Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 85 references

$D$ and $D^*$ mesons in isospin asymmetric nuclear medium

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper predicts that in isospin-asymmetric nuclear matter the masses, weak decay constants, and distribution amplitudes of $D$ and $D^*$ mesons are significantly modified, with the $D^0$ mass shifting down by about $0.097$ GeV at…

desk verdict A solid, incremental extension of the group's LFQM+CQMF program to D/D* mesons in isospin asymmetric matter; the vector D* results and delta-field isospin splitting are new, but the fixed variational width beta is an addressable internal-consistency gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08707 v1 pith:Z5DYNMTE submitted 2025-06-10 hep-ph nucl-th

Anshu Gautam , Dhananjay Singh , Navpreet Kaur , Satyajit Puhan , Suneel Dutt , Harleen Dahiya , Arvind Kumar This is my paper
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords DmesonsD*isospinasymmetricnuclearmatterlight-frontquarkmodelchiralmeanfieldweakdecayconstantsdistributionamplitudesin-mediumhadronproperties
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 predicts how open-charm $D$ and $D^*$ mesons change inside dense, isospin-asymmetric nuclear matter by feeding in-medium quark masses from a chiral SU(3) quark mean field model into a light-front quark model. It claims that the medium lowers the $D^0$ mass by about $0.097$ GeV at nuclear saturation density and zero temperature, with smaller shifts for mesons containing a strange quark. It also predicts that weak decay constants are suppressed by about 6% for the $u/d$-containing $D$ mesons at saturation density, and that distribution amplitudes shift and split between $D^0$ and $D^+$ when isospin asymmetry is introduced. Baryon density, rather than temperature or isospin asymmetry, is identified as the dominant driver of these medium modifications.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the in-medium constituent quark mass $m_q^* = -g_q^\sigma \sigma - g_q^\zeta \zeta - g_q^\delta I_{3q}\delta + \Delta m$, obtained by minimizing the CQMF thermodynamic potential and then used directly as the quark mass in the light-front Hamiltonian for the meson. The meson mass eigenstate is computed variationally with a Gaussian trial wave function of width $\beta$ through Eq. (28), and the same wave function determines the weak decay constants (Eqs. (31)-(32)) and the distribution amplitudes (Eqs. (35)-(36)). The hyperfine term in Eq. (19), proportional to $\langle S_q \cdot S_{\bar q}\rangle$, distinguishes pseudoscalar from vector mesons and is the reason their mass-versus-density trends differ. The confinement parameters $a$, $b$, $\alpha_s$, and $\kappa$ are kept at their vacuum values; only the quark masses are modified by the medium.

What would settle it

Measure the $D^0$ mass shift in cold nuclear matter at $\rho_B = \rho_0$ and $T \approx 0$, for example from $D$-mesic nuclei or $D$-meson production in heavy-ion collisions; a shift much smaller than $-0.097$ GeV would contradict the central prediction. A lattice calculation of the in-medium $D$-meson mass and weak decay constant at $\rho_0$ would provide an independent check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a hybrid treatment, in which in-medium constituent quark masses from the chiral SU(3) quark mean field model are inserted into the light-front quark model, captures the dominant medium effects on $D$ and $D^*$ mesons. At $\rho_B = \rho_0$, $T = 0$ and $\eta = 0$, the $D^0$ mass shifts downward by $-0.097$ GeV, and at $\eta = 0.5$ the shift is $-0.085$ GeV. $D^+$ behaves similarly, while $D_s$ shifts by roughly $-0.029$ GeV at $\eta=0.5$ and $D_s^*$ by $-0.024$ GeV. Vector $D^{0*}$ and $D^{+*}$ masses first drop and then rise with baryon density because the hyperfine term acts with opposite signs for vector and pseudoscalar mesons. Weak decay constant ratios $f_M^*/f_M$ fall with density, reaching $0.936$ for $D^0$ at $\rho_0$, $T=0$, $\eta=0$, and the distribution amplitudes develop a visible $D^0$/$D^+$ splitting under isospin asymmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the quark inside a $D$ meson experiences the same scalar and vector mean fields as a quark confined inside a nucleon, so the in-medium quark masses from the chiral quark mean field model can be used directly in the meson wave function while the confining interaction parameters stay at their vacuum values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At nuclear saturation density the $D^0$ mass shift is predicted to be about $-0.097$ GeV in symmetric matter, a signal that could be searched for in $D$-meson spectral measurements.
  • Mesons containing a strange quark ($D_s$, $D_s^*$) are nearly unaffected, so isospin asymmetry acts mainly on the doublet members with $u/d$ quarks.
  • The weak decay constants of the $u/d$-containing $D$ mesons are suppressed by roughly 6% at $\rho_0$ and by about 15% at $3\rho_0$, which would alter predicted $D$-meson production and decay rates in dense matter.
  • Vector $D^*$ mesons show a non-monotonic mass shift with density, initially decreasing and then increasing, a signature of the hyperfine interaction that separates them from their pseudoscalar partners.
  • Raising temperature from $0$ to $0.15$ GeV partially cancels the medium-induced shifts, so cold dense matter gives the cleanest signal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same mean-field assumption holds outside the nucleon sector, the predicted $-0.097$ GeV shift at $\rho_0$ could be used to estimate $D$-meson binding energies and the formation threshold of $D$-mesic nuclei.
  • The predicted splitting of the $D^0$ and $D^+$ distribution amplitudes under isospin asymmetry could be probed in processes sensitive to the light-quark momentum fraction, such as $D$-meson production in asymmetric heavy-ion collisions.
  • A lattice QCD computation of the $D$-meson mass and decay constant in uniform nuclear matter at $\rho_0$ would test whether the quark inside a meson feels the same mean field as the quark inside a nucleon; a null result for the decay-constant suppression would point to that assumption as the weak link.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the in-medium properties of pseudoscalar D (D0, D+, Ds) and vector D* (D0*, D+*, Ds*) mesons in isospin asymmetric nuclear matter using a hybrid approach that combines the light-front quark model (LFQM) with the chiral SU(3) quark mean field (CQMF) model. In-medium quark masses obtained from the CQMF model are inserted into the LFQM Hamiltonian, and the effective masses, weak decay constants, and distribution amplitudes are computed as functions of baryon density, isospin asymmetry, and temperature. The paper reports significant density-dependent mass shifts and decay-constant suppression for mesons containing u/d quarks, smaller effects for strange mesons, and weak temperature sensitivity. Vacuum masses and decay constants are compared with experimental data and with results from other models.

Significance. The results, if taken at face value, provide phenomenological predictions for open-charm meson modifications in dense matter that are relevant for CBM and PANDA at FAIR, and they extend earlier hybrid LFQM+CQMF studies from light and bottom mesons to D and D* mesons. The paper is built on explicit formulas and gives comparisons with several other approaches. However, the quantitative central claim rests on a variational consistency step that is not carried out in the medium, and on an unstated transferability assumption for the CQMF quark masses. These points need to be addressed before the quoted mass shifts and decay-constant ratios can be regarded as robust predictions of the hybrid framework.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II B (Eqs. (26)-(28)), Sec. III A] The variational parameter beta is not re-minimized in the medium. The paper states in Sec. II B that beta is fixed by minimizing the expectation value of the QCD-motivated Hamiltonian, and Table II lists only vacuum values. When the in-medium quark masses m*_q from Eq. (13) are inserted into Eqs. (17)-(19) and (25), the Hamiltonian changes, so the variational minimum for beta should shift with density, isospin asymmetry, and temperature. Since beta enters not only the mass formula in Eq. (28) but also the decay constants f*_P and f*_V in Eqs. (31)-(32) and the distribution amplitudes in Eqs. (35)-(36), the reported medium modifications, including the headline shift of -0.097 GeV for the D0 mass at rho_B = rho_0, eta = 0, T = 0, are not the outcome of the model's own variational principle. The authors should recompute beta for each in-medium mass configuration and quantify how the mass shifts, decay-constant ratios, and DAs change. A sensitivity estimate is needed even if the effect turns out to be small.
  2. [Sec. II A (Eqs. (12)-(13)), Sec. II B (Eqs. (17)-(19))] The transferability of the CQMF in-medium quark masses to the D-meson bound state is an explicit model assumption that is not stated or tested. The effective quark masses m*_q in Sec. II A are computed for quarks confined inside nucleons via the Dirac equation in Eq. (12), but they are then used as the constituent quark masses of the quark-antiquark pair inside a D meson in the LFQM Hamiltonian, while the confinement parameters (a, b, alpha_s) and the smearing parameter kappa are kept at their vacuum values. This assumes that a quark inside a D meson experiences the same scalar and vector mean fields as a quark inside a nucleon, and that the confining interaction is medium-independent. I ask the authors to state this assumption explicitly and to provide a quantitative check of its robustness, for example by comparing with an alternative in-medium mass prescription or by varying the input m*_q within a reasonable range and reporting the resulting spread in the predicted mass shifts and decay-constant ratios.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table III] The caption of Table III reads "Predicted ground-state mass spectra," but the D0 and D0* masses are fitted inputs used to fix m_u/d, m_c, alpha_s, a, b, and beta; only the D_s and D_s* rows are genuine predictions and should be labeled accordingly.
  2. [Sec. III A] The text quotes vacuum masses of 2.008 GeV for D_s and 2.111 GeV for D_s*, which are inconsistent with the values 2.010 and 2.112 GeV listed in Table III.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical and labeling errors, including "Additonally," "isosppin asymmetry," and the figure panel labels "B = 0" and "B = 3 0" in Figs. 8 and 9, which should read rho_B = rho_0 and rho_B = 3 rho_0.
  4. [Sec. III] The paper does not provide numerical tables of the in-medium quark masses m*_q or of the beta values used for the in-medium calculations; providing these numbers, at least for representative densities, would improve reproducibility and allow readers to check the LFQM inputs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the in-medium D and D* properties are a cross-model prediction from CQMF-supplied quark masses, with no parameter fitted to the reported in-medium observables.

full rationale

The derivation chain is linear and non-circular. CQMF solves for in-medium quark masses m*_q via Eq. (13) from mean-field equations whose parameters are fixed by nuclear-matter saturation properties and meson masses in free space. These m*_q values are then inserted into LFQM formulas for the meson mass (Eq. 28), weak decay constants (Eqs. 31-32), and distribution amplitudes (Eqs. 35-36). No parameter in the LFQM or CQMF sector is fitted to the in-medium D/D* masses, decay-constant ratios, or DAs that the paper reports. The vacuum LFQM parameters (a, b, alpha_s, quark masses) are fixed by free-space D0 and D0* masses and other model inputs, and the CQMF parameters by saturation properties; the in-medium shifts, such as -0.097 GeV for D0 at rho_0, are then genuine predictions of the combined model rather than reproductions of an input. The direction of the shift is indeed inherited from the sign of the light-quark mass drop, but the magnitude is a nontrivial outcome of the Bessel, Coulomb, and hyperfine terms in Eq. (28). The self-citations (Refs. 19-23 and 59) supply the CQMF parameter set and earlier pion/kaon/B applications of the same hybrid idea, but the D-meson calculation is performed in this paper and is not a restatement of those works. One internal-consistency caveat, which is a correctness concern rather than circularity, is that the Gaussian width beta in Table II is fixed by vacuum variational minimization and is not re-minimized as m*_q changes with density; the in-medium expectation value is therefore computed with a wavefunction that is not the variational minimum of the in-medium Hamiltonian (Sec. II B, Eqs. 26-28). This could affect the numerical shifts but does not make any predicted quantity equal to an input by construction.

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

The central in-medium results are derived by replacing vacuum quark masses with CQMF in-medium masses in the LFQM. The CQMF has numerous couplings fitted to vacuum hadron masses and nuclear matter saturation, and the LFQM parameters are fitted to D0 and D0* vacuum masses. The in-medium claim itself is not fitted, but it depends on the unvalidated assumption that the same mean fields act on quarks in a meson as in a nucleon, and that the confinement potential is density independent.

free parameters (5)
  • k0, k1, k2, k3, k4 = 4.94, 2.12, -10.16, -5.38, -0.06
    Set by fitting pi, K, eta, eta' masses in the CQMF model (Table I, Ref [59]). The in-medium scalar field equations depend on them.
  • g4 = 37.4
    Fitted to the effective nucleon mass, per Sec. III.
  • confinement parameters (a, b, alpha_s) = a = -0.043 GeV, b = 0.18 GeV^2, alpha_s = 0.565
    Fitted to D0 and D0* vacuum masses (Sec. III, Ref [49]). Used in Eq. (19) and Eq. (28).
  • constituent quark masses = m_ud = 0.256, m_s = 0.457, m_c = 1.27 GeV
    Taken from Ref [68] and fit; they define the vacuum meson masses and the in-medium input.
  • Gaussian parameter beta = 0.5331, 0.5189, 0.6066 for pseudoscalar; 0.4896, 0.4681, 0.4742 for vector
    Variational parameter; depends on quark masses and potential; Table II. Whether it is re-minimized in medium is not stated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The CQMF Lagrangian (Eqs. 5-14) with parameters from Table I describes nuclear matter and in-medium quark masses.
    The in-medium quark masses m*_q from Eq. (13) are the only medium input to the LFQM.
  • ad hoc to paper In-medium quark masses derived for quarks inside nucleons apply unchanged to quarks inside D mesons.
    The hybrid approach assumes the same mean fields act on the meson's quark as on a nucleon's quark; no in-medium meson feedback is included.
  • ad hoc to paper The vacuum confinement potential (linear plus Coulomb plus hyperfine) is unchanged in the medium.
    Eq. (19) uses vacuum a, b, alpha_s; only quark masses change with density.
  • standard math Light-front quantization and the Gaussian trial wave function yield the meson mass eigenvalue (Eqs. 17-28).
    Standard LFQM variational treatment; no formal proof of convergence.
  • standard math The Gaussian smearing of the delta function in the hyperfine potential (kappa parameter) is fixed.
    Necessary to avoid negative infinity; kappa specified from Ref [69].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $D$ and $D^*$ mesons in isospin asymmetric nuclear medium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z5DYNMTE

@misc{pith2026250608707,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $D$ and $D^*$ mesons in isospin asymmetric nuclear medium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z5DYNMTE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08707}
}
abstract

We investigate the properties of pseudoscalar $D$ and vector $D^*$ mesons in an isospin asymmetric nuclear medium using a hybrid approach that integrates the light-front quark model with the chiral SU(3) quark mean field model. The influence of isospin asymmetric nuclear medium is examined by utilizing the in-medium quark masses derived from the chiral SU(3) quark mean field model as an input in the light-front quark model to study the medium modification of $D$ mesons. We examine the impact of isospin asymmetry and baryon density at zero and finite temperature on the effective masses, weak decay constants, and distribution amplitudes of the pseudoscalar mesons $D^0$, $D^+$, $D_s$, and the vector mesons $D^{0*}$, $D^{+*}$, and $D_s^*$. Our results indicate significant medium-induced changes for pseudoscalar $D$ and vector $D^*$ mesons having $u/d$ as one of their constituent quarks, while a comparatively reduced effect is observed for mesons containing a strange quark. In contrast to temperature and isospin asymmetry, changes in the baryon density of the nuclear medium have a larger effect on different properties of $D$ and $D^*$ mesons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08707 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: In-medium masses of pseudoscalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: In-medium masses of vector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: In-medium masses of pseudoscalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The ratio of the in-medium weak decay constant to the free-space value for pseudoscalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The ratio of the in-medium weak decay constant to the free-space value for vector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Distribution amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Distribution amplitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Distribution amplitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Distribution amplitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [49]

    Chhabra and A

    R. Chhabra and A. Kumar, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 726 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [1]

    Asterik(∗)sign symbolize that the quantities are medium dependent. The boost invariant mass of meson squared, M∗2 0 is defined as M∗2 0 = k2 ⊥ +m∗ q 2 x + k2 ⊥ +m∗ ¯q 2 1−x .(25) 10 Additonally, the spin-orbit wave functionsR ∗JJz λqλ ¯q automatically satisfy the unitary condition ⟨R∗JJz λqλ ¯q |R∗JJz λqλ ¯q ⟩=1. To use a variational principle, we employ ...

  3. [2]

    It is important to mention that the normalized LFWF will be utilized for additional computations [49]. We perform the variational analysis to evaluate the expectation value of the QCD motivated HamiltonianH q¯q with the trial functionΦ ∗ 1S (x,k⊥)which has variational parameterβdepen- dence. Once the parameter fixing is done by minimizing the expectation ...

  4. [3]

    J. J. Aubertet al.[European Muon],Phys. Lett. B123, 275 (1983)

    1983

  5. [4]

    Suzuki, M

    K. Suzuki, M. Fujita, H. Geissel, H. Gilg, A. Gillitzer, R. S. Hayano, S. Hirenzaki, K. Itahashi, M. Iwasaki and P. Kienle,et al.Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 072302 (2004)

    2004

  6. [5]

    Friedman, M

    E. Friedman, M. Bauer, J. Breitschopf, H. Clement, H. Denz, E. Doroshkevich, A. Erhardt, G. J. Hof- man, R. Meier and G. J. Wagner,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 122302 (2004)

    2004

  7. [6]

    Bonuttiet al.[CHAOS], Phys

    F. Bonuttiet al.[CHAOS], Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 603 (1996). 30

    work page 1996

  8. [7]

    Cameriniet al.[CHAOS], Nucl

    P. Cameriniet al.[CHAOS], Nucl. Phys. A735, 89 (2004)

    work page 2004

Show all 85 references
  1. [8]

    M. F. M. Lutzet al.[PANDA], [arXiv:0903.3905 [hep-ex]]

  2. [9]

    Ohnishi, F

    H. Ohnishi, F. Sakuma and T. Takahashi, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.113, 103773 (2020)

    2020

  3. [10]

    Sawada, Nucl

    S. Sawada, Nucl. Phys. A782, 434 (2007)

    2007

  4. [11]

    Sakaguchi [J-PARC-HI], PoSCORFU2018, 189 (2019)

    T. Sakaguchi [J-PARC-HI], PoSCORFU2018, 189 (2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    Senger, Central Eur

    P. Senger, Central Eur. J. Phys.10, 1289 (2012)

    2012

  6. [13]

    V . D. Kekelidze,et al., Phys. Part. Nucl.48, 727 (2017)

    2017

  7. [14]

    Kekelidze,et al., Nucl

    V . Kekelidze,et al., Nucl. Phys. A967, 884 (2017)

    2017

  8. [15]

    R. Rapp, D. Blaschke and P. Crochet, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.65, 209 (2010)

    2010

  9. [16]

    D. N. Kim and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C106, 055202 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    P. T. P. Hutauruk, Y . Oh and K. Tsushima, Phys. Rev. C99, 015202 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    C. D. Roberts and S. M. Schmidt, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.45, S1-S103 (2000)

    2000

  12. [19]

    J. P. B. C. de Melo, K. Tsushima and I. Ahmed, Phys. Lett. B766, 125 (2017)

    2017

  13. [20]

    J. P. B. C. de Melo and K. Tsushima, Phys. Lett. B788, 137 (2019)

    2019

  14. [21]

    N. Kaur, S. Puhan, R. Pandey, A. Kumar, S. Dutt and H. Dahiya, Phys. Lett. B859, 139114 (2024)

    2024

  15. [22]

    Singh, S

    D. Singh, S. Puhan, N. Kaur, M. Kaur, A. Kumar, S. Dutt and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D111, 054001 (2025)

    2025

  16. [23]

    Puhan, N

    S. Puhan, N. Kaur, A. Kumar, S. Dutt and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D110, 054042 (2024)

    2024

  17. [24]

    Puhan, N

    S. Puhan, N. Kaur, A. Kumar, S. Dutt and H. Dahiya, Nucl. Phys. B1017, 116940 (2025)

    2025

  18. [25]

    Puhan, N

    Tanisha, S. Puhan, N. Kaur, A. Kumar and H. Dahiya, [arXiv:2504.21392 [nucl-th]]

  19. [26]

    Tsushima and J

    K. Tsushima and J. P. B. C. de Melo, Few Body Syst.58, 85 (2017)

    2017

  20. [27]

    Zschiesche, A

    D. Zschiesche, A. Mishra, S. Schramm, H. Stoecker and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C70, 045202 (2004)

    2004

  21. [28]

    Matsui and H

    T. Matsui and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B178, 416 (1986)

    1986

  22. [29]

    Goninet al.[NA50], Nucl

    M. Goninet al.[NA50], Nucl. Phys. A610, 404C (1996)

    1996

  23. [30]

    Garcia-Recio, J

    C. Garcia-Recio, J. Nieves and L. Tolos, Phys. Lett. B690, 369 (2010)

    2010

  24. [31]

    Tolos, Int

    L. Tolos, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E22, 1330027 (2013)

    2013

  25. [32]

    Tsushima, D

    K. Tsushima, D. H. Lu, G. Krein and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C83, 065208 (2011)

    2011

  26. [33]

    Tolos, J

    L. Tolos, J. Schaffner-Bielich and H. Stoecker, Phys. Lett. B635, 85 (2006)

    2006

  27. [34]

    Tolos, J

    L. Tolos, J. Schaffner-Bielich and A. Mishra, Phys. Rev. C70, 025203 (2004)

    2004

  28. [35]

    M. F. M. Lutz and C. L. Korpa, Phys. Lett. B633, 43 (2006)

    2006

  29. [36]

    Cassing, E

    W. Cassing, E. L. Bratkovskaya and A. Sibirtsev, Nucl. Phys. A691, 753 (2001). 31

    2001

  30. [37]

    Hayashigaki, Phys

    A. Hayashigaki, Phys. Lett. B487, 96 (2000)

    2000

  31. [38]

    Tsushima, D

    K. Tsushima, D. H. Lu, A. W. Thomas, K. Saito and R. H. Landau, Phys. Rev. C59, 2824 (1999)

    1999

  32. [39]

    Mishra and A

    A. Mishra and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. C79, 024908 (2009)

    2009

  33. [40]

    Kumar and A

    A. Kumar and A. Mishra, Eur. Phys. J. A47, 164 (2011)

    2011

  34. [41]

    Reddy P., A

    S. Reddy P., A. Jahan C. S., N. Dhale, A. Mishra and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. C97, 065208 (2018)

    2018

  35. [42]

    Kumar and A

    R. Kumar and A. Kumar, Phys. Rev. C101, 015202 (2020)

    2020

  36. [43]

    Chhabra and A

    R. Chhabra and A. Kumar, Phys. Rev. C98, 025205 (2018)

    2018

  37. [44]

    Chhabra and A

    R. Chhabra and A. Kumar, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 105 (2017)

    2017

  38. [45]

    Kumar, Adv

    A. Kumar, Adv. High Energy Phys.2014, 549726 (2014)

    2014

  39. [46]

    Kumar and R

    A. Kumar and R. Chhabra, Phys. Rev. C92, 035208 (2015)

    2015

  40. [47]

    Hosaka, T

    A. Hosaka, T. Hyodo, K. Sudoh, Y . Yamaguchi and S. Yasui, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.96, 88 (2017)

    2017

  41. [48]

    Chhabra and A

    R. Chhabra and A. Kumar, Springer Proc. Phys.203, 657 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    A. J. Arifi, L. Happ, S. Ohno and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. D110, 014020 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    A. J. Arifi, P. T. P. Hutauruk and K. Tsushima, Phys. Rev. D107, 114010 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    S. J. Brodsky, H. C. Pauli and S. S. Pinsky, Phys. Rept.301, 299 (1998)

    1998

  45. [53]

    K. G. Wilson, T. S. Walhout, A. Harindranath, W. M. Zhang, R. J. Perry and S. D. Glazek, Phys. Rev. D49, 6720 (1994)

    1994

  46. [54]

    P. Wang, Z. Y . Zhang and Y . W. Yu, Commun. Theor. Phys.36, 71 (2001)

    2001

  47. [55]

    Kumar and A

    R. Kumar and A. Kumar, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 403 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Papazoglou, D

    P. Papazoglou, D. Zschiesche, S. Schramm, J. Schaffner-Bielich, H. Stoecker and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C59, 411 (1999)

    1999

  49. [57]

    Kumar and A

    A. Kumar and A. Mishra, Phys. Rev. C82, 045207 (2010)

    2010

  50. [58]

    Singh, A

    H. Singh, A. Kumar and H. Dahiya, Chin. Phys. C41, 094104 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    P. Wang, Z. Y . Zhang, Y . W. Yu, R. K. Su and Q. Song, Nucl. Phys. A688, 791 (2001)

    2001

  52. [60]

    P. Wang, Z. Y . Zhang, Y . W. Yu, H. Guo, R. K. Su and H. Q. Song, Nucl. Phys. A705, 455 (2002)

    2002

  53. [61]

    Kumar, S

    A. Kumar, S. Dutt and H. Dahiya, Eur. Phys. J. A60, 4 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Barik, B

    N. Barik, B. K. Dash and M. Das, Phys. Rev. D31, 1652 (1985)

    1985

  55. [63]

    Barik, R

    N. Barik, R. N. Mishra, D. K. Mohanty, P. K. Panda and T. Frederico, Phys. Rev. C88, 015206 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    B. D. Keister and W. N. Polyzou, Adv. Nucl. Phys.20, 225 (1991). 32

    1991

  57. [65]

    H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D59, 074015 (1999)

    1999

  58. [66]

    H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D80, 054016 (2009)

    2009

  59. [67]

    H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Lett. B460, 461 (1999)

    1999

  60. [68]

    A. J. Arifi, H. M. Choi, C. R. ji and Y . Oh, Phys. Rev. D106, 014009 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    H. M. Choi, C. R. Ji, Z. Li and H. Y . Ryu, Phys. Rev. C92, 055203 (2015)

    2015

  62. [70]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    Dhiman, H

    N. Dhiman, H. Dahiya, C. R. Ji and H. M. Choi, Phys. Rev. D100, 014026 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 427 (2015)

    2015

  65. [73]

    Becirevic, P

    D. Becirevic, P. Boucaud, J. P. Leroy, V . Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Mescia and F. Rapuano, Phys. Rev. D60, 074501 (1999)

    1999

  66. [74]

    Cvetic, C

    G. Cvetic, C. S. Kim, G. L. Wang and W. Namgung, Phys. Lett. B596, 84 (2004)

    2004

  67. [75]

    G. L. Wang, Phys. Lett. B633, 492 (2006)

    2006

  68. [76]

    Hilger, R

    T. Hilger, R. Thomas and B. Kampfer, Phys. Rev. C79, 025202 (2009)

    2009

  69. [77]

    H. M. Choi, Phys. Rev. D75, 073016 (2007)

    2007

  70. [78]

    Z. G. Wang, Phys. Rev. C92, 065205 (2015)

    2015

  71. [79]

    V . L. Chernyak and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rept.112, 173 (1984)

    1984

  72. [80]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D22, 2157 (1980)

    1980

  73. [81]

    H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D75, 034019 (2007)

    2007

  74. [82]

    Y . Li, P. Maris and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D96, 016022 (2017)

    2017

  75. [83]

    Zhong, K

    T. Zhong, K. Li, Y . Zhang and H. B. Fu, Int. J. Theor. Phys.59, 2562-2571 (2020)

    2020

  76. [84]

    Zhang, T

    Y . Zhang, T. Zhong, H. B. Fu, W. Cheng and X. G. Wu, Phys. Rev. D103, 114024 (2021)

    2021

  77. [85]

    F. E. Serna, R. C. da Silveira, J. J. Cobos-Mart ´ınez, B. El-Bennich and E. Rojas, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 955 (2020). 33

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.