Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 170 references

Covariant analysis of electromagnetic current on the light cone: exposition with scalar Yukawa theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding a 2% anti-nucleon Fock sector largely restores Lorentz covariance of the charge form factor.

desk verdict New unquenched three-body light-front solution of scalar Yukawa; the frame-dependence result is plausible but the numerical evidence needs more than two frames and error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07826 v2 pith:RMCFPMH4 submitted 2025-01-14 hep-ph hep-thnucl-th

Wenyu Zhang , Yang Li , James P. Vary This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-thnucl-th
keywords scalarYukawatheorylight-frontHamiltonianFocksectorexpansionchargeformfactorLorentzcovarianceframedependencezeromodescovariantdynamics
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 reports the first non-perturbative solution of a (3+1)-dimensional scalar Yukawa theory with a Fock space truncated at three bodies, including the $|N\bar{N}N\rangle$ anti-nucleon sector, and uses it to test the Lorentz covariance of the charge form factor. Its central claim is that the frame dependence of the form factor, which measures how much Poincaré symmetry is lost under truncation, is largely reduced once the three-body sectors are included. The key finding is that the $|N\bar{N}N\rangle$ sector contributes less than about 2% of the state vector and yet is responsible for most of the restoration, because it supplies the pair-creation terms that the quenched approximation drops. The paper also argues that zero modes do not contribute to the electromagnetic current in the Drell-Yan frame for this theory. If correct, this validates the Fock-sector expansion as a route to covariant non-perturbative observables and shows that even a small sea component can carry the physics needed for Lorentz covariance.

What carries the argument

The central object is the covariant light-front dynamics (CLFD) decomposition of the current matrix element, Eq. (4.3), which writes $j^\mu = (p+p')^\mu F + \omega^\mu M^2/(\omega\cdot P) S_1 + q^{[\mu}\omega^{\nu]}q_\nu/(\omega\cdot P) S_2$ with $\omega^\mu$ the null vector defining the light-front surface. Because Fock truncation reduces the Poincaré symmetry, $S_1$ and $S_2$ are spurious form factors; the physical form factor is isolated by the combination $F = j^+/(2P^+) - \zeta\,\vec{j}_\perp/(2\vec{q}_\perp)$ in the transverse Breit frame, Eq. (4.10). The other load-bearing ingredient is the Fock-sector-dependent renormalization and the integral equation (3.42) that produces the vertex functions, whose unquenched solution supplies the Z-term diagrams that restore covariance.

What would settle it

Evaluate $F$ from the $J^-$ component of the same wave functions and compare with the $J^+$/$J_\perp$ extraction; since $J^-$ couples to the spurious form factor $S_1$, a systematic offset beyond numerical tolerance would show that the three-form-factor parametrization in Eq. (4.3) is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a Fock sector with tiny probability can have an outsized effect on covariance: solving scalar Yukawa theory with the full three-body truncation $|N\rangle+|\pi N\rangle+|\pi\pi N\rangle+|N\bar{N}N\rangle$ reduces the spread between the form factor evaluated in the Drell-Yan (transverse) frame and the longitudinal frame from large in the two-body and quenched three-body truncations to small in the unquenched three-body truncation. The paper evaluates the electromagnetic current in general frames, parametrizes the hadronic matrix element with covariant light-front dynamics, extracts the physical form factor from $j^+$ and $\vec{j}_\perp$, and finds that the pair-creation (Z-term) diagrams, generated by the $|N\bar{N}N\rangle$ sector, vanish in the $q^+\to 0$ limit. This establishes, for this model, that zero modes do not contribute to the current in the Drell-Yan frame and that the conventional overlap picture is consistent with the covariant extraction.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the truncated theory's current matrix element is completely described by three form factors: the physical one plus two spurious ones built from the light-front direction; if truncation also creates other frame-dependent structures, the combination used to isolate $F$ could still be secretly contaminated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Frame dependence can serve as a quantitative figure of merit for Poincaré symmetry violation in Fock-truncated light-front calculations, with the spread shrinking as sectors are added.
  • The anti-nucleon sector must be retained even when its probability is small, because the quenched three-body calculation (without $|N\bar{N}N\rangle$) leaves a frame dependence as large as in the two-body truncation.
  • The Drell-Yan frame is a preferred frame for form-factor extraction because the $J^+$ current alone is reliable there and the Fock-sector expansion converges faster in that frame.
  • Zero-mode contributions to the electromagnetic current are absent in this scalar theory, so the diagonal overlap picture of the Drell-Yan-West formula holds for this model.
  • The covariant decomposition and the $J^+$/$J_\perp$ combination provide a spurious-free way to extract physical form factors in arbitrary frames for more complex truncations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, a practical truncation rule suggested by the result is to include pair-creation sectors based on the operator content of the observable, not just on Fock-sector probabilities; the tiny $|N\bar{N}N\rangle$ sector matters because it generates the Z-term, not because it is large.
  • One testable extension is to track frame dependence near the Landau-pole coupling $\alpha_c = 2.63$: the unquenched advantage should grow as the coupling strengthens, while a quenched calculation should diverge from the unquenched one in the longitudinal frame first.
  • The zero-mode conclusion is likely specific to massive scalar fields; the paper notes the massless scalar theory requires data on an extra surface, so a direct test would be to repeat the analysis with $\mu\to 0$ and see whether the pair-creation diagrams acquire endpoint contributions.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a non-perturbative light-front Hamiltonian solution of scalar Yukawa theory in (3+1) dimensions with a Fock-space truncation that includes one mock nucleon plus two pions or two nucleons plus one anti-nucleon, i.e. the full three-body truncation |N> + |πN> + |ππN> + |NN̄N>. The authors extract the charge form factor in general light-front frames using covariant light-front dynamics (CLFD), where the current matrix element is parameterized by a physical form factor F(ζ,Q²) and two spurious form factors S1,S2 that encode violations of Poincaré symmetry induced by the truncation. The central claims are that (i) the frame dependence of the extracted form factor, evaluated in the Drell-Yan frame and the longitudinal frame, is dramatically reduced when the three-body sectors are included, (ii) the anti-nucleon sector |NN̄N>, despite contributing ≲2% of the state vector, is the key ingredient restoring approximate Lorentz covariance, and (iii) there is no zero-mode contribution to the electromagnetic current in the Drell-Yan limit q⁺→0. The work also provides analytic expressions for the zero-mode limits and a Fock-sector-dependent renormalization scheme.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper is a useful demonstration that Fock-sector expansion on the light front can systematically restore approximate Poincaré covariance for a strongly coupled scalar theory, and that the anti-particle degree of freedom plays a disproportionately important role in the current matrix element. The paper is also one of the first to present a full unquenched three-body solution of scalar Yukawa theory and to apply the CLFD decomposition to extract form factors without assuming current conservation. The zero-mode analysis provides a concrete, checkable statement for a scalar theory and connects to earlier LCPT-based expectations. The strength of the paper is that the main formalism is analytic and the numerical results are internally consistent; however, the headline numerical claim currently rests on two selected frames without error quantification or convergence studies, so the quantitative significance of the 'dramatic reduction' is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Figs. 8–10] The central claim that frame dependence is dramatically reduced is supported only by comparing two frames, the Drell-Yan frame (ζ=0) and the longitudinal frame (Δ⊥=0). Because F(ζ,Q²) may be non-monotonic in ζ, these two endpoint frames do not by themselves bound the overall frame dependence. The paper reports no quadrature sizes, PV-mass choices, or convergence checks for the form factors, and the figures carry no error bars. At α=2.0 a visible residual spread remains, so without an uncertainty estimate the reader cannot distinguish a genuine reduction of frame dependence from numerical noise. Please add results at intermediate ζ values (e.g., ζ=0.25, 0.5, 0.75 in addition to the longitudinal point) and a brief convergence study in the number of quadrature points and in the PV masses.
  2. [§4.2, Eqs. (4.14) and (4.17)] The zero-mode conclusion depends on the asserted finiteness of ΓπN at the endpoints and on the odd integrand in the transverse integral. The paper states that ΓπN is finite at the endpoints but does not prove it or verify it numerically. Since the endpoint behavior is load-bearing for the statement that Fj and Fk vanish in the Drell-Yan limit, please state the regularity conditions on ΓπN and ψπN, and show numerical values of Fj(ζ,Q²) and Fk(ζ,Q²) as ζ→0 for a fixed Q² to confirm the claimed vanishing.
  3. [§4.1, Eq. (4.3)] The extraction of the physical form factor assumes that the covariant decomposition with F, S1, and S2 is complete under the reduced symmetry of the truncated theory. If Fock-sector truncation allows additional ω-dependent Lorentz structures beyond those in Eq. (4.3), the combination in Eq. (4.10) could still mix spurious contributions into F, and the observed reduction of frame dependence could be an artifact of an incomplete parametrization. The CLFD formalism is cited from prior work, but the completeness of the decomposition for the scalar current in the truncated Hilbert space is not tested. A concrete check would be to extract F using different current components (e.g., j⁺ alone versus the combination in Eq. (4.10)) at the same ζ and Q² and show that the results agree within numerical accuracy.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains the typo 'up to thee-particles'; it should read 'three particles'.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (4.17)] In Eq. (4.17), the argument of ψπN contains the expression '−(1 − 1/2)q⊥', which appears to be a typo; it should presumably read '−(1 − a/2)q⊥' or similar. As written, the formula cannot be checked.
  3. [§3.5] The numerical solution section states that a Lagrange mesh and an iterative procedure are used and that the tolerance is 10⁻⁵, but it does not specify the number of quadrature points or the chosen PV masses. Adding these details would make the numerical results reproducible.
  4. [§5] The sentence 'The remainer of the work is organized as follows' contains a typo; it should read 'remainder'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the form factor is a computed output of solved wave functions with standard on-shell renormalization, and the frame-dependence reduction is an internal numerical comparison rather than a tuned or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. The model inputs (m, mu, alpha) are fixed beforehand, and the physical coupling g enters only through the standard on-shell renormalization condition (3.40), which fixes the bare coupling g_pipi; the charge form factor F(zeta, Q^2) is then a computed output of the solved vertex Gamma_piN, not a fitted quantity. The frame-dependence comparison in Figs. 8-10 is an internal consistency check: the same wave functions are used to evaluate the current matrix element in the transverse and longitudinal frames, and no parameter is adjusted to reduce the spread between the frames. The CLFD decomposition (4.3) and the extraction formula (4.10) are adopted from the authors' earlier work [108]; while this is a self-citation, it supplies a general parametrization rather than the numerical result, and nothing in the present input data forces F(0,Q^2) and F(zeta_LF(Q^2),Q^2) to agree. The zero-mode conclusion is obtained by an explicit zeta->0 limit of the pair diagrams, Eqs. (4.14)-(4.17), independent of any fitted quantity. Self-citations to [104,106,107,149,150] support convergence and renormalization but do not define the target observable. The main caveat, namely the absence of convergence and uncertainty quantification in the two-frame comparison, is a numerical robustness concern rather than a circularity. No step reduces by construction to its own input.

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

The central claim rests on the Fock sector truncation to three particles, the Fock sector dependent renormalization scheme, the completeness of the CLFD decomposition, and the treatment of the q+ -> 0 limit for zero modes. No new physical entities are introduced. The parameters m, mu, and alpha are model inputs that are not fitted to the target form factor results.

free parameters (3)
  • m = 0.94 GeV
    Mass of the mock nucleon field N; an input of the model chosen to mimic the nucleon, not fitted to the form factor.
  • mu = 0.14 GeV
    Mass of the mock pion field pi; an input chosen to mimic the pion.
  • alpha = 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 (critical 2.63)
    Dimensionless coupling g^2/(16 pi m^2); the physical coupling of the model, varied across results, not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Fock sector truncation: the physical state is expanded as |N> + |pi N> + |pi pi N> + |N Nbar N> and higher sectors are neglected.
    This truncation defines the approximation; convergence is argued from prior quenched comparisons, not proven for the unquenched case. Entered in Sect. 3.1, Eq. (3.4).
  • domain assumption Fock sector dependent renormalization: two-body counterterms (delta m^2_pi, g_pi, delta mu^2_NbarN, g_NbarN) remain valid in the three-body truncation, and g_pi_pi is fixed by the on-shell condition (3.40).
    The nonperturbative renormalization scheme is not checked for scheme dependence. Entered in Sect. 3.4.
  • domain assumption The CLFD decomposition (4.3) with two spurious form factors S1 and S2 is complete for the current matrix element of the truncated theory.
    If additional Lorentz structures survive the truncation, the extraction (4.10) would be contaminated. Entered in Sect. 4.1, Eq. (4.3).
  • domain assumption The q+ -> 0 limit of the pair-creation diagrams correctly captures any zero-mode contribution to the current.
    Endpoint singularities are asserted finite; this is standard in light-front analysis but not rigorously proven here. Entered in Sect. 4.2.
  • standard math Pauli-Villars regulators are removed by taking m_pv, mu_pv to infinity after mass counterterm subtraction.
    Standard regularization for the super-renormalizable scalar model; used in Sect. 3.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Covariant analysis of electromagnetic current on the light cone: exposition with scalar Yukawa theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RMCFPMH4

@misc{pith2026250107826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Covariant analysis of electromagnetic current on the light cone: exposition with scalar Yukawa theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RMCFPMH4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07826}
}
abstract

We present the first systematic investigation of the Lorentz covariance of the charge form factor for a strongly coupled scalar theory in (3+1)-dimensions. Our results are based on the first non-perturbative solution of the scalar Yukawa theory with a Fock sector expansion including up to thee-particles (one mock nucleon plus two mock pions or two mock nucleons plus one mock anti-nucleon). The light-front Hamiltonian is constructed and renormalized using a Fock sector dependent scheme. The derived eigenvalue equation is then solved non-perturbatively to obtain the wave functions, which are then used to compute the current matrix element. We perform a covariant analysis of the current matrix element taking into account possible violation of the Poincar\'e symmetry due to the Fock sector truncation. The physical form factor depends on two boost invariants $\zeta, \Delta^2_\perp$, instead of the single Lorentz invariant $Q^2$. Instead of adopting the conventional Drell-Yan frame $\zeta = 0$, we evaluate the form factor in general frames, and use the frame dependence to quantitatively gauge the loss of the Lorentz covariance. Our numerical result shows that as more Fock sectors are included, the frame dependence reduces dramatically. In particular, the anti-nucleon degree of freedom plays an important role in the reduction of the frame dependence, even though it only takes a small portion within the state vector. We also find that there is no zero-mode contribution to the current for the scalar Yukawa theory.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

170 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gross, E

    F. Gross, E. Klempt, S. J. Brodsky, A. J. Buras, V. D. Burkert, G. Heinrich, K. Jakobs, C. A. Meyer, K. Orginos and M. Strickland, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1125 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11949-2 [arXiv:2212.11107 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Gao and M

    H. Gao and M. Vanderhaeghen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, no.1, 015002 (2022) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.94.015002 [arXiv:2105.00571 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    C. F. Perdrisat, V. Punjabi and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 59, 694-764 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2007.05.001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0612014 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    Punjabi, C

    V. Punjabi, C. F. Perdrisat, M. K. Jones, E. J. Brash and C. E. Carlson, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 79 (2015) doi:10.1140/epja/i2015-15079-x [arXiv:1503.01452 [nucl-ex]]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Pacetti, R

    S. Pacetti, R. Baldini Ferroli and E. Tomasi-Gustafsson, Phys. Rept. 550-551, 1-103 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.005 2015

  6. [6]

    G. A. Miller, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60, 1-25 (2010) doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.012809.104508 [arXiv:1002.0355 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    L. N. Hand, D. G. Miller and R. Wilson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 35, 335 (1963) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.35.335

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.35.335 1963

  8. [8]

    Hofstadter, Rev

    R. Hofstadter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 28, 214-254 (1956) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.28.214 – 29 –

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.28.214 1956

Show all 170 references
  1. [9]

    Alexandrou, C

    C. Alexandrou, C. N. Papanicolas and M. Vanderhaeghen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1231 (2012) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.84.1231 [arXiv:1201.4511 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2157 (1980) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2157

    1980 doi

  3. [11]

    Isgur and C

    N. Isgur and C. H. Llewellyn Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1080 (1984) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.52.1080

    1984 doi

  4. [12]

    Isgur and C

    N. Isgur and C. H. Llewellyn Smith, Nucl. Phys. B 317, 526-572 (1989) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90532-4

    1989 doi

  5. [13]

    Isgur and C

    N. Isgur and C. H. Llewellyn Smith, Phys. Lett. B 217, 535-538 (1989) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(89)90092-0

    1989 doi

  6. [14]

    G. F. Sterman and P. Stoler, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 47, 193-233 (1997) doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.47.1.193 [arXiv:hep-ph/9708370 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  7. [15]

    B. L. G. Bakker, A. Bassetto, S. J. Brodsky, W. Broniowski, S. Dalley, T. Frederico, S. D. Glazek, J. R. Hiller, C. R. Ji and V. Karmanov, et al. Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 251-252, 165-174 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2014.05.004 [arXiv:1309.6333 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Fubini and G

    S. Fubini and G. Furlan, Physics Physique Fizika 1, no.4, 229-247 (1965) doi:10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.229

    1965 doi

  9. [17]

    J. D. Bjorken, Phys. Rev. 179, 1547-1553 (1969) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.179.1547

    1969 doi

  10. [18]

    R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 1415-1417 (1969) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.1415

    1969 doi

  11. [19]

    J. B. Kogut and L. Susskind, Phys. Rept. 8, 75-172 (1973) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(73)90009-4

    1973 doi

  12. [20]

    Altarelli and G

    G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B 126, 298-318 (1977) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(77)90384-4

    1977 doi

  13. [21]

    L. L. Frankfurt and M. I. Strikman, Nucl. Phys. B 148, 107-140 (1979) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90018-X

    1979 doi

  14. [22]

    Altarelli, Phys

    G. Altarelli, Phys. Rept. 81, 1 (1982) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(82)90127-2

    1982 doi

  15. [23]

    L. L. Frankfurt and M. I. Strikman, Phys. Rept. 76, 215-347 (1981) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(81)90129-0

    1981 doi

  16. [24]

    V. L. Chernyak and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rept. 112, 173 (1984) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(84)90126-1

    1984 doi

  17. [25]

    L. L. Frankfurt and M. I. Strikman, Phys. Rept. 160, 235-427 (1988) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(88)90179-2

    1988 doi

  18. [26]

    Frankfurt and M

    L. Frankfurt and M. Strikman, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 27, 135-193 (1991) doi:10.1016/0146-6410(91)90004-8

    1991 doi

  19. [27]

    Goeke, M

    K. Goeke, M. V. Polyakov and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 47, 401-515 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(01)00158-2 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106012 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  20. [28]

    V. M. Braun, G. P. Korchemsky and D. M¨ uller, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 311-398 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(03)90004-4 [arXiv:hep-ph/0306057 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  21. [29]

    I. P. Ivanov, N. N. Nikolaev and A. A. Savin, Phys. Part. Nucl. 37, 1-85 (2006) doi:10.1134/S1063779606010011 [arXiv:hep-ph/0501034 [hep-ph]]. – 30 –

    2006 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Y. V. Kovchegov and E. Levin, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 33, 1-350 (2012) Oxford University Press, 2013, ISBN 978-1-009-29144-6, 978-1-009-29141-5, 978-1-009-29142-2, 978-0-521-11257-4, 978-1-139-55768-9 doi:10.1017/9781009291446

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    Cruz-Santiago, P

    C. Cruz-Santiago, P. Kotko and A. M. Sta´ sto, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 85, 82-131 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.07.002

    2015 doi

  24. [32]

    Sterman, Int

    G. Sterman, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31, no.09, 1630005 (2016) doi:10.1142/S0217751X16300052 [arXiv:1602.02307 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 392-399 (1949) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.21.392

    1949 doi

  26. [34]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 150, 1313-1318 (1966) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.150.1313

    1966 doi

  27. [35]

    Susskind, Phys

    L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. 165, 1535-1546 (1968) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.165.1535

    1968 doi

  28. [36]

    J. B. Kogut and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D 1, 2901-2913 (1970) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.1.2901

    1970 doi

  29. [37]

    J. D. Bjorken, J. B. Kogut and D. E. Soper, Phys. Rev. D 3, 1382 (1971) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.3.1382

    1971 doi

  30. [38]

    S. J. Brodsky, R. Roskies and R. Suaya, Phys. Rev. D 8, 4574 (1973) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.8.4574

    1973 doi

  31. [39]

    Coester, Prog

    F. Coester, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 29, 1-32 (1992) doi:10.1016/0146-6410(92)90002-J

    1992 doi

  32. [40]

    M. G. Fuda, Nucl. Phys. A 543, 111C-126C (1992) doi:10.1016/0375-9474(92)90414-F

    1992 doi

  33. [41]

    W. M. Zhang, Chin. J. Phys. 32, 717-808 (1994) [arXiv:hep-ph/9412244 [hep-ph]]

    1994 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Burkardt, Adv

    M. Burkardt, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 23, 1-74 (1996) doi:10.1007/0-306-47067-5 1 [arXiv:hep-ph/9505259 [hep-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  35. [43]

    S. J. Brodsky, H. C. Pauli and S. S. Pinsky, Phys. Rept. 301, 299-486 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(97)00089-6 [arXiv:hep-ph/9705477 [hep-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Carbonell, B

    J. Carbonell, B. Desplanques, V. A. Karmanov and J. F. Mathiot, Phys. Rept. 300, 215-347 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(97)00090-2 [arXiv:nucl-th/9804029 [nucl-th]]

    1998 arXiv

  37. [45]

    G. A. Miller, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 45, 83-155 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(00)00103-4 [arXiv:nucl-th/0002059 [nucl-th]]

    2000 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Heinzl, Lect

    T. Heinzl, Lect. Notes Phys. 572, 55-142 (2001) doi:10.1007/3-540-45114-5 2 [arXiv:hep-th/0008096 [hep-th]]

    2001 arXiv

  39. [47]

    V. R. Garsevanishvili, A. A. Khelashvili, Z. R. Menteshashvili and M. S. Nioradze, Phys. Rept. 458, 247-300 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.11.002 [arXiv:0705.3630 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Martinoviˇ c, Acta Phys

    ˇL. Martinoviˇ c, Acta Phys. Slov.57, no.3, 407-564 (2007)

    2007

  41. [49]

    Frederico and G

    T. Frederico and G. Salme, Few Body Syst. 49, 163-175 (2011) doi:10.1007/s00601-010-0163-z [arXiv:1011.1850 [nucl-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  42. [50]

    S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de Teramond, H. G. Dosch and J. Erlich, Phys. Rept. 584, 1-105 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2015.05.001 [arXiv:1407.8131 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    B. L. G. Bakker and C. R. Ji, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 74, 1-34 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2013.10.001

    2014 doi

  44. [52]

    J. R. Hiller, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 90, 75-124 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.06.002 [arXiv:1606.08348 [hep-ph]]. – 31 –

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    X. Ji, Y. S. Liu, Y. Liu, J. H. Zhang and Y. Zhao, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, no.3, 035005 (2021) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.93.035005 [arXiv:2004.03543 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    S. D. Drell and T. M. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 181-185 (1970) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.24.181

    1970 doi

  47. [55]

    G. B. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 1206-1209 (1970) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.24.1206

    1970 doi

  48. [56]

    Sawicki, Phys

    M. Sawicki, Phys. Rev. D 46, 474-477 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.474

    1992 doi

  49. [57]

    N. B. Demchuk, I. L. Grach, I. M. Narodetski and S. Simula, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 59, 2152-2163 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9601369 [hep-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J. P. B. C. de Melo and T. Frederico, Phys. Rev. C 55, 2043 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.55.2043 [arXiv:nucl-th/9706032 [nucl-th]]

    1997 arXiv

  51. [59]

    J. P. C. B. de Melo, H. W. L. Naus and T. Frederico, Phys. Rev. C 59, 2278-2281 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.59.2278 [arXiv:hep-ph/9710228 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J. P. B. C. de Melo, J. H. O. Sales, T. Frederico and P. U. Sauer, Nucl. Phys. A 631, 574C-579C (1998) doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(98)00070-0 [arXiv:hep-ph/9802325 [hep-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  53. [61]

    H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 58, 071901 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.071901 [arXiv:hep-ph/9805438 [hep-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  54. [62]

    J. P. B. C. de Melo, T. Frederico, H. W. L. Naus and P. U. Sauer, Nucl. Phys. A 660, 219-231 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00371-1 [arXiv:hep-ph/9908384 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  55. [63]

    B. L. G. Bakker, H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 63, 074014 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.074014 [arXiv:hep-ph/0008147 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  56. [64]

    B. C. Tiburzi and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 65, 074009 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.074009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0109174 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Melikhov and S

    D. Melikhov and S. Simula, Phys. Rev. D 65, 094043 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.094043 [arXiv:hep-ph/0112044 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Simula, Phys

    S. Simula, Phys. Rev. C 66, 035201 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.66.035201 [arXiv:nucl-th/0204015 [nucl-th]]

    2002 arXiv

  59. [67]

    J. P. B. C. de Melo, T. Frederico, E. Pace and G. Salme, Nucl. Phys. A 707, 399-424 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(02)00990-9 [arXiv:nucl-th/0205010 [nucl-th]]

    2002 arXiv

  60. [68]

    B. C. Tiburzi and G. A. Miller, [arXiv:hep-ph/0205109 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    Melikhov and S

    D. Melikhov and S. Simula, Phys. Lett. B 556, 135-141 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00124-2 [arXiv:hep-ph/0211277 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  62. [70]

    J. P. B. C. de Melo, T. Frederico, E. Pace and G. Salme, Phys. Lett. B 581, 75-81 (2004) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.11.072 [arXiv:hep-ph/0311369 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  63. [71]

    B. C. Tiburzi, [arXiv:nucl-th/0407005 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    J. P. B. C. de Melo, T. Frederico, E. Pace and G. Salme, Phys. Rev. D 73, 074013 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.074013 [arXiv:hep-ph/0508001 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  65. [73]

    A. T. Suzuki, J. H. Sales and L. A. Soriano, Phys. Rev. D 88, no.2, 025036 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.025036 [arXiv:1209.4681 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  66. [74]

    J. P. B. C. de Melo and T. Frederico, Phys. Lett. B 708, 87-92 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.01.021 [arXiv:1202.0734 [hep-ph]]. – 32 –

    2012 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Eichmann, H

    G. Eichmann, H. Sanchis-Alepuz, R. Williams, R. Alkofer and C. S. Fischer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 91, 1-100 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.07.001 [arXiv:1606.09602 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Maris and C

    P. Maris and C. D. Roberts, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 12, 297-365 (2003) doi:10.1142/S0218301303001326 [arXiv:nucl-th/0301049 [nucl-th]]

    2003 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Carbonell, T

    J. Carbonell, T. Frederico and V. A. Karmanov, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no.1, 58 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4616-0 [arXiv:1701.02479 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  70. [78]

    B. L. G. Bakker, H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 65, 116001 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.116001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0202217 [hep-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  71. [79]

    H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 70, 053015 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.053015 [arXiv:hep-ph/0402114 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  72. [80]

    H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 72, 013004 (2005) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.013004 [arXiv:hep-ph/0504219 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  73. [81]

    He and Y

    J. He and Y. b. Dong, J. Phys. G 32, 189-202 (2006) doi:10.1088/0954-3899/32/2/010 [arXiv:hep-ph/0512056 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  74. [82]

    A. J. Arifi, H. M. Choi, C. R. Ji and Y. Oh, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.5, 053003 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.053003 [arXiv:2210.12780 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  75. [83]

    S. J. Brodsky and D. S. Hwang, Nucl. Phys. B 543, 239-252 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00807-4 [arXiv:hep-ph/9806358 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Y. Li, P. Maris and J. Vary, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.5, 054034 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.054034 [arXiv:1712.03467 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  77. [85]

    M. Li, Y. Li, P. Maris and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.3, 036006 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.036006 [arXiv:1906.07306 [nucl-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  78. [86]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, Phys. Rev. D 77, 056007 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.056007 [arXiv:0707.3859 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  79. [87]

    S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, Phys. Rev. D 78, 025032 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.025032 [arXiv:0804.0452 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Li and J

    Y. Li and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.5, L051501 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L051501 [arXiv:2312.02543 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    F. M. Lev, Annals Phys. 237, 355-419 (1995) doi:10.1006/aphy.1995.1013 [arXiv:hep-ph/9403222 [hep-ph]]

    1995

  82. [90]

    F. M. Lev, E. Pace and G. Salme, Nucl. Phys. A 641, 229-259 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(98)00469-2 [arXiv:hep-ph/9807255 [hep-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  83. [91]

    F. M. Lev, E. Pace and G. Salme, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5250-5253 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.5250 [arXiv:nucl-th/9910049 [nucl-th]]

    1999 arXiv

  84. [92]

    F. M. Lev, E. Pace and G. Salme, Phys. Rev. C 62, 064004 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.62.064004 [arXiv:nucl-th/0006053 [nucl-th]]

    2000 arXiv

  85. [93]

    F. M. Lev, E. Pace and G. Salme, Nucl. Phys. A 663, 365-368 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00618-1 [arXiv:nucl-th/9909027 [nucl-th]]

    2000 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Pace and G

    E. Pace and G. Salm` e, Nucl. Phys. A 684, 487-489 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(01)00472-9 – 33 –

    2001 doi

  87. [95]

    E. Pace, G. Salme, T. Frederico, S. Pisano and J. P. B. C. de Melo, Nucl. Phys. A 790, 606-609 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.03.130 [arXiv:hep-ph/0611328 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  88. [96]

    J. P. B. C. de Melo, T. Frederico, E. Pace, S. Pisano and G. Salme, Nucl. Phys. A 782, 69-76 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2006.10.027 [arXiv:hep-ph/0607342 [hep-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  89. [97]

    J. A. O. Marinho, T. Frederico and P. U. Sauer, Phys. Rev. D 76, 096001 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.096001

    2007 doi

  90. [98]

    E. Pace, G. Salme, T. Frederico and S. Pisano, Few-Body Systems 44, no.1-4, 299-302 (2008) doi:10.1007/s00601-008-0313-8

    2008 doi

  91. [99]

    Huang and W

    Y. Huang and W. N. Polyzou, Phys. Rev. C 80, 025503 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.80.025503 [arXiv:0812.2180 [nucl-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  92. [100]

    E. Pace, J. A. Marinho, G. Salme and T. Frederico, Few Body Syst. 50, 431-434 (2011) doi:10.1007/s00601-010-0159-8

    2011 doi

  93. [101]

    Polyzou, Few Body Syst

    W. Polyzou, Few Body Syst. 65, no.1, 2 (2024) doi:10.1007/s00601-023-01871-4 [arXiv:2310.19243 [nucl-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  94. [102]

    S. S. Chabysheva and J. R. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 81, 074030 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.074030 [arXiv:0911.4455 [hep-ph]]

    2010 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Y. Li, V. A. Karmanov, P. Maris and J. P. Vary, Few Body Syst. 56, no.6-9, 495-501 (2015) doi:10.1007/s00601-015-0965-0 [arXiv:1411.1707 [nucl-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Y. Li, V. A. Karmanov, P. Maris and J. P. Vary, Phys. Lett. B 748, 278-283 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.07.014 [arXiv:1504.05233 [nucl-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  97. [105]

    S. Xu, Y. Liu, C. Mondal, J. Lan, X. Zhao, Y. Li and J. P. Vary, [arXiv:2408.11298 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  98. [106]

    X. Cao, Y. Li and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.7, 076025 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.076025 [arXiv:2408.09535 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Y. Duan, S. Xu, S. Cheng, X. Zhao, Y. Li and J. P. Vary, [arXiv:2404.07755 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  100. [108]

    X. Cao, S. Xu, Y. Li, G. Chen, X. Zhao, V. A. Karmanov and J. P. Vary, JHEP 07, 095 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2024)095 [arXiv:2405.06896 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  101. [109]

    H. C. Pauli and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 32, 1993 (1985) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.32.1993

    1985 doi

  102. [110]

    H. C. Pauli and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 32, 2001 (1985) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.32.2001

    1985 doi

  103. [111]

    J. P. Vary, H. Honkanen, J. Li, P. Maris, S. J. Brodsky, A. Harindranath, G. F. de Teramond, P. Sternberg, E. G. Ng and C. Yang, Phys. Rev. C 81, 035205 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.81.035205 [arXiv:0905.1411 [nucl-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  104. [112]

    S. J. Brodsky, J. R. Hiller and G. McCartor, Annals Phys. 321, 1240-1264 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.aop.2005.09.005 [arXiv:hep-ph/0508295 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Baye, Phys

    D. Baye, Phys. Rept. 565, 1-107 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.11.006

    2015 doi

  106. [114]

    D. Baye, M. Hesse and M. Vincke, Phys. Rev. E 65, no.2, 026701 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.65.026701

    2002 doi

  107. [115]

    Leutwyler and J

    H. Leutwyler and J. Stern, Annals Phys. 112, 94 (1978) doi:10.1016/0003-4916(78)90082-9

    1978 doi

  108. [116]

    G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 112001 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.112001 [arXiv:0705.2409 [nucl-th]]. – 34 –

    2007 arXiv

  109. [117]

    G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C 80, 045210 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.80.045210 [arXiv:0908.1535 [nucl-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  110. [118]

    G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C 79, 055204 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.79.055204 [arXiv:0901.1117 [nucl-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  111. [119]

    G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C 99, no.3, 035202 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.99.035202 [arXiv:1812.02714 [nucl-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Freese and G

    A. Freese and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 103, 094023 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.094023 [arXiv:2102.01683 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Freese and G

    A. Freese and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.1, 014024 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.014024 [arXiv:2104.03213 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Freese and G

    A. Freese and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.1, 014003 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.014003 [arXiv:2108.03301 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Freese and G

    A. Freese and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.3, 034008 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.034008 [arXiv:2210.03807 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Y. Li, W. b. Dong, Y. l. Yin, Q. Wang and J. P. Vary, Phys. Lett. B 838, 137676 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137676 [arXiv:2206.12903 [hep-ph]]

    2023

  117. [125]

    Freese and G

    A. Freese and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.7, 074036 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.074036 [arXiv:2302.09171 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Freese and G

    A. Freese and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.9, 094026 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.094026 [arXiv:2307.11165 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  119. [127]

    S. J. Brodsky and R. Shrock, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 108, 45-50 (2011) doi:10.1073/pnas.1010113107 [arXiv:0905.1151 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Hornbostel, Phys

    K. Hornbostel, Phys. Rev. D 45, 3781-3801 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.3781

    1992 doi

  121. [129]

    Heinzl, S

    T. Heinzl, S. Krusche and E. Werner, Phys. Lett. B 256, 55-59 (1991) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)90218-F

    1991 doi

  122. [130]

    Chakrabarti, A

    D. Chakrabarti, A. Harindranath, L. Martinovic, G. B. Pivovarov and J. P. Vary, Phys. Lett. B 617, 92-98 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.05.012 [arXiv:hep-th/0310290 [hep-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Martinovic, Phys

    L. Martinovic, Phys. Rev. D 78, 105009 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.105009 [arXiv:hep-th/0207137 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  124. [132]

    S. J. Chang and S. K. Ma, Phys. Rev. 180, 1506-1513 (1969) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.180.1506

    1969 doi

  125. [133]

    T. M. Yan, Phys. Rev. D 7, 1780-1800 (1973) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.1780

    1973 doi

  126. [134]

    S. S. Chabysheva and J. R. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.11, 116006 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.116006 [arXiv:2201.00123 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  127. [135]

    Ilderton, JHEP 09, 166 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2014)166 [arXiv:1406.1513 [hep-th]]

    A. Ilderton, JHEP 09, 166 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2014)166 [arXiv:1406.1513 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  128. [136]

    T. N. Tomaras, N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, JHEP 11, 008 (2001) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2001/11/008 [arXiv:hep-th/0108090 [hep-th]]

    2001 arXiv

  129. [137]

    Heinzl, [arXiv:hep-th/0212202 [hep-th]]

    T. Heinzl, [arXiv:hep-th/0212202 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  130. [138]

    Burkardt, Nucl

    M. Burkardt, Nucl. Phys. A 670, 72-75 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(00)00072-5

    2000 doi

  131. [139]

    McCartor and D

    G. McCartor and D. G. Robertson, Z. Phys. C 53, 679-686 (1992) doi:10.1007/BF01559747

    1992 doi

  132. [140]

    D. G. Robertson, Phys. Rev. D 47, 2549-2553 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.2549 – 35 –

    1993 doi

  133. [141]

    S. S. Pinsky and B. van de Sande, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2001-2013 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.2001 [arXiv:hep-ph/9310330 [hep-ph]]

    1994 arXiv

  134. [142]

    Heinzl, C

    T. Heinzl, C. Stern, E. Werner and B. Zellermann, Z. Phys. C 72, 353-364 (1996) doi:10.1007/s002880050256 [arXiv:hep-th/9512179 [hep-th]]

    1996 arXiv

  135. [143]

    R. J. Perry, A. Harindranath and K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2959-2962 (1990) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.2959

    1990 doi

  136. [144]

    Burkardt, Phys

    M. Burkardt, Phys. Rev. D 47, 4628-4633 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.4628

    1993 doi

  137. [145]

    A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, E. Katz, L. G. Vitale and M. T. Walters, JHEP 08, 120 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2018)120 [arXiv:1803.10793 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  138. [146]

    Collins, [arXiv:1801.03960 [hep-ph]]

    J. Collins, [arXiv:1801.03960 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  139. [147]

    Martinovic and A

    L. Martinovic and A. Dorokhov, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135925 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135925 [arXiv:1812.02336 [hep-th]]

    2020

  140. [148]

    S. J. Brodsky, J. R. Hiller and G. McCartor, Phys. Rev. D 58, 025005 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.025005 [arXiv:hep-th/9802120 [hep-th]]

    1998 arXiv

  141. [149]

    V. A. Karmanov, J. F. Mathiot and A. V. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D 77, 085028 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.085028 [arXiv:0801.4507 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  142. [150]

    V. A. Karmanov, Y. Li, A. V. Smirnov and J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D 94, no.9, 096008 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.096008 [arXiv:1610.03559 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  143. [151]

    V. A. Karmanov, J. F. Mathiot and A. V. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D 86, 085006 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.085006 [arXiv:1204.3257 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  144. [152]

    V. G. Kadyshevsky, Nucl. Phys. B 6, 125-148 (1968) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(68)90274-5

    1968 doi

  145. [153]

    N. M. Atakishiev, R. M. Mir-Kasimov and S. M. Nagiev, Teor. Mat. Fiz. 32, 34-43 (1977) doi:10.1007/BF01041430

    1977 doi

  146. [154]

    V. A. Karmanov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 71, 399-416 (1976) ITEP-54-1976

    1976

  147. [155]

    Lehmann, K

    H. Lehmann, K. Symanzik and W. Zimmermann, Nuovo Cim. 1, 205-225 (1955) doi:10.1007/BF02731765

    1955 doi

  148. [156]

    Lehmann, K

    H. Lehmann, K. Symanzik and W. Zimmermann, Nuovo Cim. 6, 319-333 (1957) doi:10.1007/BF02832508

    1957 doi

  149. [157]

    V. A. Karmanov and A. V. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. A 546, 691-717 (1992) doi:10.1016/0375-9474(92)90004-4

    1992 doi

  150. [158]

    V. A. Karmanov and A. V. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. A 575, 520-548 (1994) doi:10.1016/0375-9474(94)90374-3

    1994 doi

  151. [159]

    V. A. Karmanov and J. F. Mathiot, Nucl. Phys. A 602, 388-404 (1996) doi:10.1016/0375-9474(96)00101-7

    1996 doi

  152. [160]

    Carbonell and V

    J. Carbonell and V. A. Karmanov, Eur. Phys. J. A 6, 9-19 (1999) doi:10.1007/s100500050311 [arXiv:nucl-th/9902053 [nucl-th]]

    1999 arXiv

  153. [161]

    S. J. Brodsky, J. R. Hiller, D. S. Hwang and V. A. Karmanov, Phys. Rev. D 69, 076001 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.076001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0311218 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  154. [162]

    Y. Choi, H. M. Choi, C. R. Ji and Y. Oh, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.7, 076002 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.076002 [arXiv:2101.03656 [hep-ph]]. – 36 –

    2021 arXiv

  155. [163]

    Smirnov, private communication

    A.V. Smirnov, private communication

  156. [164]

    Heinzl, A

    T. Heinzl, A. Ilderton and D. Seipt, Phys. Rev. D 98, no.1, 016002 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.016002 [arXiv:1802.05933 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  157. [165]

    S. S. Chabysheva and J. R. Hiller, [arXiv:1506.05429 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  158. [166]

    J. R. Hiller, Few Body Syst. 57, no.7, 557-563 (2016) doi:10.1007/s00601-016-1098-9 [arXiv:1512.08771 [hep-th]]

    2016 arXiv

  159. [167]

    S. S. Chabysheva and J. R. Hiller, Phys. Lett. B 711, 417-422 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.04.032 [arXiv:1103.0037 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  160. [168]

    S. D. Glazek and K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 48, 5863-5872 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.5863

    1993 doi

  161. [169]

    S. D. Glazek and K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D 49, 4214-4218 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.4214

    1994 doi

  162. [170]

    K. G. Wilson, T. S. Walhout, A. Harindranath, W. M. Zhang, R. J. Perry and S. D. Glazek, Phys. Rev. D 49, 6720-6766 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.6720 [arXiv:hep-th/9401153 [hep-th]]. – 37 –

    1994 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.