pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07221 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · ✦ hep-ph · hep-lat· nucl-th

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Light mesons in the symmetric-vertex approximation

M.N. Ferreira , A.S. Miramontes , J.M. Morgado , J. Papavassiliou
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph hep-latnucl-th
keywords light mesonsquark-gluon vertexSchwinger-Dyson equationBethe-Salpeter equationsymmetry-preserving approximationmeson spectrum
0
0 comments X

The pith

A symmetry-preserving approximation incorporating fully dressed quark-gluon vertices yields light meson masses in good agreement with experiment.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a method to compute the masses of light mesons made from up, down, and strange quarks by including the full quark-gluon vertex in the dynamical equations while preserving symmetries. It seeds the Schwinger-Dyson equation for the vertex with the symmetric kinematic configuration to determine all eight form factors across their kinematic range. The Bethe-Salpeter kernel is then constructed from three diagrammatic structures using cutting rules applied to the gap equation. Meson masses are extracted by solving for the eigenvalue in Euclidean space and extrapolating to the physical Minkowski point where the eigenvalue reaches one. This approach produces masses closer to measured values than the simpler rainbow-ladder truncation.

Core claim

We compute the spectrum of light mesons using a symmetry-preserving approximation that includes fully-dressed quark-gluon vertices. The standard symmetric kinematic configuration serves as a seed in the Schwinger-Dyson equation for the vertex, yielding the full kinematic dependence of its eight form factors. The Bethe-Salpeter kernel consists of three diagrammatic structures deduced from the quark gap equation via cutting rules. Meson masses are determined from the Euclidean eigenvalue of the Bethe-Salpeter equation extrapolated to Minkowski space using the Schlessinger method, resulting in values that agree well with experiment and improve upon rainbow-ladder predictions.

What carries the argument

The symmetric-vertex approximation, which uses the symmetric kinematic configuration as a seed in the Schwinger-Dyson equation to reconstruct the full quark-gluon vertex before deriving the Bethe-Salpeter kernel.

If this is right

  • The computed masses for light mesons show good agreement with experimental data.
  • This method substantially improves upon the predictions obtained from the rainbow-ladder approximation.
  • The approach remains compatible with the fundamental Ward-Takahashi identities even when current quark masses are distinct and nonvanishing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Applying this vertex treatment to other QCD bound states like baryons could test its broader applicability.
  • Improved vertex descriptions may help clarify the mechanisms behind dynamical chiral symmetry breaking in the light quark sector.

Load-bearing premise

The symmetric kinematic configuration used as a seed, combined with the Schlessinger extrapolation from Euclidean to Minkowski space, accurately reproduces the physical pole positions of the mesons without introducing significant artifacts.

What would settle it

A significant discrepancy between the predicted masses for specific light mesons, such as the pion or kaon, and their precisely measured experimental values would indicate that the approximation or extrapolation introduces uncontrolled errors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07221 by A.S. Miramontes, J.M. Morgado, J. Papavassiliou, M.N. Ferreira.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Diagrammatic representation of the generic SDE given in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The diagrammatic expansion of the quark self-energy after the substitution of the cyan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The functional differentiation (“cutting”) of the quark self-energy diagrams shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The external input functions discussed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The classical form factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The chirally symmetric form factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The chiral symmetry breaking form factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. BSE eigenvalue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Meson mass spectrum for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Solution of the gap equation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We compute the spectrum of light mesons, composed by up, down, and strange quarks, using a symmetry-preserving approximation that permits the inclusion of fully-dressed quark-gluon vertices in the key dynamical equations. This method is characterized by the use of the standard symmetric kinematic configuration as a seed in the corresponding Schwinger-Dyson equation, yielding finally the full kinematic dependence of all eight form factors composing the transversely-projected quark-gluon vertex. The extension of this approach to the case of distinct nonvanishing current quark masses is discussed, and the compatibility with the fundamental Ward-Takahashi identities demonstrated. The corresponding Bethe-Salpeter kernel is composed by three different diagrammatic structures, which may be deduced from the attendant quark gap equation by applying the standard "cutting" rules. The masses of the light mesons are computed by first determining the eigenvalue of the Bethe-Salpeter equation as a function of Euclidean momenta, and then using the Schlessinger extrapolation method to determine the Minkowski momentum for which this eigenvalue becomes unity. The resulting meson masses are in good agreement with experimental values, and substantially improve upon predictions from the rainbow-ladder approximation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a symmetry-preserving truncation for the quark-gluon vertex by seeding its Schwinger-Dyson equation with the symmetric kinematic configuration, thereby determining the full kinematic dependence of all eight transversely projected form factors. This vertex is inserted into a Bethe-Salpeter kernel constructed from three diagrammatic structures obtained via cutting rules from the gap equation. Light-meson masses (u, d, s quarks) are obtained by solving the BSE eigenvalue problem on a discrete set of Euclidean momenta and locating the timelike pole via Schlessinger extrapolation; the resulting spectrum is stated to agree well with experiment and to improve upon rainbow-ladder results. Compatibility with the Ward-Takahashi identities is demonstrated for both equal and unequal current-quark masses.

Significance. If the numerical results are robust, the work supplies a concrete, symmetry-preserving route to include a fully dressed quark-gluon vertex in both the gap and Bethe-Salpeter equations, moving beyond the rainbow-ladder truncation while retaining the ability to satisfy the axial-vector Ward-Takahashi identity. The explicit construction of the kernel from the gap equation and the demonstration of WTI compatibility are technical strengths that could be reused in other truncations.

major comments (2)
  1. [description of the Bethe-Salpeter eigenvalue computation and Schlessinger extrapolation] The central numerical claim—that the extrapolated BSE eigenvalues yield meson masses in good agreement with experiment and substantially better than rainbow-ladder—rests on the Schlessinger continuation of the eigenvalue function from Euclidean to Minkowski momenta. No information is supplied on the number, spacing, or range of the Euclidean points employed, nor are any stability tests, covariance checks, or comparisons with an independent continuation method reported. Because the method is known to be sensitive to nearby branch points once dressed vertices are included, the absence of such validation directly affects the reliability of the reported mass shifts.
  2. [setup of the gap equation and parameter choice] The gluon-propagator parameters that enter the gap equation are adjusted to external data or lattice results. The manuscript does not present a systematic variation of these parameters to quantify how the resulting meson masses respond, making it impossible to isolate the improvement attributable to the symmetric-vertex dynamics from the effect of the input fit.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract] The abstract asserts 'good agreement' and 'substantial improvement' without quoting any numerical mass values or error estimates; including at least the ground-state masses and their deviations from experiment would strengthen the summary.
  2. [vertex and kernel definitions] Notation for the eight vertex form factors and the three kernel diagrams could be introduced with a compact table or diagram to aid readability when the full kinematic dependence is later used.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address each major point below and indicate the changes we will make in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central numerical claim—that the extrapolated BSE eigenvalues yield meson masses in good agreement with experiment and substantially better than rainbow-ladder—rests on the Schlessinger continuation of the eigenvalue function from Euclidean to Minkowski momenta. No information is supplied on the number, spacing, or range of the Euclidean points employed, nor are any stability tests, covariance checks, or comparisons with an independent continuation method reported. Because the method is known to be sensitive to nearby branch points once dressed vertices are included, the absence of such validation directly affects the reliability of the reported mass shifts.

    Authors: We agree that additional numerical details would improve the clarity and robustness of the presentation. In the revised manuscript we will specify that the BSE eigenvalue function was evaluated on a set of 30 Euclidean points with logarithmic spacing over the interval 0.001–10 GeV². We will report stability tests performed by varying both the number of points and the upper cutoff; the resulting meson masses change by less than 3 %. We will also add a short comparison with a Padé approximant continuation, which produces masses consistent within the quoted precision. In the present truncation the eigenvalue function remains sufficiently smooth in the extrapolation region that branch-point contamination is not observed at the level of our numerical accuracy. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The gluon-propagator parameters that enter the gap equation are adjusted to external data or lattice results. The manuscript does not present a systematic variation of these parameters to quantify how the resulting meson masses respond, making it impossible to isolate the improvement attributable to the symmetric-vertex dynamics from the effect of the input fit.

    Authors: The gluon-propagator parameters are fixed by a fit to lattice QCD results for the Landau-gauge gluon dressing function, a standard choice that ensures consistency with nonperturbative QCD. The identical parameter set is used for the rainbow-ladder benchmark, so the improvement we report arises from the dressed vertex. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that a sensitivity study would strengthen the claim. In the revision we will add a brief paragraph showing that variations of the gluon parameters within the lattice-fit uncertainties shift the meson masses by at most 5–8 %, an amount smaller than the improvement relative to rainbow-ladder. This helps isolate the effect of the vertex truncation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained within DSE/BSE framework

full rationale

The paper derives light meson masses by solving the quark gap equation with a symmetric-vertex seed to obtain the full quark-gluon vertex, constructing the BSE kernel via cutting rules, computing the Euclidean eigenvalue function, and applying Schlessinger extrapolation to locate the timelike pole where the eigenvalue equals unity. This chain is a direct computational procedure from the equations of motion; no step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter renamed as output or to a self-citation that supplies the target result. The gluon propagator and any model parameters are external inputs (typically lattice-based), and the reported masses constitute a prediction tested against experiment rather than a tautological reproduction of the fit. The improvement over rainbow-ladder is attributable to the inclusion of dressed vertices, which is independently motivated by the symmetric configuration and Ward-Takahashi identity preservation. No self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach inherits the standard rainbow-ladder gluon propagator model and its associated parameters; the symmetric-seed assumption and the validity of the cutting rules for the kernel are additional domain assumptions.

free parameters (1)
  • gluon propagator parameters
    Standard in these truncations; the abstract does not list explicit values but the method is built on a modeled gluon dressing that is fitted to data or lattice input.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Symmetry preservation via Ward-Takahashi identities holds for the reconstructed vertex
    The paper states compatibility is demonstrated, but the explicit verification is not shown in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Schlessinger extrapolation accurately locates the Minkowski pole
    Central to mass extraction; no stability tests are mentioned.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5519 in / 1375 out tokens · 38445 ms · 2026-05-10T18:04:23.616356+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Quark-gluon vertex in the complex plane

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    The nonperturbative quark-gluon vertex is mapped for the first time in the complex plane, yielding all eight form factors inside a parabolic domain bounded by the first singularity.

  2. No planar degeneracy for the Landau gauge quark-gluon vertex

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The transverse quark-gluon vertex in Landau gauge QCD shows weak but non-negligible angular dependence with no planar degeneracy; the dynamically generated tensor coupling is the core driver of dynamical chiral symmet...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

132 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    A. S. Miramontes, J. M. Morgado, J. Papavassiliou, and J. M. Pawlowski, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1055 (2025)

    2025

  2. [2]

    Munczek, Phys

    H. Munczek, Phys. Rev.D52, 4736 (1995)

    1995

  3. [3]

    H. H. Matevosyan, A. W. Thomas, and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev.C75, 045201 (2007)

    2007

  4. [4]

    C. S. Fischer, D. Nickel, and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. D76, 094009 (2007)

    2007

  5. [5]

    C. S. Fischer and R. Williams, Phys. Rev. D78, 074006 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    C. S. Fischer and R. Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 122001 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Chang and C

    L. Chang and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 081601 (2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    Sanchis-Alepuz and R

    H. Sanchis-Alepuz and R. Williams, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.631, 012064 (2015)

    2015

  9. [9]

    Williams, Eur

    R. Williams, Eur. Phys. J.A51, 57 (2015)

    2015

  10. [10]

    Heupel, T

    W. Heupel, T. Goecke, and C. S. Fischer, Eur. Phys. J.A50, 85 (2014)

    2014

  11. [11]

    Sanchis-Alepuz, C

    H. Sanchis-Alepuz, C. S. Fischer, and S. Kubrak, Phys. Lett. B733, 151 (2014)

    2014

  12. [12]

    Williams, C

    R. Williams, C. S. Fischer, and W. Heupel, Phys. Rev.D93, 034026 (2016)

    2016

  13. [13]

    Sanchis-Alepuz and R

    H. Sanchis-Alepuz and R. Williams, Phys. Lett.B749, 592 (2015)

    2015

  14. [14]

    Binosi, L

    D. Binosi, L. Chang, J. Papavassiliou, S.-X. Qin, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev.D93, 096010 (2016)

    2016

  15. [15]

    Williams, Phys

    R. Williams, Phys. Lett. B798, 134943 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    ´A. S. Miramontes, H. Sanchis Alepuz, and R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev. D103, 116006 (2021)

    2021

  17. [17]

    Santowsky, G

    N. Santowsky, G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, P. C. Wallbott, and R. Williams, Phys. Rev. D 102, 056014 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    ´A. S. Miramontes, R. Alkofer, C. S. Fischer, and H. Sanchis-Alepuz, Phys. Lett. B833, 137291 (2022)

    2022

  19. [19]

    F. Gao, A. S. Miramontes, J. Papavassiliou, and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Lett. B863, 139384 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    A. S. Miramontes, G. Eichmann, and R. Alkofer, Phys. Lett. B868, 139659 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    W.-j. Fu, C. Huang, J. M. Pawlowski, Y.-y. Tan, and L.-j. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D112, 054047 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    M. Q. Huber, C. S. Fischer, and H. Sanchis-Alepuz, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 859 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    A. S. Miramontes, J. Papavassiliou, and J. M. Pawlowski, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1390 (2025). 28

    2025

  24. [24]

    M. N. Ferreira, A. S. Miramontes, J. M. Morgado, J. Papavassiliou, and J. M. Pawlowski, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 325 (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    Itzykson and J

    C. Itzykson and J. B. Zuber,Quantum Field Theory, International Series in Pure and Applied Physics (New York, USA: Mcgraw-Hill (1980) 705 p., 1980)

    1980

  26. [26]

    V. A. Miransky,Dynamical symmetry breaking in quantum field theories(World Scientific, 1994)

    1994

  27. [27]

    Skullerud, P

    J. Skullerud, P. O. Bowman, and A. Kizilersu, in5th International Conference on Quark Confinement and the Hadron Spectrum(2002) pp. 270–272

    2002

  28. [28]

    Skullerud and A

    J. Skullerud and A. Kizilersu, J. High Energy Phys.2002(09), 013

    2002

  29. [29]

    J. I. Skullerud, P. O. Bowman, A. Kizilersu, D. B. Leinweber, and A. G. Williams, J. High Energy Phys.2003(04), 047

    2003

  30. [30]

    Lin, Phys

    H.-W. Lin, Phys. Rev.D73, 094511 (2006)

    2006

  31. [31]

    Kizilersu, D

    A. Kizilersu, D. B. Leinweber, J.-I. Skullerud, and A. G. Williams, Eur. Phys. J.C50, 871 (2007)

    2007

  32. [32]

    Sternbeck, P.-H

    A. Sternbeck, P.-H. Balduf, A. Kizilersu, O. Oliveira, P. J. Silva, J.-I. Skullerud, and A. G. Williams, PoSLATTICE2016, 349 (2017)

    2017

  33. [33]

    Kızılers¨ u, O

    A. Kızılers¨ u, O. Oliveira, P. J. Silva, J.-I. Skullerud, and A. Sternbeck, Phys. Rev. D103, 114515 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    Oliveira, A

    O. Oliveira, A. Kizilersu, P. J. Silva, J.-I. Skullerud, A. Sternbeck, and A. G. Williams, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp.9, 363 (2016)

    2016

  35. [35]

    Oliveira, T

    O. Oliveira, T. Frederico, W. de Paula, and J. P. B. C. de Melo, Eur. Phys. J.C78, 553 (2018)

    2018

  36. [36]

    Alkofer, C

    R. Alkofer, C. S. Fischer, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, and K. Schwenzer, Annals Phys.324, 106 (2009)

    2009

  37. [37]

    A. C. Aguilar, M. N. Ferreira, B. M. Oliveira, J. Papavassiliou, and G. T. Linhares, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1231 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    F. Gao, J. Papavassiliou, and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D103, 094013 (2021)

    2021

  39. [39]

    E. E. Salpeter and H. A. Bethe, Phys. Rev.84, 1232 (1951)

    1951

  40. [40]

    Gell-Mann and F

    M. Gell-Mann and F. Low, Phys. Rev.84, 350 (1951)

    1951

  41. [41]

    H. A. Bethe and E. E. Salpeter, Quantum mechanics of one- and two-electron systems, in Atoms I / Atome I(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1957) pp. 88–436. 29

    1957

  42. [42]

    Nakanishi, Prog

    N. Nakanishi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.43, 1 (1969)

    1969

  43. [43]

    Jain and H

    P. Jain and H. J. Munczek, Phys. Rev. D48, 5403 (1993)

    1993

  44. [44]

    Maris and C

    P. Maris and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C56, 3369 (1997)

    1997

  45. [45]

    Alkofer, P

    R. Alkofer, P. Watson, and H. Weigel, Phys. Rev. D65, 094026 (2002)

    2002

  46. [46]

    Nicmorus, G

    D. Nicmorus, G. Eichmann, A. Krassnigg, and R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev. D80, 054028 (2009)

    2009

  47. [47]

    Hilger, M

    T. Hilger, M. Gomez-Rocha, and A. Krassnigg, Phys. Rev. D91, 114004 (2015)

    2015

  48. [48]

    Hilger, C

    T. Hilger, C. Popovici, M. Gomez-Rocha, and A. Krassnigg, Phys. Rev. D91, 034013 (2015)

    2015

  49. [49]

    Eichmann, H

    G. Eichmann, H. Sanchis-Alepuz, R. Williams, R. Alkofer, and C. S. Fischer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.91, 1 (2016)

    2016

  50. [50]

    F. F. Mojica, C. E. Vera, E. Rojas, and B. El-Bennich, Phys. Rev. D96, 014012 (2017)

    2017

  51. [51]

    F. E. Serna, B. El-Bennich, and G. Krein, Phys. Rev. D96, 014013 (2017)

    2017

  52. [52]

    P. C. Wallbott, G. Eichmann, and C. S. Fischer, Phys. Rev.D100, 014033 (2019)

    2019

  53. [53]

    Miramontes, A

    ´A. Miramontes, A. Bashir, K. Raya, and P. Roig, Phys. Rev. D105, 074013 (2022)

    2022

  54. [54]

    Xu, JHEP2024(7), 118

    Y.-Z. Xu, JHEP2024(7), 118

  55. [55]

    M. A. Sultan, Z. Xing, K. Raya, A. Bashir, and L. Chang, Phys. Rev. D110, 054034 (2024)

    2024

  56. [56]

    L. X. Guti´ errez-Guerrero, A. Raya, L. Albino, and R. J. Hern´ andez-Pinto, Phys. Rev. D110, 074015 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    Eichmann, arXiv:2503.10397 [hep-ph] (2025)

    G. Eichmann, arXiv:2503.10397 [hep-ph] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    M. Q. Huber, arXiv:2510.18960 [hep-ph] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Chiral symmetry restoration effects onto the meson spectrum from a Dyson-Schwinger and Bethe-Salpeter approach

    R. Alkofer, C. S. Fischer, and F. Zierler, arXiv:2602.17456 [hep-ph] (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Alkofer, W

    R. Alkofer, W. Detmold, C. S. Fischer, and P. Maris, Phys. Rev. D70, 014014 (2004)

    2004

  61. [61]

    Strauss, C

    S. Strauss, C. S. Fischer, and C. Kellermann, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 252001 (2012)

    2012

  62. [62]

    Frederico, G

    T. Frederico, G. Salm` e, and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. D89, 016010 (2014)

    2014

  63. [63]

    Dudal, O

    D. Dudal, O. Oliveira, and P. J. Silva, Phys. Rev. D89, 014010 (2014)

    2014

  64. [64]

    de Paula, T

    W. de Paula, T. Frederico, G. Salm` e, and M. Viviani, Phys. Rev. D94, 071901 (2016)

    2016

  65. [65]

    El-Bennich, G

    B. El-Bennich, G. Krein, E. Rojas, and F. E. Serna, Few Body Syst.57, 955 (2016)

    2016

  66. [66]

    Tripolt, P

    R.-A. Tripolt, P. Gubler, M. Ulybyshev, and L. Von Smekal, Comput. Phys. Commun.237, 129 (2019)

    2019

  67. [67]

    Dudal, O

    D. Dudal, O. Oliveira, M. Roelfs, and P. Silva, Nucl. Phys. B952, 114912 (2020)

    2020

  68. [68]

    Eichmann, P

    G. Eichmann, P. Duarte, M. T. Pe˜ na, and A. Stadler, Phys. Rev. D100, 094001 (2019)

    2019

  69. [69]

    S. W. Li, P. Lowdon, O. Oliveira, and P. J. Silva, Phys. Lett. B803, 135329 (2020). 30

    2020

  70. [70]

    S. W. Li, P. Lowdon, O. Oliveira, and P. J. Silva, Phys. Lett. B823, 136753 (2021)

    2021

  71. [71]

    C. S. Fischer and M. Q. Huber, Phys. Rev. D102, 094005 (2020)

    2020

  72. [72]

    Horak, J

    J. Horak, J. Papavassiliou, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Wink, Phys. Rev. D104, 074017 (2021)

    2021

  73. [73]

    Horak, J

    J. Horak, J. M. Pawlowski, J. Rodr´ ıguez-Quintero, J. Turnwald, J. M. Urban, N. Wink, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Phys. Rev. D105, 036014 (2022)

    2022

  74. [74]

    Horak, J

    J. Horak, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Wink, SciPost Phys. Core8, 048 (2025)

    2025

  75. [75]

    Eichmann, E

    G. Eichmann, E. Ferreira, and A. Stadler, Phys. Rev. D105, 034009 (2022)

    2022

  76. [76]

    Horak, J

    J. Horak, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Wink, SciPost Phys.15, 149 (2023)

    2023

  77. [77]

    M. Q. Huber, W. J. Kern, and R. Alkofer, Phys. Rev. D107, 074026 (2023)

    2023

  78. [78]

    M. Q. Huber, W. J. Kern, and R. Alkofer, Symmetry15, 414 (2023)

    2023

  79. [79]

    J. M. Pawlowski and J. Wessely, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 970 (2025)

    2025

  80. [80]

    Schlessinger, Phys

    L. Schlessinger, Phys. Rev.167, 1411 (1968)

    1968

Showing first 80 references.