Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Deuteron gravitational form factors, generalized parton distributions, and charge density in the framework of the soft-wall AdS/QCD model

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The deuteron's gravitational RMS radius is 1.26 fm in a soft-wall AdS/QCD model with a twist-6 vector field, near the lower edge of measured mass radii, and the model's GPDs and charge densities shrink with temperature.

desk verdict Finite-T deuteron GFF/GPD extension is new, but a sign error in the GPD exponent makes the IP-space results inconsistent with the paper's own momentum-space formulas. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17407 v2 pith:IOYOXFIE submitted 2024-12-23 hep-ph hep-th

Shahin Mamedov , Minaya Allahverdiyeva , Narmin Akbarova This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th MSC 81V0581T3581T28 PACS 11.25.Tq13.40.Gp21.10.Ft
keywords deuterongravitationalformfactorsgeneralizedpartondistributionstransversechargedensitysoft-wallAdS/QCDthermaldilatonimpactparameterspaceholographicQCD
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 aims to show that one holographic setup—soft-wall AdS/QCD with the deuteron described by a twist-6 bulk vector field—can simultaneously produce the deuteron's gravitational form factors, the generalized parton distributions derived from them, and the transverse charge density, at zero and finite temperature. The central numerical outcome is a gravitational RMS radius r_grav = $\sqrt$(1.605) = 1.26 fm from the slope of the Z2 form factor, which sits near the lower end of the measured deuteron mass-radius range. The authors further argue that the temperature dependence, introduced through a thermal dilaton ansatz, leaves the GFFs nearly unchanged while gradually growing the gravitational radius until the deuteron would dissociate near T ≈ 0.11 $fm^{{-1}}$. If correct, the model gives a single framework in which energy-momentum distributions, parton distributions, and charge densities of the deuteron are mutually consistent and comparable with experiment.

What carries the argument

The central object is the twist-6 bulk vector field d_N(x,z), whose Kaluza-Klein ground-state profile ψ(r,T) = $\sqrt$(2/4!) $K_T^{5}$ $r^{{9/2}}$ exp(-$K_T^{2}$ $r^{2}$/2) carries the deuteron's structure, together with the graviton bulk-to-boundary propagator H(Q,T,r). The finite-temperature extension is implemented by the replacement k -> K_T, with $K_T^{2}$ = $k^{2}$ [1 + ρ(T)] and ρ(T) taken from the thermal-dilaton ansatz of refs [21,22]. All observables—the GFFs Z1 and Z2, the GPDs H_i^v(x,0,t), and the charge densities ρ_1^+ and ρ_0^+—are integrals over products of this profile with the propagator, so the single parameter K_T controls how every quantity responds to temperature.

What would settle it

Measure the deuteron mass radius in coherent vector-meson photoproduction with precision better than ±0.2 fm: a central value clearly above 1.6 fm would contradict the predicted r_grav = 1.26 fm from the Z2 slope at $Q^{2}$ = 0. Alternatively, compute the same slope from lattice QCD and compare with -6 dZ2/$dQ^{2}$ at $Q^{2}$=0; disagreement beyond the model's expected accuracy would rule out the twist-6 identification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the soft-wall AdS/QCD model with a twist-6 vector field for the deuteron, the authors derive closed expressions for the gravitational form factors Z1(Q2) and Z2(Q2), then extract the gravitational RMS radius from the derivative $r_grav^{2}$ = -6 dZ2/dQ2 evaluated at $Q^{2}$=0, obtaining r_grav = 1.26 fm. They obtain the deuteron GPDs from these GFFs, finding shapes consistent with earlier results based on electromagnetic form factors, and Fourier-transform the GPDs and the GFFs to impact-parameter space to get IP-dependent parton distributions and transverse charge densities. Replacing the dilaton scale k by the temperature-dependent K_T = k $\sqrt$(1+ρ(T)) extends all results to finite temperature: the GFFs shift very little, the gravitational radius grows with T and diverges at T ≈ 0.42 $fm^{{-1}}$, and the peaks of the IP-space GPDs and charge densities fall as temperature rises. The physical range is restricted to T < 0.11 $fm^{{-1}}$ because the deuteron disintegrates above that.

Load-bearing premise

The entire finite-temperature picture rests on replacing the dilaton scale k with a temperature-dependent K_T through the specific ρ(T) ansatz taken from refs [21,22], with no direct test against data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The deuteron's gravitational radius is 1.26 fm at T = 0, close to the lower edge of the measured mass-radius range (1.78 ± 0.38 and 1.94 ± 0.45 fm).
  • The GFFs Z1(Q^2,T) and Z2(Q^2,T) are nearly temperature-independent, so the energy-momentum distribution is only mildly modified in a medium.
  • The GPDs derived from GFFs have the same shape as those obtained from electromagnetic form factors, supporting a common holographic description of deuteron structure.
  • In impact-parameter space, the peaks of all three studied GPDs and of the transverse charge densities decrease as temperature increases.
  • The gravitational radius diverges near T ≈ 0.42 fm^{-1}, but only temperatures below the deuteron dissociation scale T ≈ 0.11 fm^{-1} describe the bound state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The steep growth of r_grav(T) at high T could make the deuteron gravitational radius a sensitive probe of temperature in heavy-ion collisions, if deuterons survive long enough to be measured there.
  • The same twist-6 machinery could be applied to other weakly bound systems or to skewness-dependent GPDs, which the paper leaves as future work.
  • The near-temperature-independence of the charge-density peak, contrasted with the growing gravitational radius, suggests the deuteron's transverse charge distribution is stiffer than its energy distribution in a medium—a comparison that could be tested with transport or lattice models.
  • Because N_f is not specified in the thermal ansatz, the numerical temperature dependence carries an implicit flavor-count uncertainty; fixing N_f and testing ρ(T) against chiral perturbation theory data would pin the size of the effect.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the soft-wall AdS/QCD model, with a twist-6 bulk vector field for the deuteron and a thermal dilaton, to compute deuteron gravitational form factors Z1 and Z2, the gravitational RMS radius, generalized parton distributions, impact-parameter-space GPDs, and transverse charge densities at zero and finite temperature. At zero temperature the authors obtain r_grav = 1.26 fm and compare it with experimental deuteron mass-radius values. At finite temperature they introduce K_T^2 = k^2[1+rho(T)] and report that the gravitational radius grows with temperature, while the peaks of the GPDs and charge densities decrease as temperature increases.

Significance. The zero-temperature gravitational form factor calculation is a standard soft-wall application and produces a concrete, falsifiable number for the deuteron gravitational radius; this is the strongest part of the paper. The analytic closed forms for Z1 and Z2 in Eqs. (2.8)-(2.9) and the explicit impact-parameter-space expressions in Eq. (4.6) are useful outputs if the internal inconsistencies described below are resolved. The broader significance is conditional: the central GPD/IP-space claim is not supported by the displayed momentum-space formulas, and the finite-temperature statements are entirely inherited from an external parameterization rather than derived from the model. With the sign error corrected and the thermal ansatz properly documented, the paper would be a reasonable phenomenological contribution to holographic studies of the deuteron structure.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (3.5)-(3.8), (4.5)-(4.6)] There is an internal inconsistency in the sign of the x-dependent exponent. In Eqs. (3.6) the GPDs carry x^{-a}, with a=Q^2/(8k^2). For x in (0,1), x^{-a} grows exponentially in Q^2, so the Q-integral in Eq. (4.5) diverges for every x<1 and the printed momentum-space GPDs have no well-defined Fourier transform into impact-parameter space. Moreover, the first-moment relations (3.4), combined with the x^{a+1} weight in the integral representation (3.5), require the GPDs to carry x^{+a}. The b-space results in Eq. (4.6) contain e^{2b^2k^2/ln x}, which is precisely the Fourier transform of the x^{+a} form, not of x^{-a}. I therefore conclude that x^{-a} in Eqs. (3.6) and (3.8) is a sign typo and should read x^{+a}; the authors should correct it, state which expression was used to produce Figs. 3-6, and regenerate all affected plots. As printed, the central GPD/IP-space claim is not supported by the displayed equations.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (3.8)] The finite-temperature GPD formula in Eq. (3.8) contains the holographic coordinate r on the right-hand side, through the term 27K_T r(1+x); a momentum-space GPD cannot depend on the fifth-dimensional coordinate. The zero-temperature analogue in Eq. (3.6) has 27k^2(1+x), so the thermal expression should presumably read 27K_T^2(1+x). This typo must be corrected, and the finite-temperature curves should be checked against the corrected formula.
  3. [Sec. II.B, Eqs. (2.16)-(2.17)] The temperature dependence of every finite-temperature result is inserted by hand through K_T^2 = k^2[1+rho(T)] with rho(T) taken from Refs. [21,22]. The value of N_f entering delta_{T1} and delta_{T2} is never stated, and the ansatz is not tested against finite-temperature data or lattice results. As a result, the paper's finite-temperature claims (growth of r_grav with T, decrease of GPD and charge-density peaks with T) are consequences of an external fitted parameterization rather than independent predictions of the model. The authors should specify N_f, add a sensitivity check (for example N_f=2 versus N_f=3), and revise the abstract and summary so that the temperature statements are explicitly framed as properties of this ansatz.
  4. [Sec. II.B, Fig. 2 and Sec. VI] The authors correctly note that the deuteron is unbound above T approximately 0.11 fm^{-1}; nevertheless Fig. 2 and the accompanying discussion emphasize radius growth up to T approximately 0.42 fm^{-1}, where r_grav diverges. All physical conclusions should be restricted to the bound-state region T<0.11 fm^{-1}. In that region the radius varies only weakly, so the claimed low sensitivity of the gravitational radius to temperature should be supported by a plot or table restricted to this physical range, rather than by a curve that extends into the unbound regime.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. II.A] The phrase 'root means squared radius' should be 'root mean square radius' throughout the manuscript.
  2. [Eq. (2.2) and similar integrals] The integrals such as Eq. (2.2) should be written with explicit measures, for example \int d^4x \int_0^\infty dz, rather than the compressed notation currently used.
  3. [Fig. 3 and its caption] The axis labels in Fig. 3 print quantities such as 'Q = 1 fm^{-2}', but the curves are functions of Q^2; the labels should read 'Q^2 = 1 fm^{-2}', and similarly for the other panels.
  4. [Eqs. (4.6)-(4.7)] The notation 'lg x' is not defined; use \ln x and state explicitly that for the plotted range x is in (0,1), so the logarithms are negative.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says 'both GPDs have a maximum', but the figure appears to show only H_1^v; please clarify what is being compared in panels (a) and (b).
  6. [Eq. (4.6)] The expression for H_5 contains mismatched parentheses in the large bracket; please recheck the terms so that the formula is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: gravitational radius is an independent postdiction; finite-T dependence is an openly applied ansatz, and the x-exponent mismatch is a correctness defect, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The model parameters are externally fixed: k = 190 MeV is taken from deuteron electromagnetic form-factor fits in Refs. [10,12], and U0 = 87.4494 is fixed by the deuteron mass in Ref. [8]. The gravitational RMS radius is then computed from the GFF Z2 through the standard definition in Eq. (2.10) and compared with CLAS mass-radius data; it is a postdiction of a different observable, not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The finite-temperature part is openly an input ansatz: Eq. (2.16) sets K_T^2 = k^2[1 + rho(T)] with rho(T) from Refs. [21,22], and all later finite-T quantities are obtained by the stated replacement k -> K_T. The paper says it 'applies' the thermalized soft-wall model rather than claiming to derive rho(T) from first principles, so the temperature dependence of the plotted GFFs, GPDs, charge densities, and radius inheriting the input parameterization is model dependence, not circularity. The self-citations, including Ref. [26], supply the same calculational scheme, but the load-bearing equations are solved from the quoted actions and EOMs and from external references [4,7,8,21,22]; no load-bearing uniqueness argument or fitted parameter is reduced to a self-citation. One internal inconsistency should be flagged outside the circularity score: Eqs. (3.6) and (3.8) carry x^{-a}, while the IP-space expressions in Eq. (4.6) contain e^{2b^2 k^2 / ln x}, which is the Fourier transform of the x^{a} form; with the printed x^{-a}, the Q-integral in Eq. (4.5) diverges for x<1. This is a serious correctness/completeness problem in the paper as written, but it is not an equivalence of a result to its own input and therefore does not constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All parameters and axioms are inherited from prior soft-wall AdS/QCD literature. No new particles or entities are proposed. The central results depend on fitted parameters k and U0 and on the unvalidated thermal parameterization.

free parameters (3)
  • soft-wall dilaton scale k = 190 MeV = 0.9 fm^{-1}
    Fixed by fitting deuteron electromagnetic form factors to experimental data in Refs [10,12]. Enters every form factor, GPD, density, and radius in the paper.
  • deuteron bulk potential strength U0 = 87.4494
    Fixed by the deuteron mass in Ref [8]. Sets the mass spectrum in the model, though it does not appear explicitly in the final profile functions used.
  • number of flavors N_f in thermal dilaton = not stated in text
    Appears in deltaT1 and deltaT2 in Eq (2.17). The paper never states the numerical value used for the temperature plots, leaving the thermal results under-specified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence and the soft-wall model with dilaton e^{-k^2 z^2} provide a valid dual description of QCD hadrons.
    The entire computation rests on the holographic dictionary. Introduced in Section II as the model setup.
  • domain assumption The deuteron is represented by a single bulk vector field with twist tau=6 and spin J=1.
    This identification is asserted in Sections II.A and II.B. It is the main modeling assumption, and the profile function (2.7) depends on it.
  • domain assumption The bulk-to-boundary graviton propagator H(Q,z) from Ref [4] is valid for the deuteron case.
    Used in Eqs (2.4)-(2.6) and extended by substituting k -> K_T and z -> r at finite temperature.
  • domain assumption The relation between GFFs and GPDs (Eqs 3.1-3.4) from Ref [4] applies to the spin-1 deuteron with the given twist.
    The GPD expressions (3.6) are obtained by combining these relations with the computed GFFs; no alternative derivation is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The thermal dilaton ansatz K_T^2 = k^2[1+rho(T)] and the AdS-Schwarzschild metric (Eq 2.13) describe the deuteron at finite temperature.
    Equations (2.16)-(2.17) are imported from Refs [21,22]; the paper provides no new justification or test of this thermalization prescription.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deuteron gravitational form factors, generalized parton distributions, and charge density in the framework of the soft-wall AdS/QCD model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IOYOXFIE

@misc{pith2026241217407,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deuteron gravitational form factors, generalized parton distributions, and charge density in the framework of the soft-wall AdS/QCD model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IOYOXFIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17407}
}
abstract

We study the deuteron gravitational form factors (GFFs) and generalized parton distributions (GPDs) within the soft-wall AdS/QCD model, where deuteron is described by the bulk vector field with twist $\tau=6$. For the finite-temperature studies, we apply the soft-wall model, which is thermalized by introducing a thermal dilaton field. GPDs and charge density are considered in impact parameter (IP) space and at zero and finite temperatures. We plot the temperature dependence of these quantities in IP space and observe a decreasing of their peaks on temperature increasing. The gravitational root means squared radius obtained here is close to the range given by experimental data for the mass radius and has low sensitivity to the temperature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17407 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Plots of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Plot of gravitational RMS radius for the deuteron. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Plot (a) is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Quantum stress and torsion distributions in the deuteron

    nucl-th 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First complete non-relativistic impulse-approximation calculation of all eleven deuteron EMT form factors, including non-conserved c-bar and s-bar form factors that map to force and torsion distributions inside the nucleons.

  2. Mechanical properties of the $\Omega^-$ baryon from gravitational form factors

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using QCD sum rules, the authors extract seven gravitational form factors of the Omega baryon and derive its internal energy, angular momentum, pressure, shear, radii, and D-terms.

  3. Mechanical properties of the proton from a deformed AdS holographic model

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A deformed AdS holographic model with a Dirac proton computes the gluon gravitational form factor A in good agreement with lattice QCD after normalizing the zero point, but the D-term and derived pressure/shear distri...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [12]

    Mondal, D

    C. Mondal, D. Chakrabarti, X. Zhao, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 106 (2017), [arXiv:1705.05808 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2017

  2. [26]

    Allahverdiyeva, Sh

    M. Allahverdiyeva, Sh. Mamedov, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 5, 447, (2023), [arXiv:2302.03383 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [1]

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

    work page 1998

  4. [2]

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

    work page 1998

  5. [3]

    Witten, Adv

    E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253 (1998), [arXiv: 9802150[hep-th]]

    work page 1998

  6. [4]

    Abidin, C

    Z. Abidin, C. E. Carlson, Phys. Rev. D 77, 095007, (2008), [arXiv:0801.3839 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2008

  7. [5]

    Abidin and C.Carlson, Phys

    Z. Abidin and C.Carlson, Phys. Rev. D 79, 115003 (2009), [arXiv:0903.4818 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2009

  8. [6]

    Abidin, C

    Z. Abidin, C. E. Carlson, Phys. Rev. D 78, 071502 (R), (2008), [arXiv:0808.3097 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2008

Show all 56 references
  1. [7]

    Gutsche, V

    T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, I. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 94, 11, 116006, (2016), [arXiv:1607.04124 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Gutsche, V

    T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, I. Schmidt, A. Vega, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 11, 114001, (2015), [arxiv: 1501.02738 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Huseynova, Sh

    N. Huseynova, Sh. Mamedov, J. Samadov, Chin. Phys. C 47, 013104, (2023), [arXiv:2204.06205 [hep- ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Folco Capossoli, M

    E. Folco Capossoli, M. Martin Contreras, D. Li, A. Vega and H. Boschi-Filho, Chin. Phys. C 44, 064104, (2020), [arXiv:1903.06269 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Rinaldi and V

    M. Rinaldi and V. Vento Phys. Rev. D 104, 034016 (2021), [arXiv:2101.02616 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Karch, E

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

    2006

  7. [14]

    H. R. Grigoryan, A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D 76, 095007, (2007), [arXiv: 0706.1543 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Mamedov, B

    Sh. Mamedov, B. B. Sirvanli, I. Atayev, N. Huseynova, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 56, 1861-1874, 6, (2017), [arXiv:1609.00167 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Huseynova and Sh

    N. Huseynova and Sh. Mamedov, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 54, 3799, (2015), [arxiv: 1408.5496 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Huseynova, Sh

    N. Huseynova, Sh. Mamedov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 34, 1950240, (2020), 35, [arXiv:1907.13477 [hep- ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Atayev and S

    I. Atayev and S. Mamedov, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 61, 250 (2022)

    2022

  12. [19]

    Mamedov, Z

    Sh. Mamedov, Z. Hashimli, Sh. Jafarzade, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 11, 114032, [arxiv: 2308.12392 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Vega and M

    A. Vega and M. A. M. Contreras, Nucl. Phys. B 942, 410, (2019)

    2019

  14. [21]

    Gutsche, V

    T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, I. Schmidt, A. Y. Trifonov, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 5, 054030, (2019), [arXiv:1902.01312[hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Gutsche, V

    T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, I. Schmidt, and A. Y. Trifonov, Phys. Rev. D 99, 114023 (2019), [arXiv:1905.02577[hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Gutsche, V

    T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, I. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. B, 952, 114934, (2020), [arXiv:1906.08641[hep- ph]]. 21

    2020 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Mamedov, Sh

    Sh. Mamedov, Sh. Taghiyeva, Eur. Phys. J. C, 81, 1080, (2021), [arXiv:2108.13513 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Mamedov, N

    Sh. Mamedov, N. Nasibova, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 036010, (2021), [arXiv:2103.10494 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Mamedov, N

    Sh. Mamedov, N. Nasibova, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 38, 24, (2023), 2350131, [arxiv: 2201.03324 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Mamedov, Sh

    Sh. Mamedov, Sh. Taghiyeva, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 85, 541, (2024), [arxiv: 2208.07115 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Dong and C

    Y. Dong and C. Liang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 29 (2014), 1460229, [DOI:10.1142/S2010194514602294]

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    Airapetian et al.(HERMES), Nucl

    A. Airapetian et al.(HERMES), Nucl. Phys. B 842, 265 (2011), [arXiv:1008.3996 [hep-ex]]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Mazouz et al

    M. Mazouz et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 242501 (2007), [arXiv:0709.0450 [nucl-ex]]

    2007 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Armstrong et al., (2017), [arXiv:1708.00888 [nucl-ex]]

    W. Armstrong et al., (2017), [arXiv:1708.00888 [nucl-ex]]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Accardi et al., Eur

    A. Accardi et al., Eur. Phys. J. A52, 268 (2016), [arXiv:1212.1701 [nucl-ex]]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    and studied theoretically in Refs. [35–43]. After the AdS/QCD models were built, which are based on the AdS/CFT correspondence principle [1–3], the different physical quantities of hadron phenomenology were successfully studied within these models [4–19]. Seminal works devoted...

  27. [35]

    E. R. Berger, F. Cano, M. Diehl, and B. Pire, Phys. Rev. Lett. bf 87, 142302 (2001), [arXiv:hep- ph/0106192 [hep-ph]]

    2001

  28. [36]

    Cano and B

    F. Cano and B. Pire, Eur. Phys. J. A19, 423 (2004), [arXiv:hep-ph/0307231 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Cosyn and B

    W. Cosyn and B. Pire, Phys. Rev. D 98, 074020 (2018), [arXiv:1806.01177 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Cano and B

    F. Cano and B. Pire, Proceedings, European Workshop, QCD-N’02, Ferrara, Italy, April 3-6, 2002, Nucl. Phys. A 711, 133 (2002), [arXiv:hep-ph/0206215 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Kirchner and D

    A. Kirchner and D. Mueller, Eur. Phys. J. C32, 347 (2003), [arXiv:hep-ph/0302007 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  32. [40]

    I. V. Anikin, R. S. Pasechnik, B. Pire, and O. V. Teryaev, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2055 (2012), [arXiv:1112.1849 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Diehl, Generalized parton distributions, Phys

    M. Diehl, Generalized parton distributions, Phys. Rept. 388, 41-277 (2003), [arXiv:hep-ph/0307382]

    2003 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Mondal, D

    C. Mondal, D. Chakrabarti, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 261 (2015), [arXiv:1501.05489 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Mondal, J

    C. Mondal, J. Lan, K. Fu, S. Xu, Z. Hu, X. Zhao, J. P. Vary, SciPost Phys. Proc. 10, 036 (2022), [arXiv:2109.12921 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A. Vega, I. Schmidt, T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D 83, 036001 (2011), [arXiv:1010.2815v3 [hep-ph]]

    2011 arXiv

  37. [45]

    M. V. Polyakov, B. -D. Sun, Phys. Rev. D 100, 036003, (2019), [DOI:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.036003]

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    Burkardt, Int

    M. Burkardt, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 18, 173-208 (2003), [arXiv: 0207047 [hep-ph]]

    2003

  39. [47]

    R. Wang, W. Kou, C. Han, J. Evslin, X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 104, 074033, (2021), [arXiv:2108.03550 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A. Vega, I. Schmidt, T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D 85, 096004, (2012), [arXiv:1202.4806 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  41. [49]

    P. E. Kolpakov, Basics of nuclear physics, (1968)

    1968

  42. [50]

    N. Kaur, N. Kumar, C. Mondal, H. Dahiya Nucl. Phys. B 934, 80-95, (2018), [arXiv:1807.01076 [hep-ph]]. 22

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Huang, B

    C. Huang, B. Ma, Nucl. Phys. A 968, 14-22, (2017), [arXiv:1705.06399 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bartolini, S

    L. Bartolini, S. Bolognesi, S. B. Gudnason Phys. Rev. D 101, 086009, (2020), [arXiv:1912.01641 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Y. Kim, S. Lee, P. Yi JHEP 086, 0904, (2009), [arXiv:0902.4048 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  46. [54]

    M. R. Pahlavani, J. Sadeghi, R. Morad, Phys. Rev. c 82, 025201, (2010), [arXiv:1309.06409 [hep-th]]

    2010

  47. [55]

    M. R. Pahlavani, R. Morad, Adv.High Energy Phys.A, 863268, (2014), [arXiv:1403.2501 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Fujii, A

    D. Fujii, A. Iwanaka, M. Tanaka Phys. Rev. D 110, L091501 , (2024), [arXiv:2407.21113 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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