Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Deformed AdS/QCD, mesonic mass spectra, and DCE: Still a margin for heavier resonances

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Configurational-entropy extrapolation of known meson data predicts new resonances near 2.3–2.9 GeV.

desk verdict A transparent, incremental DCE-Regge application to a dynamical holographic QCD model, but the heavier-resonance masses are polynomial extrapolations anchored to the same experimental data, so the claimed X-state matches are not compelling. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02375 v1 pith:SRGBKZBB submitted 2024-12-03 hep-ph hep-th

Roldao da Rocha , Pedro H. O. Silva This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords AdS/QCDsoft-wallmodeldifferentialconfigurationalentropymesonmassspectraReggetrajectoriesanomalousdimensionlight-flavormesonsradialexcitations
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

Using a deformed holographic QCD soft-wall model with four choices of anomalous-dimension correction, the paper computes an information measure called the differential configurational entropy (DCE) for known light-flavor mesons in the pion, a1, f0, and rho families. It then builds two sets of Regge-like trajectories—DCE as a function of radial quantum number n and as a function of squared mass—and combines them to extrapolate masses for higher radial excitations. The central claim is that these extrapolated masses, around 2.3–2.9 GeV, point to real resonances beyond those in the standard particle-data summary tables, with some matching the unassigned states X(2680), X(2340), X(2600), and X(2632). A careful reader would care because the method offers a data-driven, holography-based route to predict where new meson states should appear and which observed but unclassified states they correspond to.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the differential configurational entropy (DCE), an information-theoretic functional of the normalized Fourier-transformed energy density of each mesonic solution; it quantifies the information needed to encode the configuration. The argument works by pairing two DCE-based Regge-like trajectories—DCE as a polynomial in the radial quantum number n and as a polynomial in the squared mass—and using the DCE value obtained from n to read off a mass from the second curve. The model side supplies the deformed soft-wall AdS/QCD background with four anomalous 5D mass corrections, but the extrapolation itself is driven by the experimental input and the polynomial fits.

What would settle it

A future analysis that assigns the known states to different radial quantum numbers, for example treating pi(1800) as n=2 rather than n=3, and recomputes the DCE fits would settle the extrapolation's stability: if the predicted X matches survive, the claim is robust, and if they disappear, the predictions were artefacts of the chosen labeling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery, stated on its own terms, is that DCE-Regge-like trajectories—fits of DCE(n) and DCE(m²) built from experimentally known resonances—can be extrapolated to estimate the mass spectra of heavier meson resonances with radial quantum numbers beyond those in the summary tables. For the four families, the extrapolated masses fall in ranges compatible with experimental X states omitted from those tables: the predicted pion n=7 state near 2.71 GeV matches X(2680) in three of the four correction cases; the a1 n=6 state near 2.4 GeV matches X(2340) in all four; the a1 n=8 and f0 n=10 states fall within the X(2600), X(2632), and X(2680) bands; and both rho n=8 and rho n=9 sit near 2.31–2.38 GeV, within X(2340). The paper also observes that in every case DCE grows monotonically with n, which it reads as growing configurational instability of higher radial excitations and hence a reason such states are harder to detect.

Load-bearing premise

The entire extrapolation rests on the assumption that each experimental resonance has the specific radial quantum number n assigned in the tables and that the small polynomial fits to DCE(n) and DCE(m²) keep describing the physics beyond the fitted range; if either gives way, the predicted masses and the matches to X states do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Heavier radial excitations in the pion, a1, f0, and rho families are predicted at 2.3–2.9 GeV, giving experiments specific masses to search for or reassign.
  • The unassigned states X(2680), X(2340), X(2600), and X(2632) receive concrete radial-quantum-number interpretations, such as pion n=7, a1 n=6 and n=8, and f0 n=10.
  • DCE monotonically increases with n in all four families and all correction cases, implying that higher resonances are configurationally less stable and therefore less likely to be detected—consistent with the scarcity of high-n states.
  • The DCE-based route can substitute for solving the Schrödinger-like eigenvalue equations, since it uses experimental masses directly and reproduces the known spectrum within the fitted range.
  • If the extrapolated masses are correct, the next generation of light-meson searches should find states near the quoted values rather than a gap above the last listed resonance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper never justifies the radial assignments of the input states, for instance taking pi(1300) as n=2; an alternative assignment scheme would shift the DCE(n) fits and hence all extrapolated masses, so recomputing the tables under shifted assignments would provide a direct stress test of the matches.
  • The near-degeneracy of the predicted rho n=8 and n=9 states (all about 2.31–2.38 GeV) suggests the DCE(m²) curve is nearly flat in that region, so the extrapolation cannot cleanly separate the two states; a fit with more data or a different polynomial would be needed to decide whether both exist.
  • A natural extension, not pursued in the paper, is to apply the same DCE interpolation-extrapolation scheme to other families such as kaons or charmed mesons; if the predicted masses there fail, the scheme's reliance on the chosen polynomial forms would be exposed.
  • The claimed monotonic rise of DCE with n could be probed directly by computing DCE for lattice or experimental states at higher n where data exist, testing whether the instability trend continues or reverses.
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 analyzes light-flavor meson families (π, a1, f0, ρ) in a deformed AdS/QCD soft-wall model with four variants of an anomalous dimension correction. It computes the differential configurational entropy (DCE) for each known radial excitation and fits the DCE as a quadratic, cubic, or sextic polynomial in the radial quantum number n and as a polynomial in the squared experimental mass. By equating the two fitted curves, the authors extrapolate masses for radial quantum numbers beyond the PDG summary table and propose matches with unassigned PDG states such as X(2680), X(2340), X(2600), and X(2632).

Significance. If the DCE-based extrapolation were reliable, the protocol would offer a phenomenological shortcut for identifying and organizing light-flavor meson resonances. The paper includes a substantial numerical calculation, a clear four-case comparison, and explicit falsifiable mass predictions with propagated experimental uncertainties. However, the central claim currently rests on uncontrolled polynomial extrapolation of the very same experimental data that anchor the fits; no out-of-sample validation is provided. The predictive content of the DCE protocol is therefore not established, and the claimed matches with PDG states may be artifacts of the interpolation scheme.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III A, Eqs. (42)-(43) and analogous fits in III B-III D] The predicted masses are obtained by solving DCE_fit(n) = DCE_fit(m), where DCE_fit(m) is a polynomial fitted to the experimental masses of the same family. The paper provides no leave-one-out test, no degree-sensitivity analysis, and no comparison with a trivial interpolation of m^2 versus n. For example, in the pion family only five points are fitted by a quadratic in m^2 (Eqs. (43)); changing to a linear or cubic fit shifts the n=6-8 predictions substantially, enough to move π⋆_7 in Table VI in or out of the X(2680) window. Without such robustness checks, the agreement with PDG states is not evidence of predictive power.
  2. [Section III, Tables I-IV and Eqs. (42), (44), (46), (48)] The radial quantum number assignments are assumed without justification: π(1300) is assigned n=2, π(1800) n=3, ρ(1450) n=3, and so on. The DCE(n) fits depend on these assignments, and no argument connects the experimentally observed states to the principal quantum number n of the Schrödinger-like equations (34). If the assignments are revised, the extrapolated masses and hence the claimed X-state matches change.
  3. [Section II, Tables I-IV] The underlying AdS/QCD model's own predicted masses deviate strongly from the experimental masses used in the DCE(m) fits; for instance, Table I case II gives π(1300) = 1408±108 MeV versus PDG 1300±100 MeV, and Table IV case I gives ρ′(1450) = 1143±34 MeV versus PDG 1350+20-30 MeV. The paper nevertheless uses the experimental masses as the anchors for the DCE(m) fits, so those fits encode empirical data rather than model predictions. No argument is given for why the DCE(m) polynomial should remain valid outside the fitted range when the model itself does not reproduce the input spectrum.
  4. [Tables VI, VIII, X, XII] The quoted error bars propagate only the experimental mass uncertainties through the fitted polynomial coefficients; they do not include the uncertainty from the choice of polynomial degree, the fitting range, or the radial quantum number assignments. Consequently the numerical precision of the predictions, e.g. (f0)⋆_11 = 2832±204 MeV, is overstated because the dominant systematic uncertainty of the extrapolation is omitted.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figures 3-10] The y-axis labels of Figures 3-10 read 'log(DCE)' even though the fitted and tabulated quantities are DCE values in the range of roughly 4 to 15 (Tables V, VII, IX, XI). The plotted ordinates appear to be DCE, not its logarithm; please correct the axis labels or clarify the plotting convention.
  2. [Section III C] The text refers to 'Fig. 47' when the intended cross-reference is Fig. 8.
  3. [Table IV] Entries n=2 and n=3 are both labeled 'ρ(1450)' with different masses (1350 and 1465 MeV). Please clarify the state assignment, including the prime notation used for n=2.
  4. [Section III A, paragraph after Eq. (43)] The sentence stating that the DCE-based results 'appear more realistic than the usual AdS/QCD methods' is an unsupported claim; a quantitative comparison with the Schrödinger-like eigenvalue results from Eqs. (34) is needed before such a statement can be made.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DCE values are independent model outputs and the predicted heavier-resonance masses are calibrated extrapolations checked against external PDG states, not fits renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: solve the DhQCD Schrödinger-like equations (34) with fixed input parameters to obtain mode functions and the DCE values in Tables V, VII, IX, XI from the energy density (36)–(41); fit DCE(n) in Eqs. (42), (44), (46), (48) to those model-generated values; fit DCE(m) in Eqs. (43), (45), (47), (49) to the same DCE values plotted against the experimental PDG masses; and for n beyond the fitted range solve DCE_fit(n) = DCE_fit(m) for m, as the text states: “these DCE values are then placed on the left-hand side of Eqs. (43a)–(43d)… By solving this equation for m, the estimated mass for the meson state at given n can be obtained.” This is a calibrated extrapolation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: the DCE numbers are independent outputs of the holographic model, and the benchmark states X(2680), X(2340), X(2600) are outside the calibration set. The paper is transparent that the protocol “merges AdS/QCD and experimental data in PDG” and labels the heavy entries “extrapolated… interpolating the experimental masses for n = 1, . . . , 5.” The self-citations in the introduction (e.g., Refs. [4, 18, 30]) are contextual and not load-bearing. The polynomial-degree choices and radial quantum number assignments are assumptions affecting robustness, but they do not make the derivation circular under the stated criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central predictions rest on two layers of fitted polynomials, with intermediate DCE values computed from the model. The model parameters (mq, sigma, kappa, G5, lambda0) are adopted from prior work, not fitted here, so they are not listed as free parameters. No new entities are introduced; the matched states X(2340), X(2600), X(2632), X(2680) are pre-existing PDG entries.

free parameters (2)
  • Polynomial fit coefficients for DCE(n) per family and case = Equations (42), (44), (46), (48): e.g., DCE_pi,I(n) = -7.109e-2 n^2 + 2.252 n + 2.395
    Fitted to the DCE values of known resonances; the extrapolated DCE for higher n is computed from these fits.
  • Polynomial fit coefficients for DCE(m) per family and case = Equations (43), (45), (47), (49): e.g., DCE_pi,I(m) = 3.049e-2 m^4 + 1.159 m^2 + 4.5449
    Fitted to the experimental masses of the same family; inverted to obtain the predicted mass for each extrapolated DCE value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The AdS/CFT dictionary and the mass-dimension relation M^2 = (Delta - gamma)(Delta - gamma - 4) remain valid for the deformed background.
    Section II, Eq. (18); the model relies on this dictionary.
  • domain assumption The beta function (25) and the anomalous-dimension relation (26) describe the QCD running coupling in this holographic setup.
    Section II, Eqs. (25)-(27), based on Ref [71].
  • domain assumption Each experimentally observed resonance in Tables I-IV is assigned the radial quantum number n used in the DCE(n) fits.
    Tables I-IV and Figs. 1-2; the PDG does not uniquely assign radial quantum numbers to these states.
  • ad hoc to paper The fitted polynomial forms for DCE(n) and DCE(m) extrapolate smoothly beyond the fitted range.
    Section III; no principle guarantees the quartic/sextic forms hold at larger n, and no cross-validation is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deformed AdS/QCD, mesonic mass spectra, and DCE: Still a margin for heavier resonances." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRGBKZBB

@misc{pith2026241202375,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deformed AdS/QCD, mesonic mass spectra, and DCE: Still a margin for heavier resonances},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRGBKZBB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02375}
}
read the original abstract

The mass spectra of light-flavor mesons are analyzed in a deformed AdS/QCD soft-wall model, driven by four distinct anomalous 5-dimensional mass corrections of the scalar field, coupled to Einstein--Hilbert gravity, from the QCD running coupling. Using the differential configurational entropy (DCE) underlying the families of pseudoscalar, axial-vector, scalar, and vector mesons, the mass spectra of heavier meson resonances with radial quantum numbers beyond the ones already in the summary table of Particle Data Group (PDG) are then estimated. This protocol merges AdS/QCD and experimental data in PDG through Regge-like trajectories. Some of the estimated meson resonances may be identified as further candidates omitted from the summary table in PDG.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02375 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Mass spectra for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: DCE of pion resonances. The DCE is presented as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: DCE of the pion family as a function of their squared mass, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: DCE of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: DCE of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: DCE of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: DCE of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: DCE of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: DCE of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_10.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. Digit anomalies in the hadronic mass spectrum, classical and quantum information entropies, and the dynamical QCD scale

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The first digits of PDG hadron masses deviate strongly from Benford's law, and the paper reads the resulting Shannon-entropy deficit as a signature of Lambda_QCD.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Shape is Destiny: Configurational Entropy as a Lifetime Predictor and Pattern Discriminator for Oscillons

    M. Gleiser, M. Stephens, and D. Sowinski, Phys. Rev. D 97, 096007 (2018), 1803.08550

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Gleiser and D

    M. Gleiser and D. Sowinski, Phys. Rev. D 98, 056026 (2018), 1807.07588

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    The mass results obtained for ( a1)⋆ 8, as well as for ( a1)⋆ 6 and ( a1)⋆ 7, are summarized in Table VIII

    Finally, for n = 8, repeating the procedures, we obtain the DCE values of 17.968 nat, 20.1708 nat, 21.7195 nat, and 18.9842 nat. The mass results obtained for ( a1)⋆ 8, as well as for ( a1)⋆ 6 and ( a1)⋆ 7, are summarized in Table VIII. 23 n State Mexp (MeV) MI (MeV) MII (MeV) MIII (MeV) MIV (MeV) 1 a1(1260) 1230 ± 40 1316 ± 43 1222 ± 40 1163 ± 38 1232 ± ...

    work page 1930

  4. [4]

    A. E. Bernardini and R. da Rocha, Phys. Lett. B 762, 107 (2016), 1605.00294

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

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

    arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    To implement it, the radial quantum number n = 6 is inserted into (42), 19 leading to the DCE values equal to 13.3487 nat, 13.9882 nat, 14.5061 nat and 13.6728 nat, which correspond respectively to cases I - IV. It is worth emphasizing that the natural unit of information, symbolized by “nat”, is used here as the fundamental unit of information entropy, b...

    work page 1930

  7. [7]

    (44) are, respectively, given by: 16.1970 nat, 18.1054 nat, 19.3825 nat, and 16.9873 nat

    For the four studied cases, the DCE values obtained from Eqs. (44) are, respectively, given by: 16.1970 nat, 18.1054 nat, 19.3825 nat, and 16.9873 nat. This allows us to estimate the mass values for ( a1)⋆

    work page 1970

  8. [8]

    Ma and Y.-G

    C.-W. Ma and Y.-G. Ma, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 99, 120 (2018), 1801.02192

    arXiv 2018

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    Interpolating these values we obtain the first type of DCE-Regge-like trajectories, which are described by Eqs. (48). DCEρ,I(n) = −0.0960n2 + 2.7240n + 0.7306, (48a) DCEρ,II(n) = −0.0813n2 + 2.7113n + 1.2736, (48b) DCEρ,III(n) = −0.0707n2 + 2.6743n + 1.7269, (48c) DCEρ,IV(n) =...

    1900

  2. [10]

    de Paula and T

    W. de Paula and T. Frederico, Phys. Lett. B 693, 287 (2010), 0908.4282

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Applying these values to Eqs

    In this case, the DCE values are 17.6922 nat, 18.6717 nat, 21.2987 nat, and 18.4611 nat, respectively for cases I - IV. Applying these values to Eqs. (47) and solving for m, we obtain the masses, which are also summarized in Table X. 27 n State Mexp (MeV) MI (MeV) MII (MeV) MI...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Witten, Adv

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

    1998 arXiv

  5. [13]

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 428, 105 (1998), hep-th/9802109

    1998 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Aharony, S

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

    2000 arXiv

  7. [15]

    S. S. Afonin, Phys. Part. Nucl. 53, 96 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Ballon-Bayona, H

    A. Ballon-Bayona, H. Boschi-Filho, L. A. H. Mamani, A. S. Miranda, and V. T. Zanchin, Phys. Rev. D 97, 046001 (2018), 1708.08968

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ballon-Bayona, L

    A. Ballon-Bayona, L. A. H. Mamani, and D. M. Rodrigues, Phys. Rev. D 104, 126029 (2021), 2107.10983

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Karch, E

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

    2006 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Csaki and M

    C. Csaki and M. Reece, JHEP 05, 062 (2007), hep-ph/0608266

    2007 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Gherghetta, J

    T. Gherghetta, J. I. Kapusta, and T. M. Kelley, Phys. Rev. D 79, 076003 (2009), 0902.1998

    2009 arXiv

  13. [21]

    M. A. Martin Contreras and A. Vega, Phys. Rev. D 102, 046007 (2020), 2004.10286

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Karapetyan and R

    G. Karapetyan and R. da Rocha, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 993 (2021), 2103.10863

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A. E. Bernardini and R. da Rocha, Phys. Rev. D 98, 126011 (2018), 1809.10055

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    N. R. F. Braga and R. da Rocha, Phys. Lett. B 776, 78 (2018), 1710.07383

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Karapetyan, Phys

    G. Karapetyan, Phys. Lett. B 781, 201 (2018), 1802.09105

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Karapetyan, Phys

    G. Karapetyan, Phys. Lett. B 786, 418 (2018), 1807.04540

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    N. R. F. Braga, L. F. Ferreira, and R. da Rocha, Phys. Lett. B 787, 16 (2018), 1808.10499

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    N. R. F. Braga and R. da Mata, Phys. Rev. D 101, 105016 (2020), 2002.09413. 35

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    da Rocha, Phys

    R. da Rocha, Phys. Lett. B 814, 136112 (2021), 2101.03602

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    M. A. Martin Contreras, A. Vega, and S. Diles, Phys. Lett. B 835, 137551 (2022), 2206.01834

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    R. A. C. Correa, R. da Rocha, and A. de Souza Dutra, Annals Phys. 359, 198 (2015), 1501.02000

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Karapetyan, W

    G. Karapetyan, W. de Paula, and R. da Rocha, Phys. Lett. B 846, 138174 (2023), 2304.05122

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    M. A. Martin Contreras, A. Vega, and S. Diles, Phys. Lett. B 854, 138723 (2024), 2308.16007

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Kou and X

    W. Kou and X. Chen, Phys. Lett. B 846, 138199 (2023), 2305.19078

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    da Rocha and P

    R. da Rocha and P. H. O. Silva, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 729 (2023), 2302.05785

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M. A. Martin Contreras and A. Vega, Phys. Rev. D 108, 126024 (2023), 2309.02905

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    M. A. Martin Contreras, S. Diles, and A. Vega, Phys. Rev. D 103, 086008 (2021), 2101.06212

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Colangelo and F

    P. Colangelo and F. Loparco, Phys. Lett. B 788, 500 (2019), 1811.05272

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    L. F. Ferreira and R. da Rocha, Phys. Rev. D 101, 106002 (2020), 2004.04551

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    N. R. F. Braga and R. da Mata, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135918 (2020), 2008.10457

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Karapetyan, EPL 125, 58001 (2019), 1901.05349

    G. Karapetyan, EPL 125, 58001 (2019), 1901.05349

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Karapetyan, Eur

    G. Karapetyan, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 1012 (2021), 2105.07546

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Karapetyan, Eur

    G. Karapetyan, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 122 (2021), 2003.08994

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Frederico, K

    T. Frederico, K. S. F. F. Guimar˜ aes, O. Louren¸ co, W. de Paula, I. Bediaga, and A. C. dos Reis, Few Body Syst. 55, 441 (2014), 1402.6975

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    N. R. F. Braga, Y. F. Ferreira, and L. F. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 105, 114044 (2022), 2110.04560

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    N. R. F. Braga and O. C. Junqueira, Phys. Lett. B 820, 136485 (2021), 2105.12347

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Karapetyan, EPL 117, 18001 (2017), 1612.09564

    G. Karapetyan, EPL 117, 18001 (2017), 1612.09564

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Karapetyan, Eur

    G. Karapetyan, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 590 (2022), 2112.11359

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Karapetyan, EPL 118, 38001 (2017), 1705.10617

    G. Karapetyan, EPL 118, 38001 (2017), 1705.10617

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Barbosa-Cendejas, R

    N. Barbosa-Cendejas, R. Cartas-Fuentevilla, A. Herrera-Aguilar, R. R. Mora-Luna, and R. da Rocha, Phys. Lett. B 782, 607 (2018), 1805.04485

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Barreto and R

    W. Barreto and R. da Rocha, Phys. Rev. D 105, 064049 (2022), 2201.08324

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Casadio, R

    R. Casadio, R. da Rocha, A. Giusti, and P. Meert, Phys. Lett. B 849, 138466 (2024), 2310.07505

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Casadio, R

    R. Casadio, R. da Rocha, P. Meert, L. Tabarroni, and W. Barreto, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 075014 (2023), 2206.10398

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    P. S. Koliogiannis, G. A. Tsalis, C. P. Panos, and C. C. Moustakidis, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044069 (2023), 2206.12138

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    N. R. F. Braga, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134919 (2019), 1907.05756

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    W. T. Cruz, D. M. Dantas, R. V. Maluf, and C. A. S. Almeida, Annalen Phys. 531, 1900178 (2019), 1810.03991

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    C. O. Lee, Phys. Lett. B 800, 135030 (2020), 1908.06074

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Bazeia, D

    D. Bazeia, D. C. Moreira, and E. I. B. Rodrigues, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 475, 734 (2019), 1812.04950

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Bazeia and E

    D. Bazeia and E. I. B. Rodrigues, Phys. Lett. A 392, 127170 (2021), 2206.06351

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    N. R. F. Braga and O. C. Junqueira, Phys. Lett. B 814, 136082 (2021), 2010.00714. 36

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    C. O. Lee, Phys. Lett. B 790, 197 (2019), 1812.00343

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Alves, A

    A. Alves, A. G. Dias, and R. Silva, Braz. J. Phys. 47, 426 (2017), 1703.02061

    2017 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Alves, A

    A. Alves, A. G. Dias, and R. da Silva, Physica A 420, 1 (2015), 1408.0827

    2015 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  57. [65]

    D. Li, M. Huang, and Q.-S. Yan, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2615 (2013), 1206.2824

    2013 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Li and M

    D. Li and M. Huang, JHEP 11, 088 (2013), 1303.6929

    2013 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Huang and D

    M. Huang and D. Li, Springer Proc. Phys. 170, 367 (2016), 1311.0593

    2016 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Li and M

    D. Li and M. Huang, EPJ Web Conf. 80, 00011 (2014), 1409.8432

    2014 arXiv

  61. [69]

    de Paula, T

    W. de Paula, T. Frederico, H. Forkel, and M. Beyer, Phys. Rev. D 79, 075019 (2009), 0806.3830

    2009 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Y. Chen, D. Li, and M. Huang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 74, 097201 (2022), 2206.00917

    2022 arXiv

  63. [71]

    R. Chen, D. Li, K. Bitaghsir Fadafan, and M. Huang, Chin. Phys. C 47, 063106 (2023), 2212.10363

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Erlich, E

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

    2005

  65. [73]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, F. Giannuzzi, F. Jugeau, and S. Nicotri, Phys. Rev. D 78, 055009 (2008), 0807.1054

    2008 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Cherman, T

    A. Cherman, T. D. Cohen, and E. S. Werbos, Phys. Rev. C 79, 045203 (2009), 0804.1096

    2009 arXiv

  67. [75]

    S. S. Gubser, A. Nellore, S. S. Pufu, and F. D. Rocha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 131601 (2008), 0804.1950

    2008 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Folco Capossoli, D

    E. Folco Capossoli, D. Li, and H. Boschi-Filho, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 320 (2016), 1604.01647

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.