Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 52 references

Perception in Plan: Coupled Perception and Planning for End-to-End Autonomous Driving

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims the N-to-Delta tensor-polarized quark density comes entirely from the five-quark Fock component and is numerically suppressed, with second x-moment near -0.004.

desk verdict The advertised CV paper is not in the submission; the actual hep-ph body is competent but its headline number (−0.004) is fragile and needs an uncertainty analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.11488 v1 pith:VOLFHWS7 submitted 2025-08-15 cs.CV

Bozhou Zhang , Jingyu Li , Nan Song , Li Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords tensor-polarizedpartondensityN-to-Deltatransitionlarge-NcQCDlight-conewavefunction5QFockcomponentgeneralizeddistributionH_Xenergy-momentumtensorformfactorF4chiraldynamics
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

This paper (the body text) is a physics paper, not the autonomous-driving paper announced in the opening abstract. It claims that the tensor-polarized parton density in the N-to-$\Delta$ transition, the forward-limit isovector unpolarized quark distribution, receives zero contribution from the 3Q Fock component and is carried entirely by the 5Q Fock component when computed from the large-$N_c$ light-cone wave function of the mean-field picture. The claim matters because it would make this quantity a direct, chiral-dynamics-dominated probe of the genuine five-quark content of the baryon wave function, with a suppressed numerical size consistent with large-$N_c$ expectations. Concretely, the paper derives a vanishing first x-moment and a second x-moment of about $-0.004$, corresponding to the transition energy-momentum tensor form factor $F_4(0)\approx -0.003$. The opening abstract's claim that VeteranAD achieves state-of-the-art autonomous driving is not supported by any experiments in the text.

What carries the argument

The central object is the large-$N_c$ light-cone wave function of the baryon, obtained by taking the mean-field chiral baryon wave function from the rest frame into the infinite momentum frame through the covariance of the mean-field solution. It decomposes unambiguously into 3Q, 5Q, 7Q, and higher Fock components, and the overlap representation evaluates parton densities as diagonal overlaps in Fock space. The carrying objects are the dynamical parameters $K_J$ and $K_J^{\pm}(x)$, built from the 3Q probability distribution $\Phi(z,\mathbf{p}_\perp)$ and the quark-antiquark pair wave function $W$; the quadrupole combination $K_{\pi\pi}(x)-3K_{33}(x)$ determines the N-to-$\Delta$ density.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD computation of the isovector $N\to\Delta$ transition energy-momentum tensor form factor $F_4(0)$, or of the second x-moment of $H_X^{u-d}$ at $\xi,t\to 0$, would settle the numerical claim: a value clearly away from about $-0.003$, or a computation of the 7Q Fock-component or exact-pair-wave-function correction that moves the about $-0.004$ second moment by order one, would contradict it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the overlap representation of large-$N_c$ light-cone baryon wave functions in the infinite momentum frame, the paper shows that the $p\to\Delta^+$ transition matrix element of the non-local vector operator, evaluated in the forward limit $\xi,t\to 0$, defines a tensor-polarized parton density $f_{p\Delta^+}^{u-d}(x)$. The 3Q overlap vanishes identically because of the dynamical spin-flavor symmetry adapted to the IMF, so the leading contribution comes from the 5Q Fock sector, specifically from the quadrupole deformation of the pion cloud encoded in the combination $K_{\pi\pi}(x)-3K_{33}(x)$. The resulting distribution is purely isovector, has a first x-moment that vanishes by current c

Load-bearing premise

For the physics body, the load-bearing premise is that truncation at 3Q+5Q with the approximate pair wave function (stated error up to 15%) and the dropped Dirac-sea distortion (about 10%) leaves the $-0.004$ second moment unchanged; for the opening abstract's autonomous-driving claim, the premise that planning-conditioned perception improves driving scores is untestable because no such experiments are included.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the 3Q contribution vanishes, any calculation of the N-to-Delta tensor-polarized parton density that stops at three valence quarks predicts exactly zero; a nonzero signal is direct evidence of the five-quark component.
  • The first x-moment vanishes identically, so the density is a pure shape observable; its second moment is the leading nontrivial quantity and links it to the energy-momentum properties of the transition.
  • The numerical pair (second moment near $-0.004$, $F_4(0)\approx -0.003$) gives a sharp, testable target for lattice QCD or for alternative models of the N-to-Delta transition.
  • The isovector-only, scale-evolution-insensitive character makes the quantity a clean probe of non-perturbative chiral dynamics rather than perturbative gluon splitting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same Fock-state machinery can be applied to the axial-vector transition GPD $C_X$, which the paper notes is not $1/N_c$ suppressed; predicting $C_X$ with the 5Q overlap would give an independent, likely larger observable.
  • Beyond the paper: the reported near-cancellation between $K_{\pi\pi}$ and $3K_{33}$ that makes the density small could be an artifact of the small-gradient approximation for the pair wave function; computing the exact $W$ or including 7Q states would show whether the $-0.004$ scale is robust.
  • Manuscript-integrity note: the opening abstract describing the VeteranAD autonomous-driving framework is not the content of the manuscript; no NAVSIM or Bench2Drive experiments appear in the text, so those claims are unverifiable from this document.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The submission presents an abstract that advertises VeteranAD, an end-to-end autonomous driving framework with a coupled perception-and-planning design, and claims state-of-the-art performance on the NAVSIM and Bench2Drive datasets. The supplied full text, however, is not the corresponding paper: it is a hep-ph manuscript titled "Tensor-polarized parton density in the N→Δ transition from the large-Nc light-cone wave function" (arXiv:2508.11491). That body develops an overlap representation of the p→Δ+ tensor-polarized parton density using a large-Nc mean-field light-cone wave function, finds that the leading contribution comes from the 5Q Fock component, and obtains a small second x-moment of about −0.004 (Eq. 87), corresponding to F4(0) ≈ −0.003 (Eq. 103). Because the abstract's claim is the central claim of the submitted paper, the mismatch between the advertised content and the actual text is decisive. I nonetheless also comment on the physics content, since it is the only substantive material submitted.

Significance. If the advertised CV results existed, SOTA performance on NAVSIM and Bench2Drive would be significant for the autonomous-driving community. No such evidence is present in the submission, so that significance cannot be credited. Considered on its own terms, the physics manuscript has strengths: the overlap formalism is systematic, the sum rules for baryon number, momentum, and vanishing first moment are checked both analytically and numerically (Eqs. 60, 61, 76, 77, 82, 86), and the connections to the GPD H_X and the EMT form factor F4 are clearly derived. The main quantitative claim, however, is a very small number obtained from cancelling larger contributions and is presented without propagated uncertainties. The physics content is therefore not yet at the level of a robust quantitative prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract vs. Full text] The central advertised claim—VeteranAD achieves state-of-the-art performance on NAVSIM and Bench2Drive—has no supporting evidence anywhere in the submission. The full text contains no architecture description, no training or evaluation protocol, no dataset details, and no experimental results for VeteranAD; instead it is an unrelated hep-ph paper on tensor-polarized parton densities. This is not a local presentation defect: it makes the abstract's central claim impossible to evaluate. The manuscript as submitted cannot be accepted.
  2. [Sec. V, Eq. (87)] The headline numerical result, ∫dx x f^{u−d}_{pΔ+}(x) ≈ −0.004, is quoted without any propagated uncertainty even though the derivation explicitly relies on approximations whose stated errors are comparable to the result: the Dirac-sea distortion F_sea is dropped at about the 10% level (Sec. III.B), and the pair wave function W is evaluated in an interpolation approximation whose error is stated as up to 15% (Sec. III.C). Moreover, Fig. 7 and Eq. (81) show that the signal is a difference of larger, nearly cancelling terms (K^+_ππ ≈ 3K^+_33); a 15% uncertainty in either component can shift the difference by an amount larger than 0.004 in absolute value. The paper should provide an uncertainty budget or a bounded estimate before presenting −0.004 as a quantitative prediction.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (46), (75), (85)] The Fock-space truncation at 5Q is load-bearing for the central claim that the p→Δ+ distribution is dominated by the 5Q component and is numerically suppressed. The normalization constant for the octet is ε^{(5)}(B_8) = 0.45 (Eq. 85), which is not small, and the 3Q contribution to the transition vanishes identically (Eq. 57), so the entire calculated signal comes from the 5Q sector. No quantitative estimate is given for 7Q and higher Fock components, nor is a large-Nc scaling argument supplied that would bound their contribution at the observed milli-level. Without such a bound, the '5Q dominance and smallness' conclusion is not fully established.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] The text contains numerous corrupted symbols, blank placeholders, and garbled phrases (e.g., Sec. III.C, Eqs. (28), (52), (63)). If the correct manuscript is eventually submitted, these should be cleaned so that equations are reproducible.
  2. [Sec. IV.B] The notation K_J(x), K^+_J(x), K^−_J(x) is dense and the three are easily confused, especially in Figures 6–8. A summary table defining each dynamical parameter and its normalization would improve readability.
  3. [Sec. VI.B] In Eq. (101), the relation H^q_X(x,0,0) = (3/2)(M_Δ/M_N) f^q_{pΔ+}(x) is followed by the equal-mass limit M_N = M_Δ, but the numerical value of M_Δ/M_N used in the plots is not stated. Please state it explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity in the physics derivation; the advertised CV claim is unsupported by the supplied text, but that is a missing-evidence problem, not a circular one.

full rationale

The supplied full text is arXiv:2508.11491, a hep-ph manuscript on tensor-polarized parton densities in the p→Delta+ transition, rather than the CV paper announced in the abstract. The advertised claim that VeteranAD achieves state-of-the-art performance on NAVSIM and Bench2Drive cannot be evaluated because no CV methods or experiments appear in the in-scope text; this is a support/completeness failure, not circularity. Treating the physics body as the derivation chain, the central numerical result (the second x-moment ≈ −0.004, Eq. (87), and F4(0) ≈ −0.003, Eq. (103)) is computed from external inputs: the dynamical quark mass M = 345 MeV, the Pauli–Villars cutoff MPV = 557 MeV fixed by reproducing fπ = 93 MeV, and the self-consistent profile of Ref. [48]. The target quantity is not used to fix any model parameter, so the small moment is not a renamed fit. The paper does rely on the author's own Refs. [13,14] for the definition of the tensor-polarized parton density and the identification of HX as the forward-limit 'quadrupole' PDF, but these are definitional relations, not load-bearing inputs that force the −0.004 value. The stated approximations—dropping Fsea at the ~10% level (Sec. III.B), the ≤15% interpolation error for W (Sec. III.C), and truncating the Fock expansion at 5Q (Sec. IV.B)—are acknowledged limitations whose uncertainties are not propagated; that is a correctness risk, not evidence that the result reduces to its inputs. I therefore find no circular step warranting a score above 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The physics body rests on the standard large-Nc mean-field (chiral quark-soliton) framework: the parameters M, MPV, and the profile are carried from Refs. 33 and 48 and fixed by external constraints, not by the target distribution. The ledger lists those model inputs and the stated approximations; the 5Q truncation and the small-gradient pair wave function are the dominant uncontrolled choices. The advertised CV paper contributes no content to audit because its methods are absent.

free parameters (4)
  • Dynamical quark mass M = 345 MeV
    Taken from the instanton vacuum zero-mode form factor at zero virtuality; momentum dependence is turned off (Sec. V). External input, not fitted to the target.
  • Pauli-Villars cutoff mass MPV = 557 MeV
    Chosen to reproduce f_pi = 93 MeV (Sec. V). Regulator tied to an external constant, not to the transition PDF.
  • Mean-field profile parameter R0 (MR0 = 0.8) = MR0 = 0.8
    Arctangent profile approximating the self-consistent solution of Ref. [48]; sets the soliton size and fixes the classical mass MN = 1.207 GeV.
  • Fock truncation at 5Q = 3Q+5Q
    Series truncated at the subleading Fock component with no estimate of 7Q contributions (Sec. IV.B); this controls the entire result since the leading 3Q overlap vanishes.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Large-Nc limit and dynamical spin-flavor symmetry in the baryon sector
    Basis of the mean-field picture, invoked throughout Sec. III; standard framework (Refs. 22-25) but a physical approximation, not a theorem from QCD.
  • domain assumption Chiral quark-soliton / instanton vacuum effective theory with hedgehog mean field
    Low-energy effective dynamics (Eq. 8) with profile (Eq. 10) used to build the baryon wave function; the model defines the quark wave functions and Green functions.
  • domain assumption Covariance of the mean-field solution permits an unambiguous IMF light-cone Fock decomposition
    Central to separating 3Q, 5Q, 7Q components in Sec. III; follows Ref. [33].
  • domain assumption Fock expansion converges with 3Q+5Q truncation
    Used in Eq. (75); 7Q and higher components are neglected without a quantitative truncation error estimate.
  • ad hoc to paper Small-gradient (interpolation) approximation for the quark-antiquark pair wave function W
    Sec. III.C: W is expanded in powers of the gradient of the chiral field; the author states the error versus the exact calculation is at most 15%.
  • standard math Pauli-Villars regularization tames logarithmic divergences in G_J
    Eq. (43); a technical regulator standard in this framework, whose residual effect on the final moments is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Perception in Plan: Coupled Perception and Planning for End-to-End Autonomous Driving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VOLFHWS7

@misc{pith2026250811488,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Perception in Plan: Coupled Perception and Planning for End-to-End Autonomous Driving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VOLFHWS7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.11488}
}
read the original abstract

End-to-end autonomous driving has achieved remarkable advancements in recent years. Existing methods primarily follow a perception-planning paradigm, where perception and planning are executed sequentially within a fully differentiable framework for planning-oriented optimization. We further advance this paradigm through a perception-in-plan framework design, which integrates perception into the planning process. This design facilitates targeted perception guided by evolving planning objectives over time, ultimately enhancing planning performance. Building on this insight, we introduce VeteranAD, a coupled perception and planning framework for end-to-end autonomous driving. By incorporating multi-mode anchored trajectories as planning priors, the perception module is specifically designed to gather traffic elements along these trajectories, enabling comprehensive and targeted perception. Planning trajectories are then generated based on both the perception results and the planning priors. To make perception fully serve planning, we adopt an autoregressive strategy that progressively predicts future trajectories while focusing on relevant regions for targeted perception at each step. With this simple yet effective design, VeteranAD fully unleashes the potential of planning-oriented end-to-end methods, leading to more accurate and reliable driving behavior. Extensive experiments on the NAVSIM and Bench2Drive datasets demonstrate that our VeteranAD achieves state-of-the-art performance.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    hedgehog symmetry

    As a result, the transition GPDs exhibit only a weak dependence on the renormalization scale. This makes them a effective probe of the non-perturbative structure of both the nucleon and the ∆ baryon. Early studies of the N � ∆ transition were largely limited to photo- and electroproduction processes, i.e., N � γ(∗)∆. More recently, interest has shifted to...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Ji, Phys

    X.-D. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 55, 7114 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9609381

    arXiv 1997

  3. [3]

    Goeke, M

    K. Goeke, M. V. Polyakov, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 47, 401 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0106012

    arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    Diehl, Phys

    M. Diehl, Phys. Rept. 388, 41 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0307382

    arXiv 2003

  5. [5]

    A. V. Belitsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rept. 418, 1 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504030

    arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    Boffi and B

    S. Boffi and B. Pasquini, Riv. Nuovo Cim.30, 387 (2007), arXiv:0711.2625 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Lorc´ e, A

    C. Lorc´ e, A. Metz, B. Pasquini, and P. Schweitzer (2025) arXiv:2507.12664 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 555, 57 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0210165

    arXiv 2003

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Leader and C

    E. Leader and C. Lorc´ e, Phys. Rept. 541, 163 (2014), arXiv:1309.4235 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    M. V. Polyakov and P. Schweitzer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1830025 (2018), arXiv:1805.06596 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Lorc´ e, H

    C. Lorc´ e, H. Moutarde, and A. P. Trawi´ nski, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 89 (2019), arXiv:1810.09837 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri, F. X. Girod, C. Lorc´ e, P. Schweitzer, and P. E. Shanahan, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 041002 (2023), arXiv:2303.08347 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Lorc´ e and P

    C. Lorc´ e and P. Schweitzer, Acta Phys. Polon. B 56, 3 (2025), arXiv:2501.04622 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    J.-Y. Kim, K. M. Semenov-Tian-Shansky, H.-Y. Won, S. Son, and C. Weiss, (2024), arXiv:2501.00185 [hep- ph]

    2024

  7. [15]

    Kim and C

    J.-Y. Kim and C. Weiss, (2025), arXiv:2507.18402 [hep- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kim, H.-Y

    J.-Y. Kim, H.-Y. Won, J. L. Goity, and C. Weiss, Phys. Lett. B 844, 138083 (2023), arXiv:2304.08575 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Diehl �� ��� (CLAS), Phys

    S. Diehl �� ��� (CLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 021901 (2023), arXiv:2303.11762 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Diehl �� ���, (2024), arXiv:2405.15386 [hep-ph]

    S. Diehl �� ���, (2024), arXiv:2405.15386 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    K. M. Semenov-Tian-Shansky and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D 108, 034021 (2023), arXiv:2303.00119 [hep- ph]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kroll and K

    P. Kroll and K. Passek-Kumeriˇ cki, Phys. Rev. D 107, 054009 (2023), arXiv:2211.09474 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kroll, Phys

    P. Kroll, Phys. Rev. D 111, 094003 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 72, 461 (1974)

    1974

  15. [23]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 160, 57 (1979)

    1979

  16. [24]

    S. R. Coleman and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 100 (1980)

    1980

  17. [25]

    Gervais and B

    J.-L. Gervais and B. Sakita, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 87 (1984)

    1984

  18. [26]

    R. F. Dashen, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D 49, 4713 (1994), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 51, 2489 (1995)], arXiv:hep-ph/9310379

    1994 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Watabe, C

    T. Watabe, C. V. Christov, and K. Goeke, Phys. Lett. B 349, 197 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9502244

    1995 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Silva, D

    A. Silva, D. Urbano, T. Watabe, M. Fiolhais, and K. Goeke, Nucl. Phys. A 675, 637 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/9905326

    2000

  21. [29]

    Ledwig, A

    T. Ledwig, A. Silva, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D 79, 094025 (2009), arXiv:0811.3086 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Ledwig, H.-C

    T. Ledwig, H.-C. Kim, and K. Goeke, Phys. Rev. D 78, 054005 (2008), arXiv:0805.4063 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kim and H.-C

    J.-Y. Kim and H.-C. Kim, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1087 (2020), arXiv:2002.05980 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    L. L. Frankfurt, M. V. Polyakov, M. Strikman, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2589 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9911381

    2000 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Pascalutsa, M

    V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen, and S. N. Yang, Phys. Rept. 437, 125 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0609004

    2007 arXiv

  26. [34]

    V. Y. Petrov and M. V. Polyakov, (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0307077

    2002

  27. [35]

    Diakonov and V

    D. Diakonov and V. Petrov, Annalen Phys. 13, 637 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0409362

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Diakonov and V

    D. Diakonov and V. Petrov, Phys. Rev. D 72, 074009 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505201

    2005 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Cedric, (2007), arXiv:0705.1505 [hep-ph]

    L. Cedric, (2007), arXiv:0705.1505 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Lorce, ������ ��� ���������� ������ ���������� �� ��� ����� ���� , Ph.D

    C. Lorce, ������ ��� ���������� ������ ���������� �� ��� ����� ���� , Ph.D. thesis, Liege U. (2007), arXiv:1010.1685 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Lorce, Phys

    C. Lorce, Phys. Rev. D 79, 074027 (2009), arXiv:0708.4168 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Lorce, Phys

    C. Lorce, Phys. Rev. D 78, 034001 (2008), arXiv:0708.3139 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Lorce, Phys

    C. Lorce, Phys. Rev. D 74, 054019 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0603231

    2006

  34. [42]

    Lorce, B

    C. Lorce, B. Pasquini, and M. Vanderhaeghen, JHEP 05, 041 (2011), arXiv:1102.4704 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kim, H.-C

    J.-Y. Kim, H.-C. Kim, and M. V. Polyakov, JHEP 11, 039 (2021), arXiv:2110.05889 [hep-ph]. 20

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Kim, Phys

    J.-Y. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 108, 034024 (2023), arXiv:2305.12714 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Sch¨ afer and E

    T. Sch¨ afer and E. V. Shuryak, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 323 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9610451

    1998 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Diakonov, Prog

    D. Diakonov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 173 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212026

    2003 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Kim, Phys

    J.-Y. Kim, Phys. Lett. B 834, 137442 (2022), arXiv:2206.10202 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Kim, ���������� ������������ ���������� ��� ��������������� ������ �� � ������ �� � ������ �������, Ph.D

    J.-Y. Kim, ���������� ������������ ���������� ��� ��������������� ������ �� � ������ �� � ������ �������, Ph.D. thesis, Ruhr U., Bochum (main) (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Diakonov, V

    D. Diakonov, V. Y. Petrov, and M. Praszalowicz, Nucl. Phys. B 323, 53 (1989)

    1989

  42. [50]

    Alharazin, B

    H. Alharazin, B. D. Sun, E. Epelbaum, J. Gegelia, and U. G. Meißner, JHEP 03, 007 (2024), arXiv:2312.05193 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    ¨Ozdem and K

    U. ¨Ozdem and K. Azizi, JHEP 03, 048 (2023), arXiv:2212.07290 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Oh and H.-c

    Y.-s. Oh and H.-c. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 70, 094022 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0405010

    2004 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.