Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Imaging the charge distributions of flavor-symmetric and -asymmetric mesons

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Maximum Entropy reconstruction of electromagnetic form factors yields charge densities of all ground-state mesons, showing a five-fold spread in quark-antiquark distance and a 5-15% spin-size excess for vectors.

desk verdict Solid MEM charge-profile paper whose headline inter-quark distances rest on an undefended independence assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17993 v1 pith:FW7O2APW submitted 2025-06-22 hep-ph

Yin-Zhen Xu , Adnan Bashir , Khépani Raya , José Rodríguez-Quintero , Jorge Segovia This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.-t13.40.Gp14.40.-n
keywords chargedistributionmesonformfactorsDyson-SchwingerequationsBethe-SalpeterequationMaximumEntropyMethodquark-antiquarkseparationheavy-lightmesonsquarkonia
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 reconstructs the spatial charge distributions of ground-state pseudoscalar and vector mesons, both flavor-symmetric and asymmetric, from electromagnetic form factors computed in the Dyson-Schwinger/Bethe-Salpeter framework. Because data only reach $Q^2 \sim 2\,$GeV$^2$, the authors use a Maximum Entropy Method to invert the Fourier relation and recover positive-definite densities. From these images they extract a single characteristic length: the average distance between the valence quark and antiquark, a stand-in for meson size and quark-motion range. The central results are a hierarchy in which the lightest quarkonia are roughly five times larger than the heaviest, and a spin effect in which vector mesons are 5-15% larger than their pseudoscalar partners of the same flavor. If correct, this provides a unified, flavor-by-flavor map of meson size from one reconstruction procedure.

What carries the argument

The Maximum Entropy Method (MEM) is the central numerical instrument: it reconstructs a positive-definite density $\rho(\tilde r)$ by maximizing $Q[\rho] = \alpha S[\rho] - L[\rho]$, where $L$ is a $\chi^2$ likelihood against the known form factor values and $S$ is the Shannon-Jaynes entropy relative to a vector-meson-dominance prior. The second key object is the probability density for quark-antiquark separation, $P_{f\bar g}(\Delta) = \int d^3 r_f\, d^3 r_{\bar g}\, \delta(\Delta - |\mathbf r_f - \mathbf r_{\bar g}|)\, \rho_f(\mathbf r_f)\, \rho_{\bar g}(\mathbf r_{\bar g})$, built from the product of the independently reconstructed single-quark densities; its first moment $\langle\Delta\rangle$ is the paper's proposed meson-size estimator.

What would settle it

Take the same mesons and compute the quark-antiquark separation directly from a two-body Bethe-Salpeter amplitude (or from lattice QCD two-quark correlation functions); if the resulting distances do not reproduce the five-fold hierarchy and the 5-15% spin gap, the paper's size scale is an artifact of the independent-density assumption rather than a property of the mesons.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that the available electromagnetic form factors of all ground-state pseudoscalar and vector mesons, despite being limited to low momentum transfer, carry enough information to recover their three- and two-dimensional charge densities once a Maximum Entropy reconstruction is supplied with a vector-meson-dominance prior. Combining the reconstructed quark and antiquark densities according to charge weights yields meson charge distributions, and integrating their product gives the probability density of the quark-antiquark separation. The central discovery is the ordering this produces: the average valence separation spans a factor of roughly five from the lightest to the heaviest quarkonium; in flavor-asymmetric systems the heavy quark sits in a compact core while the light quark forms a broad cloud; and spin-aligned vector mesons are consistently 5-15% larger than their spin-anti-aligned pseudoscalar partners, with the gap shrinking as the meson becomes more non-relativistic. The paper also verifies that the same qualitative pattern appears in transverse two-dimensional densities, reduced by a common factor, and notes agreement with constituent quark model expectations.

Load-bearing premise

The average quark-antiquark distance is computed by multiplying separate single-quark densities as if the two quarks were uncorrelated; if quark positions are correlated, the numbers change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The reconstructed charge maps give a direct picture of confinement geometry: heavy quarks form dense cores of radius about 0.2 fm while light quarks extend past 1 fm.
  • The five-fold ratio $\langle\Delta_{u\bar u}\rangle/\langle\Delta_{b\bar b}\rangle$ provides a simple target that any model of meson structure can be checked against.
  • The 5-15% vector-over-pseudoscalar excess quantifies how spin alignment stretches the quark-antiquark pair, and its decrease with quark mass tracks the relativistic-to-non-relativistic transition.
  • The cross-validation MEM protocol, with error bands from prior variation, gives a template for extracting spatial densities from limited form factor data in other hadronic systems, including multiquark states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable next step is to compute the same quark-antiquark separation from the two-body Bethe-Salpeter wave function itself, bypassing the independent-density product; if correlations are significant, the reported hierarchy would shift, especially for light mesons where relativistic effects are strongest.
  • The factorization assumption in Eq. (11) could be checked against lattice QCD computations of two-body densities, which would separate true physics from reconstruction artifacts.
  • If the five-fold yardstick survives such checks, it could serve as a fixed point for calibrating effective QCD models across the whole flavor spectrum, including excited states where experimental charge radii are scarce.
  • The observation that 2D transverse separations are universally reduced by a factor of 1.273(1) relative to 3D suggests a simple kinematical relation that might generalize to other hadrons.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends a Maximum Entropy Method (MEM) reconstruction of charge distributions to a comprehensive set of ground-state pseudoscalar and vector mesons, using separate quark and antiquark electromagnetic form factors computed in the Dyson–Schwinger/Bethe–Salpeter (DSE/BSE) framework. The authors reconstruct 3D and transverse 2D quark densities, validate the reconstruction through the consistency of charge radii obtained from the low-Q2 slope and from the reconstructed densities (Eqs. (8) and (9), Table 1), and introduce the average quark–antiquark distance ⟨Δ⟩ via Eq. (11) as a measure of meson size. The headline results are a fivefold variation of ⟨Δ⟩ between light and heavy quarkonia, a flavor hierarchy for open-flavor mesons, and a 5–15% vector-over-pseudoscalar spin effect.

Significance. If the central distance claims were fully supported, the paper would provide a useful, internally consistent survey of meson charge profiles across the entire flavor spectrum, with the reassuring cross-check between slope- and integral-based radii in Table 1 and a direct comparison with constituent quark models. The reconstruction methodology itself, including the MEM setup and the prior-rescaling systematics, is clearly described and extends previous work in Ref. [8]. However, the central quantitative claims—the fivefold hierarchy, Eq. (13), and the spin effect of Eq. (14)—all rest on Eq. (11), which is introduced without derivation. Because electromagnetic form factors constrain only one-body densities, the two-body distance reported here is not fixed by the input data unless the factorization assumption is independently validated. The paper would be significantly strengthened by a direct computation of P_fg(Δ) from the underlying BSE wave function, or by an explicit caveat that the quoted distances are model-dependent estimators.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eq. (11)] The probability density P_fg(Δ) is defined by a convolution of the one-body densities ρ_f and ρ_g, which is equivalent to assuming that the quark and antiquark positions are statistically independent. The form factors F^h constrain only the marginal densities in Eq. (6); they carry no information about the two-body joint density ρ_fg(r_f, r_g). For a confined system, especially heavy-light mesons, the two constituents are expected to be strongly correlated, so Eq. (11) is a modeling assumption, not a consequence of the input. Since ⟨Δ⟩, the hierarchies in Eq. (13), and the spin effect in Eq. (14) are all derived from this quantity, the central quantitative claims are not determined by the DSE/BSE form factors unless the independence assumption is validated. Please compute P_fg directly from the BSE wave function (or from an explicit two-body density model) and compare, or present ⟨Δ⟩ with the factorization explicitly labeled as an untested ansatz with a conservative uncertainty.
  2. [Table 2 and Sec. 2] The quoted uncertainties, 0.001–0.003 fm, reflect the MEM statistical spread and the prior-rescaling systematics described in Sec. 2. They do not include the error introduced by the factorization in Eq. (11), which is likely the dominant systematic for a two-body distance. Reporting these very small errors next to the central values implies a precision that the input data cannot support. Please provide an estimate of the model dependence, or explicitly restrict the error bars to the reconstruction step.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Footnote 1] The phrase "positive definite" should be "non-negative" (positive semi-definite), since a density can vanish on a set.
  2. [Footnote 2] The δ-function appears in Eq. (11), not Eq. (12); the text should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eq. (4)] There is a missing space in "whereσi"; also, "the integral Eqs. (3-5)" should read "Eqs. (3)–(5)".
  4. [Table 1] For neutral mesons, the imaginary radii are indicated by a suffix "i", but the convention should be explained explicitly in the caption or in the text.
  5. [Fig. 6] The "circles at the bottom" used to denote the charge radius are difficult to identify in the 3D rendering; a legend or a 2D projection would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No equation-level circularity; the quark-antiquark distance is an explicitly defined functional of the reconstructed one-body densities, not a fitted target, and the paper checks its hierarchy against external constituent-quark-model results.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that matters for circularity. The input form factors are taken from prior DSE/BSE calculations (Ref. [47]) and the MEM reconstruction from Ref. [8]; these are extensions of the authors' own published work, but they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a premise that already contains the paper's conclusions. The charge distributions are obtained by maximizing the MEM functional, and the reported charge radii are cross-checked between the equivalent Eqs. (8) and (9). The average inter-quark distance is introduced by Eq. (11) as an explicit definition P_fg(Δ)=∫d³r_f d³r_g δ(Δ−|r_f−r_g|) ρ_f(r_f) ρ_g(r_g), i.e., it is a chosen functional of the reconstructed one-body densities rather than a quantity fitted to those densities. The independence factorization in Eq. (11) is a physical modeling assumption with associated uncertainty, but it is not circular: the output does not reduce to an input by construction, and the paper compares the resulting hierarchy and spin effect with external constituent quark model and contact-interaction results (Refs. [63–65]). Self-citations are present but not load-bearing in the forbidden sense; no equation is shown to be equivalent to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results depend on a chain of inputs: the DSE/BSE form factors (already model dependent), the Fourier-transform definition of density (flagged as controversial), the VMD prior, and the factorization of the two-quark distribution. No new physical entities are introduced. The factorization is the most consequential assumption because it is presented as a definition rather than as a model choice.

free parameters (4)
  • Regularization parameter alpha/sigma^2 = not quoted; set by cross-validation on training/testing splits
    Chosen by predictive performance on testing subsets; controls the balance between entropy and likelihood in Eq. (3) but is not a physical constant.
  • Common data error sigma for all form-factor points = assumed equal across Q2 (following Ref. [56])
    A simplification used in the likelihood; actual DSE/BSE numerical uncertainties are not estimated.
  • VMD prior rescaling factor = 0.5 to 2
    Used to assess systematic prior sensitivity; affects the final error bands but is a chosen range rather than a measured quantity.
  • DSE effective interaction kernel parameters = calibrated in prior DSE studies, not restated here
    The input form factors from Ref. [47] depend on these parameters; they are not re-fitted or justified in this paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Eqs. (1a,1b) interpret the Fourier transform of the electric form factor as a 3D or 2D spatial charge density.
    The paper itself notes ongoing debate on the relativistic validity of 3D densities (Refs. [2,6,16,31]); the entire reconstruction inherits this choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The two-quark joint density factorizes: P_fg(Delta) is built from the product rho_f(r_f) rho_g(r_g) in Eq. (11).
    No physical argument is given for independence; form factors constrain one-body densities only, not correlations. This directly feeds the average distance and the spin-effect percentages.
  • domain assumption The DSE/BSE form factors of Ref. [47] are reliable in the low-Q2 region up to about 2 GeV2.
    These are model calculations with an effective kernel, not experimental data; their parameters are not propagated.
  • domain assumption The VMD form factor is a suitable MEM prior, with sensitivity bounded by rescaling by 0.5-2.
    The prior choice is inherited from Ref. [8]; no alternative prior families are tested here.
  • domain assumption The reconstructed densities are positive definite and normalized, as required by the MEM.
    Footnote 1 notes the method only extracts positive definite distributions, limiting the physical configurations allowed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Imaging the charge distributions of flavor-symmetric and -asymmetric mesons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FW7O2APW

@misc{pith2026250617993,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Imaging the charge distributions of flavor-symmetric and -asymmetric mesons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FW7O2APW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17993}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the internal structure of a comprehensive set of pseudoscalar and vector mesons, including both flavor-symmetric and flavor-asymmetric systems, by reconstructing their charge distributions from electromagnetic form factors. To achieve this, we employ a Maximum Entropy Method optimized for charge distributions, utilizing previously published form factor data obtained within the Dyson-Schwingers and Bethe-Salpeter equations framework. Furthermore, we calculate the average distance between the valence quark and antiquark that constitute the meson, interpreting it as an estimate for both the meson's spatial size and the typical range of quark motion. Our results reveal that this distance for the lightest quarkonia is approximately five times larger than that for the heaviest. Moreover, due to spin effects, vector mesons exhibit sizes that are 5-15\% larger than their pseudoscalar counterparts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17993 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In flavor-asymmetric mesons, the static spatial distribution of valence (anti)quarks (see, Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The static spatial distribution of quarks with the same flavors in di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The charge distribution of pseudoscalar/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The probability density for the distance between quarks and antiquarks in mesons, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The average distance ⟨∆f g¯⟩ between quarks and antiquarks in me￾sons, defined according to Eq. (12). More details can be found in Tab. 2 . ⟨∆⟩ 2D ⟨∆⟩ 3D ⟨∆⟩ 2D ⟨∆⟩ 3D π 0.621(2) 0.791(2) ρ 0.712(1) 0.907(1) K 0.560(2) 0.713(3) K ∗ 0.642(1) 0.817(1) ηs 0.493(1) 0.628(1…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Under electromagnetic probe, the 3D spatial static distribution of valence (anti)quark in pseudoscalar mesons, which are constructed based on 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Electromagnetic properties of heavy-light mesons

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Bethe-Salpeter calculation with a flavour-dependent effective interaction reproduces pion and kaon form factors and predicts heavy-light meson charge radii.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [8]

    Y . Z. Xu, K. Raya, J. Rodríguez-Quintero, J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 054031. arXiv:2406.13306

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 112001. arXiv:0705.2409

    arXiv 2007

  3. [2]

    Epelbaum, J

    E. Epelbaum, J. Gegelia, N. Lange, U. G. Meißner, M. V . Polyakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (2022) 012001. arXiv:2201.02565

    arXiv 2022

  4. [3]

    Kim, Phys

    J.-Y . Kim, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 014022. arXiv:2204.08248

    arXiv 2022

  5. [4]

    G. A. Miller, M. Strikman, C. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 013006. arXiv:1011.1472

    arXiv 2011

  6. [5]

    Lorcé, Phys

    C. Lorcé, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 232002. arXiv:2007.05318

    arXiv 2020

  7. [6]

    Freese, G

    A. Freese, G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 014003. arXiv:2108.03301

    arXiv 2022

  8. [7]

    Y . Chen, C. Lorcé, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 116024. arXiv:2210.02908

    arXiv 2022

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Aaij, et al

    R. Aaij, et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 041801. arXiv:2108.09284

    2022

  2. [10]

    J. P. Lees, et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 131802. arXiv:2111.01800

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    R. M. Moita, J. P. B. C. de Melo, K. Tsushima, T. Frederico, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021) 096020. arXiv:2104.02787

    2021

  4. [12]

    Hofstadter, F

    R. Hofstadter, F. Bumiller, M. R. Yearian, Rev. Mod. Phys. 30 (1958) 482–497. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.30.482

    1958

  5. [13]

    F. J. Ernst, R. G. Sachs, K. C. Wali, Phys. Rev. 119 (1960) 1105–1114

    1960

  6. [14]

    R. G. Sachs, Phys. Rev. 126 (1962) 2256–2260

    1962

  7. [15]

    G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C 99 (2019) 035202. arXiv:1812.02714

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    R. L. Ja ffe, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 016017. arXiv:2010.15887

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Freese, G

    A. Freese, G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 094026. arXiv:2307.11165

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    C. D. Roberts, A. G. Williams, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 33 (1994) 477–575. arXiv:hep-ph/9403224

    1994 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Eichmann, H

    G. Eichmann, H. Sanchis-Alepuz, R. Williams, R. Alkofer, C. S. Fischer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 91 (2016) 1–100. arXiv:1606.09602

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    K. Raya, A. Bashir, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodríguez-Quintero, Few Body Syst. 65 (2024) 60. arXiv:2403.00629

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Maris, P

    P. Maris, P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 055214. arXiv:nucl-th/9905056

    1999 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Maris, C

    P. Maris, C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C 56 (1997) 3369–3383. arXiv:nucl-th/9708029. 7

    1997 arXiv

  15. [23]

    S.-x. Qin, L. Chang, Y .-x. Liu, C. D. Roberts, D. J. Wilson, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 042202. arXiv:1108.0603

    2011 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Rodriguez-Quintero, JHEP 01 (2011) 105

    J. Rodriguez-Quintero, JHEP 01 (2011) 105. arXiv:1005.4598

    2011 arXiv

  17. [25]

    S.-x. Qin, L. Chang, Y .-x. Liu, C. D. Roberts, D. J. Wilson, Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 035202. arXiv:1109.3459

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Y .-Z. Xu, D. Binosi, Z.-F. Cui, B.-L. Li, C. D. Roberts, S.-S. Xu, H. S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 114038. arXiv:1911.05199

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Y .-Z. Xu, C. Shi, X.-T. He, H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 114011. arXiv:2009.12035

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Qin, S.-x

    P. Qin, S.-x. Qin, Y .-x. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 114014. arXiv:1912.05902

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Xu, S.-X

    Y .-Z. Xu, S.-X. Qin, H.-S. Zong, Chin. Phys. C 47 (2023) 033107. arXiv:2106.13592

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Li, C.-H

    Q. Li, C.-H. Chang, T. Wang, G.-L. Wang, JHEP 06 (2023) 189. arXiv:2301.02094

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Y .-Z. Xu, M. Ding, K. Raya, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodríguez-Quintero, S. M. Schmidt, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 191. arXiv:2311.14832

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Xu, Phys

    Y .-Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 114012. arXiv:2501.18085

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    R. C. da Silveira, F. E. Serna, B. El-Bennich, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 034021. arXiv:2211.16618

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Hilger, M

    T. Hilger, M. Gómez-Rocha, A. Krassnigg, W. Lucha, Eur. Phys. J. A 53 (2017) 213. arXiv:1702.06262

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    M. Chen, L. Chang, Chin. Phys. C 43 (2019) 114103. arXiv:1903.07808

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    F. E. Serna, R. C. da Silveira, J. J. Cobos-Martínez, B. El-Bennich, E. Ro- jas, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 955. arXiv:2008.09619

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    F. E. Serna, R. C. da Silveira, B. El-Bennich, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) L091504. arXiv:2209.09278

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    F. E. Serna, B. El-Bennich, G. a. Krein, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 114033. arXiv:2409.01441

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Z. N. Xu, Z. Q. Yao, D. Binosi, M. Ding, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodríguez- Quintero (2025). arXiv:2501.13243

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    S.-X. Qin, C. D. Roberts, Chin. Phys. Lett. 38 (2021) 071201. arXiv:2009.13637

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Xu, Z.-Q

    Z.-N. Xu, Z.-Q. Yao, S.-X. Qin, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, Eur. Phys. J. A 59 (2023) 39. arXiv:2208.13903

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    F. Gao, A. S. Miramontes, J. Papavassiliou, J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Lett. B 863 (2025) 139384. arXiv:2411.19680

    2025

  35. [43]

    Sanchis-Alepuz, R

    H. Sanchis-Alepuz, R. Williams, Comput. Phys. Commun. 232 (2018) 1–21. arXiv:1710.04903

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Windisch, Phys

    A. Windisch, Phys. Rev. C 95 (2017) 045204. arXiv:1612.06002

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    M. Chen, M. Ding, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 091505. arXiv:1808.09461

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    C. S. Fischer, P. Watson, W. Cassing, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 094025. arXiv:hep-ph/0509213

    2005 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Xu, JHEP 07 (2024) 118

    Y .-Z. Xu, JHEP 07 (2024) 118. arXiv:2402.06141

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Y .-Z. Xu, K. Raya (2024). arXiv:2411.12327

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Burkardt, Int

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

    2003 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Li, W.-b

    Y . Li, W.-b. Dong, Y .-l. Yin, Q. Wang, J. P. Vary, Phys. Lett. B 838 (2023) 137676. arXiv:2206.12903

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Ruiz Arriola, P

    E. Ruiz Arriola, P. Sanchez-Puertas, C. Weiss, Phys. Lett. B 866 (2025) 139585. arXiv:2503.10465

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Asakawa, T

    M. Asakawa, T. Hatsuda, Y . Nakahara, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 46 (2001) 459–508. arXiv:hep-lat/0011040

    2001 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Nickel, Annals Phys

    D. Nickel, Annals Phys. 322 (2007) 1949–1960. arXiv:hep-ph/0607224

    2007 arXiv

  46. [54]

    S.-x. Qin, D. H. Rischke, Phys. Lett. B 734 (2014) 157–161. arXiv:1403.3025

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    F. Gao, L. Chang, Y .-x. Liu, Phys. Lett. B 770 (2017) 551–555. arXiv:1611.03560

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    J. A. Mueller, C. S. Fischer, D. Nickel, Eur. Phys. J. C 70 (2010) 1037–

    2010

  49. [57]

    Zhang, X

    S. Zhang, X. Wang, T. Lin, L. Chang (2023). arXiv:2309.01417

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Rothkopf, J

    A. Rothkopf, J. Comput. Phys. 238 (2013) 106–114. arXiv:1110.6285

    2013 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Skilling, Classic Maximum Entropy, Springer Netherlands, Dor- drecht, 1989, pp

    J. Skilling, Classic Maximum Entropy, Springer Netherlands, Dor- drecht, 1989, pp. 45–52. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-94-015-7860-8_3 . doi:10.1007/978-94-015-7860-8_3

    1989 doi

  52. [60]

    M. S. Bhagwat, P. Maris, Phys. Rev. C 77 (2008) 025203. arXiv:nucl-th/0612069

    2008 arXiv

  53. [61]

    K. Raya, A. Bashir, J. Rodríguez-Quintero, Chin. Phys. Lett. 42 (2025) 020201. arXiv:2412.06025

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Almeida-Zamora, J

    B. Almeida-Zamora, J. J. Cobos-Martínez, A. Bashir, K. Raya, J. Rodríguez-Quintero, J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 014016. arXiv:2309.17282

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    C. Deng, H. Chen, J. Ping, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 014001. arXiv:2003.05154

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    R. J. Hernández-Pinto, L. X. Gutiérrez-Guerrero, A. Bashir, M. A. Bedolla, I. M. Higuera-Angulo, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 054002. arXiv:2301.11881

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    R. J. Hernández-Pinto, L. X. Gutiérrez-Guerrero, M. A. Bedolla, A. Bashir, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 114015. arXiv:2410.23813. 8

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.