Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Engineering Confining Dilatons: A WKB Inverse Problem in Holographic QCD

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The nonlinearity of a hadron mass spectrum determines the confining dilaton in holographic QCD.

desk verdict The central WKB inversion is internally inconsistent as printed, but the program is repairable and worth a referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04956 v1 pith:C7RA5W2M submitted 2025-09-05 hep-ph

Miguel Angel Martin Contreras , Alfredo Vega This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords holographicQCDdilatonReggetrajectoriesWKBapproximationRydberg-Klein-Reesinversionheavyquarkoniatetraquarksconfinement
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 claims that the confining part of a bottom-up holographic QCD model can be reconstructed from hadron masses instead of being postulated. Starting from a measured radial spectrum $M_n^2 = a(n+b)^\nu$, it applies the Rydberg-Klein-Rees (RKR) semiclassical inversion formula to derive the large-coordinate confining potential $V_*(z) = C(\nu,a)\, z^{2\nu/(2-\nu)}$, and then recovers a non-quadratic dilaton $\Phi(z) = (\kappa z)^{2-\alpha}$ whose parameters $\kappa$ and $\alpha$ are fixed by the spectral slope $a$ and exponent $\nu$. If the claim is right, measuring one hadron family's Regge trajectory is enough to determine the confining dynamics of its holographic dual and to predict the rest of the spectrum, including orbital excitations. The paper reports good agreement for charmonium and bottomonium, with RMS errors of about 12.2 percent over 17 states and 7.7 percent over 19 states, and extends the same machinery to tetraquarks by adding a diquark-potential term.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Rydberg-Klein-Rees (RKR) inversion formula, $z(V_*) = 2\int_0^{V_*} (dM_n^2/dn)^{-1}\, (V_*-M_n^2)^{1/2}\, dM_n^2$, which reconstructs the potential at its turning point from the spectrum and its derivative. Evaluated on the power-law ansatz, it yields the explicit confining potential $V_*(z)=C(\nu,a)\, z^{2\nu/(2-\nu)}$. The second mechanism is the large-$z$ matching condition $V_*(z)\simeq \Phi'(z)^2/4$, which converts the spectral exponent $\nu$ and slope $a$ into the dilaton parameters $\kappa$ and $\alpha$ through Eqs. (30) and (31).

What would settle it

Compute the charmonium and bottomonium spectra from the extracted dilatons while keeping the $\Phi''$ and $\beta$-dependent terms that the matching condition drops; if the lowest eigenvalues shift by more than the reported few-percent errors, the central inversion assumption is violated. Alternatively, repeat the extraction on the $\eta_c$ pseudoscalar trajectory and check whether it yields the same $\kappa$ and $\alpha$ as the vector fit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the inverse spectroscopic problem has a definite large-distance answer: a power-law radial trajectory $M_n^2 = a(n+b)^\nu$ with $0<\nu<2$ is produced by a holographic confining potential $V_*(z)=C(\nu,a)\, z^{2\nu/(2-\nu)}$, with the coefficient fixed by the RKR integral. The corresponding dilaton is not quadratic unless $\nu=1$; it takes the form $\Phi(z)=(\kappa z)^{2-\alpha}$ with $\alpha = 2(1-\nu)/(2-\nu)$ and $\kappa$ given explicitly in terms of $a$ and $\nu$. The paper therefore presents the non-quadratic dilaton previously used for heavy quarkonia as a consequence of the spectrum's nonlinearity rather than as an input. It validates this by fitting the $c\bar c$ and $b\bar b$ vector trajectories with two parameters and computing the full radial and orbital spectra from the resulting $\Phi(z)$, finding the largest deviations in the low-lying pseudoscalar and $P$/$D$ states, which it attributes to short-distance effects not captured by the confining large-$z$ part. For tetraquarks, it superimposes an additional potential $\tilde V(z)\propto z$ obtained from the Bethe-Salpeter equation for diquarks and reports an RMS error of about 6.3 percent across 17 candidate states.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the measured radial spectrum is governed by the long-distance confining part of the potential, so the short-distance terms can be neglected when matching the dilaton; if those terms shift the low-lying states, the extracted $\kappa$ and $\alpha$ describe an effective potential rather than the true confining one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any hadron family whose radial masses follow $M_n^2=a(n+b)^\nu$, the dilaton is fixed before any holographic calculation: $\alpha$ comes from the concavity $\nu$ and $\kappa$ from the slope $a$, leaving no free confining parameter in the model.
  • The quadratic softwall dilaton and the linear Regge trajectories it produces are recovered as the special case $\nu=1$, so the framework contains the standard light-meson result as a limit.
  • The same two-parameter dilaton predicts orbital and pseudoscalar partners of the fitted vector states; the paper's own tables show those predictions degrade for low-lying $P$ and $D$ states, tying the accuracy of the inversion to the dominance of the confining term.
  • For tetraquarks, the added potential $\tilde V(z)\propto z$ is not a new fit but the WKB image of a diquark Regge slope $n^{2/3}$, with the string tension fixed from the charmonium mass shift, so exotic-state spectroscopy becomes a prediction of the same inverse recipe.
  • Because the inversion uses only the functional form of the trajectory, the same RKR step can be reapplied to each newly measured radial state to test whether its mass lies on the trajectory implied by the extracted $\kappa$ and $\alpha$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension not performed in the paper: extract $\kappa$ and $\alpha$ independently from the $\eta_c$ pseudoscalar trajectory and compare with the vector extraction; agreement would confirm that the confining large-$z$ part is spin-independent, while disagreement would quantify the short-distance contamination of the inversion.
  • If the inversion is unique, the same formula should transfer across hadron families: a future precise measurement of the fifth or sixth radial excitation of charmonium should reproduce the already extracted $\kappa$ without refitting, providing a sharp out-of-sample test.
  • The dropped terms in the matching condition, namely the $\beta$-dependent and $\Phi''$ contributions at large $z$, could be evaluated numerically on the extracted dilatons; their contribution to the lowest eigenvalues would directly measure how much of the reported RMS error is approximation error rather than experimental scatter.
  • The tetraquark construction assumes compact diquark-antidiquark clusters; a molecular hypothesis would replace $\tilde V(z)$ with a short-range interaction, which would predict a different scaling of excited exotic-state masses and could be checked against the growing catalog of candidates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a WKB/RKR inverse problem for bottom-up holographic QCD: starting from a power-law radial Regge trajectory M_n^2 = a(n+b)^ν, it claims to derive the large-z confining potential V_*(z) = C(ν,a) z^{2ν/(2−ν)} and hence a non-quadratic dilaton Φ(z) = (κz)^{2−α} with κ and α uniquely fixed by a and ν. The method is then applied to charmonium and bottomonium vector spectra, where the fitted (κ,α) are used to compute radial and orbital excitations, and is extended to tetraquark states by adding a linear potential term derived from a Bethe-Salpeter diquark trajectory. The central claim is that measuring a nonlinear Regge trajectory is sufficient to engineer the confining dilaton of the holographic model.

Significance. If the derivation were correct and the validation sound, the idea would be a useful model-building tool: it would turn empirical Regge trajectories into direct constraints on the holographic dilaton profile, extending the softwall model to nonlinear spectra in a systematic way. The paper also makes a concrete, testable prediction for the exponent relation α = 2(1−ν)/(2−ν), and it applies the formalism to a broader set of states (orbital excitations and tetraquark candidates) than is common in bottom-up holography. Credit is due for being explicit about the fitting parameters and for reporting RMS errors per channel. However, as printed the central RKR inversion contains algebraic inconsistencies that invalidate the derivation as written, and the radial-spectrum agreement is largely a refit of the input trajectory. The genuine predictions, namely the orbital and pseudoscalar states, show large errors (10–20%), so the paper's current evidence does not support the strength of the conclusions.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (16)–(20)] The RKR inversion is internally inconsistent as printed. Equation (17) contains (V_*−M_n^2)^{1/2} in the numerator, whereas the Abel/RKR inversion requires (V_*−M_n^2)^{-1/2} after changing variables from n to M^2. Consequently, the printed Eq. (18) — with exponent (2−ν)/ν and the reciprocal ratio of Gamma functions — does not follow from Eq. (17), and Eq. (18) cannot be inverted to produce Eq. (19). Evaluating the correctly posed integral gives z(V_*) ∝ V_*^{(2−ν)/(2ν)} with Γ(1/ν)/Γ((ν+2)/(2ν)); with that replacement Eq. (19) does follow. As printed, the derivation of C(ν,a), κ, and α is unsupported. Because these equations are the basis for the abstract's central claim, this is a load-bearing error.
  2. [Sec. III, Eqs. (26)–(29)] The softwall limit is not recovered consistently. Setting ν=1 in Eq. (19) gives C(1,a)=a^2/16, and Eq. (27) gives κ=√a/2. Equation (29) instead states κ=(a/2)^{1/2}, and the following sentence claims the spectrum M_n^2=4a(n+b), whereas the softwall spectrum for Φ=κ^2z^2 is M_n^2=4κ^2(n+b). The factor-of-two discrepancy must be resolved; as written, the claimed ν=1 limit is internally contradictory.
  3. [Sec. III.A, Tables I–III] The agreement claimed as a test is partly circular. The radial S-wave states in Table I are used to fit a, b, and ν, which then determine (κ,α) through Eqs. (30) and (31); the small errors of the S-wave rows in Tables II and III therefore reflect a refit of the input data, not an independent prediction. The genuine predictions are the orbital and pseudoscalar states, and there the errors are large: Table II shows 1^3D_2 at 15.98%, 1^3P_2 at 21.04%, and η_c(1S) at 21.8%; Table III shows P-wave states at 8–10% and η_b(1S) at 14.7%. The conclusions should separate the refit from the prediction and temper the statement that the model is 'validated.'
  4. [Sec. III, Eqs. (24)–(25) and Tables II–III] The dilaton is extracted from the large-z asymptotic relation V_*(z) ≃ Φ'(z)^2/4, but the same Φ is then used in the full potential (24), which includes the small-z 1/z^2 term and the β-dependent terms. Because the authors attribute the large errors in the low-lying orbital states to the small-z/NRQCD region, the extracted (κ,α) are not demonstrably the parameters of the true potential controlling those states. A sensitivity study, for example varying the matching scale z_∞ or the treatment of the low-z terms, is needed before the inverse-problem claim can be considered robust.
  5. [Sec. IV, Eq. (43) and Table IV] The tetraquark extension is presented as a postdiction exercise rather than a predictive test. The value g_eff=1/(2π) is stated to be fixed numerically by minimizing the RMS error, which makes it a free parameter despite the claim that the parameters 'are not free in the usual sense.' In addition, the per-state integers i,j and the spin assignments are chosen after the fact — for example, T_cc(3875)^+ is assigned both 1^+ and 0^+ configurations with different resulting masses. The authors should state explicitly which entries in Table IV are predictions made before comparison with data and which are fits.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. III, text before Eq. (16)] 'Rydberg-Klein-Ross' should be 'Rydberg-Klein-Rees.'
  2. [Sec. III, after Eq. (15)] 'divination from linearity' should be 'deviation from linearity.'
  3. [Sec. III.A, after Eq. (38)] 'yiedls' should be 'yields.'
  4. [Table III] The Υ(5S) mass entry '108852.6 1.6' appears to be missing a decimal point and proper error formatting.
  5. [Eq. (16)] The notation dM^2/dn and dM_n^2 in Eq. (16) is ambiguous; please use a consistent integration variable and make the denominator, including the square-root factor, explicit.
  6. [Appendix B] The word 'apendix' is a typo, and the calibration curves (B3)–(B4) are fits to the isoscalar spectra; they should be flagged as empirical inputs rather than predictions of the WKB inversion.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The dilaton is obtained by matching the assumed (κz)^{2−α} ansatz to the WKB potential built from the fitted spectrum; the same fitted radial states are then counted as validation, so the central 'prediction' is partly forced.

  1. self definitional [Section III, Eqs. (19)-(20) and (25)-(27), with (30)-(31)]
    "As a hypothesis, let us define the static dilaton profile as Φ(z)=(κz)^γ... V∗(z)≈ 1/4Φ′(z)^2 ⇒ 1/4γ^2κ^{2γ}z^{2(γ−1)}=C(ν,a)z^{2ν/(2−ν)}. By requiring that both parts match, we will obtain... γ=2/(2−ν), κ=[(2−ν)^2 C(ν,a)]^{(2−ν)/4}."

    C(ν,a) is defined in Eq. (20) by RKR inversion of the input trajectory M_n^2=a(n+b)^ν. The 'derived' dilaton exponent and scale are therefore algebraic solutions of the identity V* = (1/4)Φ'^2, i.e. κ and α=(2−γ) are re-parametrizations of the fitted (a,ν). The power-law dilaton is assumed, not derived; the form Φ=(κz)^{2−α} is the same ansatz already introduced in the authors' ref. [6]. Recomputing the input spectrum from this potential is a consistency check, not an independent prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section III A, Tables I-III and Eq. (38)]
    "With these data, we will compute, using the WKB formulas for κ and α, e.g., expressions (30) and (31), the dilaton fields for charmonium and bottomonium... We can compute the holographic spectra with static dilatons (33) and (34) for the radial and angular states observed in c¯c, and b¯b. ... RMS error (17 states, 2 parameters)=12.18%."

    The parameters a, b, ν in Table I are fitted to the radial 1^3S_1 through 6^3S_1 vector states of charmonium and bottomonium. Those same radial masses are then included in the 17- and 19-state RMS errors quoted as validation. Thus the good agreement on the radial trajectory is forced by construction: the asymptotic potential was engineered from those very states. The only out-of-sample content is the orbital (P,D) and pseudoscalar states, and those show the largest errors (e.g., 21.8% for η_c(1S) and 21.0% for 1^3P_2).

1 more flagged steps
  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section II, Section III after Eq. (20), and Appendix B, Eqs. (B3)-(B5)]
    "A bottom-up approach to heavy quarkonia with nonlinear Regge trajectories was introduced in [6], where a dilaton Φ(z)=(κz)^{2−α} was defined. ... Such relations are found to be written as [55]: κ(¯m)=30.613−30.129e^{−0.0241¯m^2}, α(¯m)=0.8965−0.9315e^{−0.4233¯m^2}, R^2=0.999 for both fits."

    The functional form Φ=(κz)^{2−α} is not an output of the WKB derivation; it is carried in from the authors' earlier work [6] as an ansatz. For the tetraquark extension, (κ,α) are not predicted but read off calibration curves (B3)-(B4) fitted in the same authors' previous paper [55]. The WKB language therefore restates and reuses the prior ansatz/calibration, while the claim that the non-quadratic dilaton 'emerges naturally' from the spectrum is not a derivation of the form itself.

full rationale

The RKR/WKB inversion (Eqs. (16)-(20)) is a legitimate mathematical procedure and, by itself, no more circular than any inverse-problem step: a spectrum determines a potential through a known integral transform. The circularity enters when the extracted potential is immediately re-expanded in the power-law dilaton ansatz Φ=(κz)^{2−α} from the authors' ref. [6]: equating V* to ¼Φ'^2 makes (κ,α) algebraic functions of the fitted (a,ν), so any later agreement with the same radial states that fixed (a,ν) is partially forced. The paper does include independent content: the full Schrödinger solve with the low-z bulk term, and the P/D and pseudoscalar states not used in the trajectory fits; those states, however, carry the largest errors and are the ones that would justify the 'good agreement' claim. The tetraquark section additionally leans on calibration curves (B3)-(B4) from the authors' earlier work, so those exotic-state numbers are inputs, not independent derivations. A separate correctness concern, not counted as circularity, is that Eq. (18) as printed appears algebraically inconsistent with Eq. (17) (exponent and Gamma-ratio placement); if so, the chain (19)-(31) would need repair. Overall, this is partial circularity in the central validation, not a fully forced self-citation theorem, hence score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central result rests on fitted spectral parameters (a,b,ν) for two quarkonium systems, a quoted constant g_eff that is also tuned, a string tension extracted from one mass splitting, calibration curves from the authors' prior papers, and per-state integer choices in the tetraquark section. No machine-checked proof, shipped code, or independently reproduced artifact supports the derivation.

free parameters (10)
  • Regge slope a (charmonium) = 7.88 ± 2.62 GeV²
    Fit to four S-wave charmonium masses in Table I; used in Eqs. (30)-(31) to fix κ_c and α_c.
  • Intercept b (charmonium) = 0.39 ± 0.67
    Fit to charmonium radial masses; enters the trajectory parameterization underlying the inversion.
  • Nonlinearity exponent ν (charmonium) = 0.61 ± 0.17
    Fitted exponent of the charmonium trajectory; directly fixes α_c = 2(1−ν)/(2−ν).
  • Regge slope a (bottomonium) = 84.98 ± 5.34 GeV²
    Fit to six S-wave bottomonium masses in Table I; fixes κ_b and α_b.
  • Intercept b (bottomonium) = 0.32 ± 0.41
    Fit to bottomonium radial masses; part of the input trajectory.
  • Nonlinearity exponent ν (bottomonium) = 0.193 ± 0.029
    Fitted exponent of the bottomonium trajectory; fixes α_b.
  • g_eff = 1/(2π)
    Described as a WKB-derived constant but also said to be fixed numerically by minimizing the RMS error for tetraquark states.
  • String tension σ_c = 0.243 GeV²
    Extracted from the charmonium ground-to-first-excited mass shift using a Cornell-potential Airy formula in Appendix A.
  • Calibration curve parameters for κ(mbar) and α(mbar) = 30.613, 30.129, 0.0241, 0.8965, 0.9315, 0.4233
    Coefficients from the authors' earlier fits in refs [6,55], used in Appendix B to assign κ and α for tetraquarks.
  • Per-state indices i,j and spin assignments = chosen per state in Table IV (e.g., Tcc as 1+ or 0+; i=0 or 1)
    Hand-adjusted to match each tetraquark candidate mass; these choices are not derived from first principles.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT dictionary and bottom-up holographic QCD: hadrons are dual to rank-r tensor bulk fields, with a dilaton Φ(z) inducing confinement.
    Section II, the entire modeling framework depends on this holographic dictionary.
  • domain assumption Weak-gravity limit with affine connections set to zero and Coulomb-like gauge fixing.
    Section II, around Eqs. (5)-(8), where the Sturm-Liouville form is derived.
  • domain assumption Hadronic spin is identified with tensor rank, r=J, and S-wave dominance is assumed.
    Section II: 'We identify the hadronic spin in this step with r=J' and the text states most bottom-up calculations assume S-wave.
  • domain assumption Hadron masses are assumed to lie on a single power-law trajectory M²=a(n+b)^ν.
    Eq. (15) is the input for the whole WKB inversion.
  • domain assumption The WKB/RKR inversion formula is valid for the Schrödinger-like holographic equation (11), including the formula as written in Eq. (16).
    Section III; this premise is questionable because the printed integration formula appears dimensionally inconsistent.
  • domain assumption At large z, the Φ'(z)^2 term dominates the dilaton contribution to the potential, so the β/z and 1/z² terms can be neglected when matching.
    Eq. (25) and surrounding text; the large P/D wave errors suggest low-z terms are not negligible.
  • domain assumption Tetraquarks are compact diquark-antidiquark objects in the color antitriplet channel, described by a quadratic spinless Bethe-Salpeter equation.
    Section IV and Appendix C; the entire tetraquark extension rests on this structural assumption.
invented entities (1)
  • Extra dilaton component \tildeΦ(z)
    purpose: Encodes the residual strong force that binds diquark clusters in tetraquarks, adding a linear potential \tilde V(z)∼z to the mesonic confining potential.
    No independent observable constrains \tildeΦ; it is introduced to fit tetraquark masses and its coupling g_eff is tuned by hand.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Engineering Confining Dilatons: A WKB Inverse Problem in Holographic QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C7RA5W2M

@misc{pith2026250904956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Engineering Confining Dilatons: A WKB Inverse Problem in Holographic QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C7RA5W2M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04956}
}
abstract

This work presents a WKB-based inverse problem approach within the framework of holographic bottom-up QCD to engineer confining dilatons from hadronic mass spectra. Starting from a general parameterization of nonlinear radial Regge trajectories, $M_n^2=a(n+b)^\nu$, we apply the Rydberg-Klein-Rees (RKR) formula to derive the large-z behavior of the corresponding holographic confining potential. This potential is inversely related to the dilaton field profile, leading naturally to a non-quadratic dilaton $\Phi(z)=(\kappa\,z)^{2-\alpha}$, where the parameters ($\kappa$, $\alpha$) are uniquely determined by the spectral parameters ($a$,$\nu$). We successfully test this method by fitting the spectra of heavy quarkonia ($c\bar{c}$ and $b\bar{b}$), achieving good agreement with experimental data. Furthermore, we extend this formalism to describe the spectroscopy of tetraquark states by superimposing an additional potential term, derived from the Bethe-Salpeter equation for diquarks, onto the standard mesonic confining potential. This work establishes a powerful and flexible bottom-up framework for deriving confinement directly from spectral data, applicable to both conventional and exotic hadrons.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Non linear Regge trajectories of quarkonia from holography

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A bottom-up AdS/QCD model with a new dilaton background produces the n^(2/3) Regge trajectories of quarkonia, matching experimental masses and decay constants.

  2. Heavy Quarkonium Spectrum and Decay Constants from a Neural-Network-Based Holographic Model

    hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A neural-network-parametrized dilaton field reproduces the masses and leptonic decay constants of charmonium and bottomonium with 1.26% and 3.32% RMS errors, but only because those values were used as training data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Therefore, it is expected to haveJ PC = 0 ++, implying this state can be modeled as a ground state

    Let us consider that both the diquark and the an- tidiquark are in a spin-1 configuration. Therefore, it is expected to haveJ PC = 0 ++, implying this state can be modeled as a ground state. 9 Summary of Charmonium T etraquarks σc = 0.24 GeV2 geff = 1 2π State JP orJ PC [q1q2][¯q3 ¯q4] MExp (MeV) MTh (MeV) ∆M(%) (i,j) T∗ cs0(2870)0 0+ [cd][¯s¯u] 2866±7 27...

    work page

  2. [2]

    In both cases, spin effects can be mimicked with the twist-likeiandjnumbers

    Another configuration is a spin-0 diquark with an spin-1 antidiquark, allowingJ PC = 1−+ withL= 1 as possible quantum numbers. In both cases, spin effects can be mimicked with the twist-likeiandjnumbers. Results for these fittings are summarized in Table IV. We found that, as a holo- graphic prediction,T c¯c(4050)+, can be associated with a state havingJ ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Polchinski and M

    J. Polchinski and M. J. Strassler, JHEP05, 012, arXiv:hep-th/0209211

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Karch, E

    A. Karch, E. Katz, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D74, 015005 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602229

    arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    when including the quark mass in the radial trajec- tory: M2 n−m 1−m 2 2 =a(n+b).(B2) Following the Bethe-Saltpeter approximation, varia- tions in linearity are expected to be induced by the con- stituent mass. Within the context of heavy quarkonium studies, we can deriveM 2 n∝n 2/3, indicating that inter- mediate constituent masses might correspond to va...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Aharony, S

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

    arXiv 2000

  7. [7]

    Boschi-Filho and N

    H. Boschi-Filho and N. R. F. Braga, Eur. Phys. J. C32, 529 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0209080

    arXiv 2004

  8. [8]

    M. A. Martin Contreras, M. Fujita, and A. Vega, To ap- pear (2025), arXiv:2501.01755 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Chen, Phys

    J.-K. Chen, Phys. Lett. B786, 477 (2018), arXiv:1807.11003 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    M. A. Martin Contreras and A. Vega, Phys. Rev. D102, 046007 (2020), arXiv:2004.10286 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J.-K. Chen, X. Feng, and J.-Q. Xie, JHEP10, 052, arXiv:2308.02289 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gutsche, V

    T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij, I. Schmidt, and A. Vega, Phys. Rev. D85, 076003 (2012), arXiv:1108.0346 [hep- ph]

    2012 arXiv

  5. [13]

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

    1998 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Witten, Adv

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

    1998 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Erdmenger, N

    J. Erdmenger, N. Evans, I. Kirsch, and E. Threlfall, Eur. Phys. J. A35, 81 (2008), arXiv:0711.4467 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Z. Fang, S. He, and D. Li, Nucl. Phys. B907, 187 (2016), arXiv:1512.04062 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Erlich, E

    J. Erlich, E. Katz, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 261602 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0501128. 13

    2005 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Batell and T

    B. Batell and T. Gherghetta, Phys. Rev. D78, 026002 (2008), arXiv:0801.4383 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Li and M

    D. Li and M. Huang, JHEP11, 088, arXiv:1303.6929 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kruczenski, D

    M. Kruczenski, D. Mateos, R. C. Myers, and D. J. Win- ters, JHEP07, 049, arXiv:hep-th/0304032

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Chen and M

    X. Chen and M. Huang, JHEP02, 123, arXiv:2405.06179 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Folco Capossoli, M

    E. Folco Capossoli, M. A. Mart´ ın Contreras, D. Li, A. Vega, and H. Boschi-Filho, Chin. Phys. C44, 064104 (2020), arXiv:1903.06269 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Quigg and J

    C. Quigg and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rept.56, 167 (1979)

    1979

  16. [24]

    Klein, Z

    O. Klein, Z. Phys76, 226 (1932)

    1932

  17. [25]

    A. L. G. Rees, Proc. Phys. Soc (London)59, 998 (1947)

    1947

  18. [26]

    Rydberg, Z

    R. Rydberg, Z. Phys73, 376 (1931)

    1931

  19. [27]

    Rydberg, Z

    R. Rydberg, Z. Phys80, 514 (1933)

    1933

  20. [28]

    Chen, Eur

    J.-K. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 648 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    R. J. Le Roy, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer186, 158 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    S. S. Afonin, Adv. High Energy Phys.2017, 8358473 (2017), arXiv:1708.08733 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Chen, Eur

    J.-K. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 235 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Cleven, F.-K

    M. Cleven, F.-K. Guo, C. Hanhart, Q. Wang, and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D92, 014005 (2015), arXiv:1505.01771 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Lucha, F

    W. Lucha, F. F. Schoberl, and D. Gromes, Phys. Rept. 200, 127 (1991)

    1991

  26. [34]

    C. M. A. and R. Dhir, J. Phys. G51, 115004 (2024), arXiv:2311.05274 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

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

    2024

  28. [36]

    Forkel, Phys

    H. Forkel, Phys. Lett. B694, 252 (2011), arXiv:1007.4341 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  29. [37]

    H¨ usken, E

    N. H¨ usken, E. S. Norella, and I. Polyakov, CERN Docu- ment Server (2024), arXiv:2410.06923 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    N. R. F. Braga, M. A. Martin Contreras, and S. Diles, Phys. Lett. B763, 203 (2016), arXiv:1507.04708 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    N. R. F. Braga, L. F. Ferreira, and A. Vega, Phys. Lett. B774, 476 (2017), arXiv:1709.05326 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Toniato, D

    B. Toniato, D. Dudal, S. Mahapatra, R. da Rocha, and S. S. Jena, ArXiv (2025), arXiv:2502.12694 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Y. Liu, M. A. Nowak, and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D105, 054021 (2022), arXiv:1909.02497 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    H. G. Dosch, S. J. Brodsky, G. F. de T´ eramond, M. Nielsen, and L. Zou, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc.312- 317, 135 (2021), arXiv:2012.02496 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    M. A. Martin Contreras and A. Vega, Phys. Rev. D108, 126024 (2023), arXiv:2309.02905 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    S. S. Afonin, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 723 (2020), arXiv:2008.05610 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Karapetyan and R

    G. Karapetyan and R. da Rocha, Eur. Phys. J. Plus136, 993 (2021), arXiv:2103.10863 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Recall that tetraquark states can be considered as a pair of diquark-antidiquark

    to explore the Regge trajectories associated with di- quark structures. Recall that tetraquark states can be considered as a pair of diquark-antidiquark. Fully heavy diquarks, i.e. [Q 1,Q 2] or [ ¯Q1, ¯Q2], can be described as two color representations underSU(3) c: theattract...

  39. [47]

    J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, M. J. Peardon, D. G. Richards, and C. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D82, 034508 (2010), arXiv:1004.4930 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  40. [48]

    G. K. C. Cheung, C. E. Thomas, J. J. Dudek, and R. G. Edwards (Hadron Spectrum), JHEP11, 033, arXiv:1709.01417 [hep-lat]

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Feng, J.-K

    X. Feng, J.-K. Chen, and J.-Q. Xie, Phys. Rev. D108, 034022 (2023), arXiv:2305.15705 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Baldicchi, A

    M. Baldicchi, A. V. Nesterenko, G. M. Prosperi, D. V. Shirkov, and C. Simolo, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 242001 (2007), arXiv:0705.0329 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Sazdjian, Symmetry14, 515 (2022), arXiv:2202.01081 [hep-ph]

    H. Sazdjian, Symmetry14, 515 (2022), arXiv:2202.01081 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    M. D. Scadron, R. Delbourgo, and G. Rupp, J. Phys. G 32, 735 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0603196

    2006 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Brambilla, S

    N. Brambilla, S. Eidelman, C. Hanhart, A. Nefediev, C.- P. Shen, C. E. Thomas, A. Vairo, and C.-Z. Yuan, Phys. Rept.873, 1 (2020), arXiv:1907.07583 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Monemzadeh, N

    M. Monemzadeh, N. Tazimi, and P. Sadeghi, Phys. Lett. B741, 124 (2015), arXiv:1507.07916 [physics.comp-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Tiwari and A

    R. Tiwari and A. K. Rai, Few Body Syst.64, 20 (2023), arXiv:2206.04478 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Wang, X.-D

    F.-L. Wang, X.-D. Yang, R. Chen, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D104, 094010 (2021), arXiv:2103.04698 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Chen, J.-T

    S. Chen, J.-T. Zhu, S.-Y. Kong, and J. He, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 492 (2025), arXiv:2501.09914 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    M. A. Martin Contreras, S. Diles, and A. Vega, Phys. Rev. D103, 086008 (2021), arXiv:2101.06212 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    M. A. Martin Contreras and A. Vega, EPJ Web Conf. 314, 00018 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.