. Henneaux, “Boundary terms in the AdS / CFT correspondence for spinor fields,” in International Meeting on Mathematical Methods in Modern Theoretical Physics (ISPM 98), pp. 161–170. 9, 1998.arXiv:hep-th/9902137

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  65. [66]

    QCD sum rules and applications to nuclear physics,

    T. D. Cohen, R. J. Furnstahl, D. K. Griegel, and X.-m. Jin, “QCD sum rules and applications to nuclear physics,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.35(1995) 221–298, arXiv:hep-ph/9503315

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  66. [67]

    Real-time response in AdS/CFT with application to spinors,

    N. Iqbal and H. Liu, “Real-time response in AdS/CFT with application to spinors,” Fortsch. Phys.57(2009) 367–384,arXiv:0903.2596 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  67. [68]

    Spinors and the AdS / CFT correspondence,

    M. Henningson and K. Sfetsos, “Spinors and the AdS / CFT correspondence,” Phys. Lett. B431(1998) 63–68,arXiv:hep-th/9803251

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  68. [69]

    Nucleon electromagnetic and gravitational form factors from holography,

    Z. Abidin and C. E. Carlson, “Nucleon electromagnetic and gravitational form factors from holography,” Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 115003,arXiv:0903.4818 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  69. [70]

    Deep inelastic scattering of baryons in a modified soft wall model,

    N. R. F. Braga and A. Vega, “Deep inelastic scattering of baryons in a modified soft wall model,” Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 2236,arXiv:1110.2548 [hep-ph]. [71]Particle Data GroupCollaboration, F. Takahashi et al., “Review of Particle Physics,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A41(2026) 2630011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  70. [72]

    Holographic bottom-up approach to Σ baryons*,

    X. Guo, M. A. Martin Contreras, X. Chen, and D. Xiang, “Holographic bottom-up approach to Σ baryons*,” Chin. Phys. C49no. 1, (2025) 013104, arXiv:2404.16608 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [73]

    Nonlinear Regge trajectories with AdS/QCD,

    M. A. Martin Contreras and A. Vega, “Nonlinear Regge trajectories with AdS/QCD,” Phys. Rev. D102no. 4, (2020) 046007,arXiv:2004.10286 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [74]

    Hadronic spectrum of a holographic dual of QCD,

    G. F. de Teramond and S. J. Brodsky, “Hadronic spectrum of a holographic dual of QCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett.94(2005) 201601,arXiv:hep-th/0501022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  73. [75]

    Anisotropic quark stars inf(R) =R 1+ε gravity,

    J. M. Z. Pretel and S. B. Duarte, “Anisotropic quark stars inf(R) =R 1+ε gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav.39no. 15, (2022) 155003,arXiv:2202.04467 [gr-qc]. – 35 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022