Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Nucleon-to-Resonance Form Factors at Large Photon Virtualities

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quark-diquark framework with QCD-kindred momentum dependence reproduces the measured Roper transition form factors at high momentum transfer, where a contact-interaction model fails.

desk verdict A clear, honest summary of the authors' quark-diquark program with testable Delta(1600) predictions, but the headline attribution to momentum dependence is not actually isolated by the comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05729 v1 pith:G7LLIHHF submitted 2019-08-14 nucl-th hep-exhep-lathep-phnucl-ex

J. Segovia , C. Chen , Z.-F. Cui , Y. Lu , C.D. Roberts This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-exhep-lathep-phnucl-ex
keywords nucleonresonancestransitionformfactorsRoperresonanceDelta(1232)Delta(1600)quark-diquarkFaddeevequationDyson-Schwingerequationsmesoncloud
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 develops a unified description of the elastic nucleon form factors and the transition form factors for a photon exciting a proton into the N(1440) Roper resonance, the $\Delta$(1232), and the $\Delta$(1600), all from a single relativistic three-quark framework built on quark-diquark correlations. Its central claim is that the momentum dependence carried by QCD's dynamically generated quark and diquark masses is the decisive ingredient: the results obtained with QCD-kindred propagators and vertices reproduce the measured Roper transition form factors for x = $Q^{2}$/$m_N^{2}$ greater than about 2, while a symmetry-preserving contact-interaction model fails both quantitatively and qualitatively. The reason this matters is that it shows baryon electroproduction at large photon virtualities is a direct probe of how QCD's running masses and diquark correlations work inside hadrons. If the claim is right, the paper's predictions for the gamma* p to $\Delta$(1600) form factors become concrete tests for the next generation of electron-scattering data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Faddeev equation for a baryon as a relativistic bound state of a dressed quark and a non-pointlike diquark, with the diquark correlations continually breaking up and reforming. The key elements are the dressed-quark propagator, the diquark propagator, and the diquark Bethe-Salpeter amplitude; each baryon's wave function is expressed by eight scalar functions, and the electromagnetic current is a sum of six terms that probe the quarks and diquarks separately. The comparison that carries the argument is the contrast with a symmetry-preserving contact-interaction treatment: replacing QCD-kindred momentum dependence by a constant interaction in the same rainbow-ladder truncation makes the computed form factors too hard and removes some orbital-angular-momentum correlations. That contrast is what lets the authors attribute the high-x agreement to the momentum dependence of elementary quantities in QCD.

What would settle it

Measure the gamma* p to $\Delta$(1600) transition form factors at momentum transfers between 2 and 5 $GeV^{2}$; if the electric or Coulomb quadrupole form factors show a zero crossing or sign change on that domain, the quark-core predictions are wrong. Alternatively, locating the zero of the $\Delta$(1232) electric quadrupole ratio R_EM at a substantially different x than the framework predicts would show that orbital-angular-momentum or meson-cloud effects are not under control.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a Poincare-covariant Faddeev equation with fully dynamical, non-pointlike diquark correlations and interaction vertices whose momentum dependence follows QCD produces transition form factors that agree with experiment where a cruder scheme does not. Specifically, the gamma* p to N(1440) Dirac and Pauli form factors F*_1 and F*_2 are reported to agree with available data for x greater than about 2, with the low-momentum discrepancy attributed to meson-cloud contributions inferred separately; for the $\Delta$(1232), the magnetic transition form factor in the Jones-Scadron convention is said to match the momentum dependence of the nucleon elastic form factors once the momentum transfer is high enough to pass the meson cloud; and for the $\Delta$(1600), the paper offers predictions for magnetic dipole, electric quadrupole, and Coulomb quadrupole form factors that are consistent with the real-photon-point values and are presented as sensitive to the $\Delta$(1600)'s wave function and deformation. The contact-interaction framework, by contrast, produces form factors that are too hard, curtails orbital angular momentum correlations, and suppresses two-loop current diagrams; comparing the two schemes identifies which observables are most sensitive to QCD's momentum-dependent elementary quantities.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the missing meson-baryon interactions only change a resonance's mass and its low-momentum form factors, and do not reshape the high-momentum transition, which comes entirely from the three-quark core.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At x = Q^2/m_N^2 greater than about 2, the Roper transition form factors can be computed from the dressed-quark core alone, so future high-momentum-transfer data directly probe the running of QCD's quark masses.
  • The failure of the contact-interaction framework shows that measured form factors can discriminate between competing models of the quark-quark interaction; the data rule out a momentum-independent interaction.
  • The Delta(1232) magnetic transition form factor follows the same high-momentum dependence as the nucleon's elastic form factors, indicating that one dressed-quark core governs both.
  • The paper's Delta(1600) predictions, in which each form factor keeps a unique sign on the plotted domain, are testable with forthcoming electroproduction measurements and will be sensitive to the Delta(1600)'s wave function and deformation.
  • Higher partial waves in the baryon wave functions have a visible effect on all the transition form factors, with the electric quadrupole form factor most affected; hence that observable is a measure of orbital angular momentum correlations within baryons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same comparison strategy could be extended to negative-parity excitations and heavier baryon multiplets; the paper's remark that other channels may contain additional diquark correlations suggests those sectors are where the framework would face its sharpest new tests.
  • If the Delta(1600) data do match the predictions, it would indicate that meson-baryon final-state interactions do not substantially reshape high-momentum transition currents, which would strengthen the case for extracting quark-core information directly from electroproduction data.
  • The analytic extrapolation used for x between 6 and 12 is an implicit prediction with stated confidence bands; when data reach that region, the width of those bands is itself a testable statement about how quickly the form factors approach their scaling behavior.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same machinery to the neutral-channel transitions, for which the paper shows projections and notes that no data exist; those would be independent tests of the isospin structure of the quark-diquark picture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a unified quark-diquark Faddeev-equation calculation of elastic and transition form factors for the nucleon, the Roper resonance N(1440), and the Delta(1232) and Delta(1600) resonances. It compares a 'QCD-kindred' framework, built with momentum-dependent propagators and vertices, against a symmetry-preserving contact-interaction (CI) framework in rainbow-ladder truncation. The central empirical claims are that the QCD-kindred results agree with CLAS data for the gamma* p -> N(1440) transition at x = Q^2/m_N^2 ≳ 2, that the CI framework fails there, and that the Delta(1232) magnetic transition form factor in the Ash convention is reasonably described by the QCD-kindred framework. The paper also makes predictions for the gamma* p -> Delta(1600) form factors at larger Q^2 and discusses the role of meson-cloud contributions at low x and of meson-baryon final-state interactions in the mass spectrum.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper supports the view that baryon electroproduction at large photon virtualities discriminates between momentum-dependent DSE kernels and contact interactions, and it provides testable predictions for CLAS12. The paper has clear strengths: the transition form factors are not fitted to the transition data, the inputs are taken from prior spectrum calculations, and the authors explicitly investigate sensitivity to the dressed-quark anomalous magnetic moment and to diquark content. They also label inferred meson-cloud contributions and normalized curves, which is honest. However, the significance is moderated by the fact that the main comparison does not isolate momentum dependence as the sole cause of the observed differences, and by the reliance on externally supplied meson-baryon mass shifts and inferred low-Q^2 contributions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III and Conclusions] The statement that agreement with the CLAS data at x ≳ 2 'owes fundamentally to the QCD-derived momentum-dependence of the propagators and vertices' is a causal claim that the present comparison cannot establish. The QCD-kindred and contact-interaction calculations differ in at least four ways simultaneously: the momentum dependence of the kernel, the class of current diagrams retained (the text notes that the CI framework suppresses two-loop diagrams), the diquark masses and content (m0+ = 0.79 GeV, m1+ = 0.89 GeV in the main calculation, with m1+ changed to 0.85 GeV in Fig. 6), and the treatment of the dressed-quark anomalous magnetic moment, which Fig. 5 shows shifts the REM zero. Because these axes are not varied independently, the superiority of the QCD-kindred curves cannot be uniquely attributed to momentum dependence. I request either a controlled scan (for example, an interpolation between the two kernels with the current truncation and diquark content held fixed) or an explicit discussion of why the other differences cannot account for the observed discrepancy.
  2. [Section II and Eq. (2)] The identification of the computed Faddeev poles with the physical N(1440) and Delta(1600) relies on subtracting meson-baryon final-state-interaction mass shifts of 0.2–0.3 GeV that are taken from elsewhere, yet the manuscript does not show that the transition currents are insensitive to this subtraction or to the use of core versus physical masses in the kinematic factors of Eq. (2). Similarly, the low-x meson-cloud curves in Fig. 3 are inferred rather than derived, and the REM curve in Fig. 5 is rescaled by a factor of 1.34 to match the x = 0 datum, so those parts of the 'complete' curves are not predictions of the framework. The paper should state clearly which quantities are predictions and which are inputs, and should provide at least a crude estimate of the meson-baryon contamination at the x values used for the central comparison (x ≳ 2).
  3. [Section IV, Fig. 6] The Delta(1600) 'complete result' is presented alongside several variants (S-wave projections of the proton and Delta(1600), and an enhanced axial-vector diquark content obtained by setting m1+ = m0+ = 0.85 GeV), and the spread among these variants is large, especially for G_E^*. As written, the paper does not identify which curve is the actual prediction nor assign an uncertainty band, so the statement that CLAS12 data 'will allow us to test' the prediction is premature. A definite prediction, with the model spread quantified as a systematic uncertainty, should be specified before the comparison can be considered falsifiable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Table 1] The listed masses (1.19, 1.73, 1.35, 1.79 GeV) are dressed-quark-core masses, not physical masses; a column heading or footnote making this explicit would prevent misreading.
  2. [Fig. 5 lower-right panel] The role of the 1.34 factor should be stated explicitly: is it applied to REM itself or to G_E and G_M separately? As printed, it is unclear why a constant rescaling affects the reported zero locations.
  3. [Section III, text near Figs. 3 and 4] The expressions 'x & 2' and similar should be typeset as x ≳ 2; the notation is ambiguous as rendered.
  4. [Eq. (5)] The current decomposition in Eq. (5) uses several symbols (Λ+, R_λα, Σ_ΔN, λ±) that are only partially defined in the text; a one-sentence definition, or an explicit pointer to the appendix of Ref. [29], would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Central Roper/Delta(1232) high-Q2 form factors are genuine Faddeev-equation outputs, but two Delta-section curves are adjusted to real-photon data before being presented as informative results.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Fig. 5 caption, lower-right panel (REM discussion)]
    "these results renormalized (by a factor of 1.34) to agree with experiment at x = 0 (dot-dashed, red - zero at x≈ 14; and dot-dash-dashed, red, zero at x≈ 6)"

    The red dot-dashed and dot-dash-dashed REM curves are rescaled by a hand-picked factor (1.34) so that they agree with the experimental value at x=0. Their zero-crossing locations (x≈14 and x≈6) are then quoted in the caption and discussed as model variants. The overall normalization at x=0 is therefore fitted to the datum rather than predicted; only the shape, specifically the zero position, remains non-trivially computed. This is a partial, clearly labeled fit, not a pure prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, 'Predictions for the γ∗ p→ ∆+(1600) transition form factors' paragraph]
    "This was achieved by setting m1+ = m0+ = 0.85GeV , values with which the proton’s mass is practically unchanged. The procedure produced the dashed (orange) curves in the bottom panels of Fig. 6; better aligning the x≃ 0 results with experiment and suggesting thereby that MB FSIs will improve our predictions."

    The axial-vector diquark mass is adjusted so that the computed N→Delta(1600) form factors better match the real-photon-point data at x=0. The resulting dashed-orange curves are then offered as expectations for what MB FSIs will do and are available for comparison with future CLAS12 data. This is a parameter fitted to the normalization point, so the 'improvement' at x≈0 is enforced by construction rather than by the meson-cloud dynamics the curves are meant to mimic; the finite-Q2 shape remains an output and is not fully fixed by this single adjustment.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain is not circular: it takes dressed-quark propagators, diquark masses, and Faddeev kernels from prior spectrum work (Refs. [29,38]), solves the Faddeev equation for the N, Roper, Delta(1232), and Delta(1600) amplitudes, then computes elastic and transition currents with the six-term current of Ref. [29]. The high-Q2 Roper form factors and the Delta(1232) magnetic transition form factor are outputs of this chain and are not fitted to the transition data shown in Figs. 3 and 5. The manuscript also clearly labels the dotted green meson-cloud curves as inferred and the dashed orange Delta(1600) curves as illustrative. Two places do involve fitting to x=0 data: the REM curves renormalized by a factor of 1.34 in Fig. 5, and the Delta(1600) curves obtained by changing m1+=0.85 GeV in Fig. 6. These are secondary and labeled, but they are still fitted inputs presented alongside predictions, which justifies a moderate score rather than zero. The broader claim that agreement at x>=2 'owes fundamentally to the QCD-derived momentum-dependence' is underdetermined because the QCD-kindred and contact-interaction frameworks differ in several simultaneous respects (current diagrams retained, diquark content, DqAMM, propagator momentum dependence). That is a controlled-comparison limitation, not a circular definition, and the paper's central independent quantitative results remain the Faddeev-equation form factors themselves.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on the quark-diquark truncation, the omission of meson-baryon final-state interactions, and diquark mass inputs taken from prior work. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The ledger also records two ad hoc data adjustments, the 1.34 REM renormalization and the modified diquark masses, which are peripheral to the high-Q2 claim.

free parameters (3)
  • scalar diquark mass m0+ = 0.79 GeV (and 0.85 GeV in the modified Delta(1600) curves)
    Input to the Faddeev kernel taken from Refs. [29,38]; it sets a diquark propagator mass and is changed to m0+=0.85 GeV in the Fig. 6 exercise that mimics meson-cloud effects.
  • axial-vector diquark mass m1+ = 0.89 GeV (and 0.85 GeV in the modified Delta(1600) curves)
    Input to the Faddeev kernel taken from Refs. [29,38]; its value controls the axial-vector diquark content of the proton and is reduced to 0.85 GeV to improve the Delta(1600) real-photon point.
  • REM renormalization factor = 1.34
    Applied to the QCD-kindred REM curves in Fig. 5 to agree with experiment at x=0; an ad hoc normalization of one plotted ratio.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A baryon's dressed-quark core is accurately captured by a quark-diquark Faddeev equation with no explicit three-quark irreducible interactions.
    Section II: 'the baryon bound-state problem is transformed into solving the linear, homogeneous matrix equation depicted in Fig. 1'; all subsequent form factors are computed from these amplitudes.
  • domain assumption Meson-baryon final-state interactions can be treated as omitted from the Faddeev kernel and approximately accounted for by mass shifts and separate low-Q2 contributions.
    Section II states MB FSIs are omitted and reduce core masses by 0.16-0.3 GeV; Sections III and IV use inferred meson-cloud curves for the low-x domain.
  • domain assumption N(1440) and Delta(1600) are primarily radial excitations of the nucleon and Delta(1232) with a well-defined dressed-quark core.
    Intro and Conclusions; if these states were dynamically generated or heavily mixed, the quark-core form factors would not map directly to the physical states.
  • domain assumption The six-term photon-baryon vertex from Ref. [29] is complete and symmetry-preserving for the elastic and transition currents used here.
    Section III: 'The vertex sufficient to express the interaction of a photon with a baryon ... is described elsewhere [29,61]'; the paper does not derive or audit this vertex.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nucleon-to-Resonance Form Factors at Large Photon Virtualities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G7LLIHHF

@misc{pith2026190805729,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nucleon-to-Resonance Form Factors at Large Photon Virtualities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G7LLIHHF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05729}
}
abstract

We present a unified description of elastic and transition form factors involving the nucleon and its resonances; in particular, the $N(1440)$, $\Delta(1232)$ and $\Delta(1600)$. We compare predictions made using a framework built upon a Faddeev equation kernel and interaction vertices that possess QCD-kindred momentum dependence with results obtained using a confining, symmetry-preserving treatment of a vector$\,\otimes\,$vector contact-interaction in a widely-used leading-order (rainbow-ladder) truncation of QCD's Dyson-Schwinger equations. This comparison explains that the contact-interaction framework produces hard form factors, curtails some quark orbital angular momentum correlations within a baryon, and suppresses two-loop diagrams in the elastic and transition electromagnetic currents. Such defects are rectified in our QCD-kindred framework and, by contrasting the results obtained for the same observables in both theoretical schemes, shows those objects which are most sensitive to the momentum dependence of elementary quantities in QCD.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05729 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. reveals that resonant contributions, viz. meson-baryon final-state-interactions (MB FSIs), are omitted [41, 42]. Clothing the nucleon’s dressed-quark core by including resonant contributions to the kernel produces a physical nucleon whose mass is ≈ 0.2GeV lower than that of the core [43, 44]. Similarly, MB FSIs reduce the ∆(1232)- baryon’s core mass by ≈ 0.16GeV [45, 46, 47] and the Roper resonance’s core-mass by 0.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIGURE 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIGURE 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIGURE 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIGURE 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIGURE 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Revealing dressed-quarks via the proton’s charge distribution,

    I. C. Cloet, C. D. Roberts, and A. W. Thomas, “Revealing dressed-quarks via the proton’s charge distribution,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 101803 (2013)

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Pion electromagnetic form factor at spacelike momenta,

    L. Chang, I. C. Cloët, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, and P. C. Tandy, “Pion electromagnetic form factor at spacelike momenta,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 141802 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Electroproduction of nucleon resonances,

    L. Tiator, D. Drechsel, S. Kamalov, M. M. Giannini, E. Santopinto, and A. Vassallo, “Electroproduction of nucleon resonances,” ICTP 4th International Conference on Perspectives in Hadronic Physics Trieste, Italy, May 12-16, 2003 , Eur. Phys. J. A19, 55–60 (2004), [,55(2003)]

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Nucleon resonances within a dynamical coupled-channels model of πN and γN reactions,

    H. Kamano, S. X. Nakamura, T. S. H. Lee, and T. Sato, “Nucleon resonances within a dynamical coupled-channels model of πN and γN reactions,” Phys. Rev.C88, 035209 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    New Results from the Studies of the N(1440)1/2+, N(1520)3/2−, and ∆(1620)1/2− Resonances in Exclusive ep→ e′ p′π +π− Electroproduction with the CLAS Detector,

    V . I. Mokeev et al., “New Results from the Studies of the N(1440)1/2+, N(1520)3/2−, and ∆(1620)1/2− Resonances in Exclusive ep→ e′ p′π +π− Electroproduction with the CLAS Detector,” Phys. Rev.C93, 025206 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Electroexcitation of nucleon resonances,

    I. G. Aznauryan and V . D. Burkert, “Electroexcitation of nucleon resonances,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.67, 1–54 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Nucleon Resonance Structure from Exclusive Meson Electroproduction with CLAS,

    V . I. Mokeev (CLAS), “Nucleon Resonance Structure from Exclusive Meson Electroproduction with CLAS,” Few Body Syst.59, 46 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Measurements of ep→ e′π +π− p′ Cross Sections with CLAS at 1 .40 Gev < W < 2.0 GeV and 2 .0 GeV 2 < Q2 < 5.0 GeV2,

    E. L. Isupov et al. (CLAS), “Measurements of ep→ e′π +π− p′ Cross Sections with CLAS at 1 .40 Gev < W < 2.0 GeV and 2 .0 GeV 2 < Q2 < 5.0 GeV2,” Phys. Rev.C96, 025209 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Experimental Study of the P11(1440) and D13(1520) resonances from CLAS data on ep→ e′π +π− p′,

    V . I. Mokeev et al. (CLAS), “Experimental Study of the P11(1440) and D13(1520) resonances from CLAS data on ep→ e′π +π− p′,” Phys. Rev. C86, 035203 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Exclusiveπ0p electroproduction off protons in the resonance region at photon virtualities 0.4 GeV 2 ≤ Q2 ≤ 1 GeV2,

    N. Markov et al., “Exclusiveπ0p electroproduction off protons in the resonance region at photon virtualities 0.4 GeV 2 ≤ Q2 ≤ 1 GeV2,” (2019), arXiv:1907.11974 [nucl-ex]

    2019

  3. [11]

    Electroexcitation of nucleon resonances from CLAS data on single pion electroproduction,

    I. G. Aznauryan et al. (CLAS), “Electroexcitation of nucleon resonances from CLAS data on single pion electroproduction,” Phys. Rev.C80, 055203 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    Review of Particle Physics,

    M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), “Review of Particle Physics,” Phys. Rev.D98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Studies of Nucleon Resonance Structure in Exclusive Meson Electroproduction,

    I. G. Aznauryan et al., “Studies of Nucleon Resonance Structure in Exclusive Meson Electroproduction,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. E22, 1330015 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    Nucleon resonance contributions to unpolarised inclusive electron scattering,

    A. N. H. Blin et al., “Nucleon resonance contributions to unpolarised inclusive electron scattering,” (2019), arXiv:1904.08016 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Jefferson Lab at 12 GeV: The Science Program,

    V . D. Burkert, “Jefferson Lab at 12 GeV: The Science Program,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68, 405–428 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    The nucleon resonance structure from exclusive π +π− p photo-/electroproduction off protons,

    V . D. Burkert, V . I. Mokeev, and B. S. Ishkhanov, “The nucleon resonance structure from exclusive π +π− p photo-/electroproduction off protons,” (2019), arXiv:1901.09709 [nucl-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bridging a gap between continuum-QCD and ab initio predictions of hadron observables,

    D. Binosi, L. Chang, J. Papavassiliou, and C. D. Roberts, “Bridging a gap between continuum-QCD and ab initio predictions of hadron observables,” Phys. Lett.B742, 183–188 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Process-independent strong running coupling,

    D. Binosi, C. Mezrag, J. Papavassiliou, C. D. Roberts, and J. Rodriguez-Quintero, “Process-independent strong running coupling,” Phys. Rev. D96, 054026 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Effective masses of diquarks,

    P. Maris, “Effective masses of diquarks,” Few Body Syst. 32, 41–52 (2002)

    2002

  12. [20]

    Electromagnetic properties of diquarks,

    P. Maris, “Electromagnetic properties of diquarks,” Few Body Syst. 35, 117–127 (2004)

    2004

  13. [21]

    Baryon Structure and QCD,

    R. T. Cahill, C. D. Roberts, and J. Praschifka, “Baryon Structure and QCD,” Austral. J. Phys. 42, 129–145 (1989)

    1989

  14. [22]

    Baryon Structure and QCD: Nucleon Calculations,

    C. J. Burden, R. T. Cahill, and J. Praschifka, “Baryon Structure and QCD: Nucleon Calculations,” Austral. J. Phys. 42, 147–159 (1989)

    1989

  15. [23]

    Hadronization of Quark Flavor Dynamics,

    H. Reinhardt, “Hadronization of Quark Flavor Dynamics,” Phys. Lett. B244, 316–326 (1990)

    1990

  16. [24]

    Quark - diquark approximation of the three quark structure of baryons in the quark confinement model,

    G. V . Efimov, M. A. Ivanov, and V . E. Lyubovitskij, “Quark - diquark approximation of the three quark structure of baryons in the quark confinement model,” Z. Phys. C47, 583–594 (1990)

    1990

  17. [25]

    Nucleon mass from a covariant three-quark Faddeev equation,

    G. Eichmann, R. Alkofer, A. Krassnigg, and D. Nicmorus, “Nucleon mass from a covariant three-quark Faddeev equation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 201601 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Flavor decomposition of the elastic nucleon electromagnetic form factors,

    G. D. Cates, C. W. de Jager, S. Riordan, and B. Wojtsekhowski, “Flavor decomposition of the elastic nucleon electromagnetic form factors,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 252003 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    Insights into the gamma* N -> Delta transition,

    J. Segovia, C. Chen, C. D. Roberts, and S. Wan, “Insights into the gamma* N -> Delta transition,” Phys. Rev. C88, 032201 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Nucleon spin structure at very high-x,

    C. D. Roberts, R. J. Holt, and S. M. Schmidt, “Nucleon spin structure at very high-x,” Phys. Lett. B727, 249–254 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Nucleon and ∆ elastic and transition form factors,

    J. Segovia, I. C. Cloet, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, “Nucleon and ∆ elastic and transition form factors,” Few Body Syst.55, 1185–1222 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Understanding the nucleon as a Borromean bound-state,

    J. Segovia, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, “Understanding the nucleon as a Borromean bound-state,” Phys. Lett. B750, 100–106 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Dissecting nucleon transition electromagnetic form factors,

    J. Segovia and C. D. Roberts, “Dissecting nucleon transition electromagnetic form factors,” Phys. Rev. C94, 042201 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Light baryons and their excitations,

    G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, and H. Sanchis-Alepuz, “Light baryons and their excitations,” Phys. Rev. D94, 094033 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Baryons as relativistic three-quark bound states,

    G. Eichmann, H. Sanchis-Alepuz, R. Williams, R. Alkofer, and C. S. Fischer, “Baryons as relativistic three-quark bound states,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 91, 1–100 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Parity partners in the baryon resonance spectrum,

    Y . Lu, C. Chen, C. D. Roberts, J. Segovia, S.-S. Xu, and H.-S. Zong, “Parity partners in the baryon resonance spectrum,” Phys. Rev. C96, 015208 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Structure of the nucleon’s low-lying excitations,

    C. Chen, B. El-Bennich, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, J. Segovia, and S. Wan, “Structure of the nucleon’s low-lying excitations,” Phys. Rev. D97, 034016 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Parton distribution amplitudes: Revealing correlations within the proton and Roper,

    C. Mezrag, J. Segovia, L. Chang, and C. D. Roberts, “Parton distribution amplitudes: Revealing correlations within the proton and Roper,” Phys. Lett. B783, 263–267 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Nucleon-to-Roper electromagnetic transition form factors at large Q2,

    C. Chen, Y . Lu, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodríguez-Quintero, and J. Segovia, “Nucleon-to-Roper electromagnetic transition form factors at large Q2,” Phys. Rev.D99, 034013 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Spectrum and structure of octet and decuplet baryons and their positive- parity excitations,

    C. Chen, G. I. Krein, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, and J. Segovia, “Spectrum and structure of octet and decuplet baryons and their positive- parity excitations,” (2019), arXiv:1901.04305 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Diquarks,

    M. Anselmino, E. Predazzi, S. Ekelin, S. Fredriksson, and D. B. Lichtenberg, “Diquarks,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 1199–1234 (1993)

    1993

  32. [40]

    Excited state baryon spectroscopy from lattice QCD,

    R. G. Edwards, J. J. Dudek, D. G. Richards, and S. J. Wallace, “Excited state baryon spectroscopy from lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev.D84, 074508 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    Perspective on rainbow-ladder truncation,

    G. Eichmann, R. Alkofer, I. C. Cloet, A. Krassnigg, and C. D. Roberts, “Perspective on rainbow-ladder truncation,” Phys. Rev. C77, 042202 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    Toward unifying the description of meson and baryon properties,

    G. Eichmann, I. C. Cloet, R. Alkofer, A. Krassnigg, and C. D. Roberts, “Toward unifying the description of meson and baryon properties,” Phys. Rev. C79, 012202 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Meson exchange contributions to the nucleon mass in the Faddeev approach to the NJL model,

    N. Ishii, “Meson exchange contributions to the nucleon mass in the Faddeev approach to the NJL model,” Phys. Lett. B431, 1–7 (1998)

    1998

  36. [44]

    Nucleon mass and pion loops,

    M. B. Hecht, M. Oettel, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, P. C. Tandy, and A. W. Thomas, “Nucleon mass and pion loops,” Phys. Rev. C65, 055204 (2002)

    2002

  37. [45]

    Dynamical coupled-channel model of pi N scattering in the W <= 2-GeV nucleon resonance region,

    B. Julia-Diaz, T. S. H. Lee, A. Matsuyama, and T. Sato, “Dynamical coupled-channel model of pi N scattering in the W <= 2-GeV nucleon resonance region,” Phys. Rev.C76, 065201 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Dynamical coupled-channels effects on pion photoproduction,

    B. Julia-Diaz, T. S. H. Lee, A. Matsuyama, T. Sato, and L. C. Smith, “Dynamical coupled-channels effects on pion photoproduction,” Phys. Rev. C77, 045205 (2008)

    2008

  39. [47]

    Disentangling the Dynamical Origin of P-11 Nucleon Resonances,

    N. Suzuki, B. Julia-Diaz, H. Kamano, T. S. H. Lee, A. Matsuyama, and T. Sato, “Disentangling the Dynamical Origin of P-11 Nucleon Resonances,” Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 042302 (2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    Spectrum of light- and heavy-baryons,

    S.-x. Qin, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, “Spectrum of light- and heavy-baryons,” Few Body Syst. 60, 26 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Masses of ground-state mesons and baryons, including those with heavy quarks,

    P.-L. Yin, C. Chen, G. Krein, C. D. Roberts, J. Segovia, and S.-S. Xu, “Masses of ground-state mesons and baryons, including those with heavy quarks,” (2019), arXiv:1903.00160 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Evidence for a P-11 Pion-Nucleon Resonance at 556 MeV,

    L. D. Roper, “Evidence for a P-11 Pion-Nucleon Resonance at 556 MeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 12, 340–342 (1964)

    1964

  43. [51]

    Pion-nucleon interactions between tlab = 300 and tlab = 700 mev,

    P. Bareyre, C. Bricman, G. Valladas, G. Villet, J. Bizard, and J. Seguinot, “Pion-nucleon interactions between tlab = 300 and tlab = 700 mev,” Physics Letters 8, 137 – 141 (1964)

    1964

  44. [52]

    Pion-nucleon phase shifts and resonances,

    P. Auvil, C. Lovelace, A. Donnachie, and A. Lea, “Pion-nucleon phase shifts and resonances,” Physics Letters 12, 76 – 80 (1964)

    1964

  45. [53]

    Evidence for an N∗ resonance at 1425 mev,

    S. L. Adelman, “Evidence for an N∗ resonance at 1425 mev,” Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 555–557 (1964)

    1964

  46. [54]

    Energy-dependent pion-nucleon phase-shift analysis,

    L. D. Roper, R. M. Wright, and B. T. Feld, “Energy-dependent pion-nucleon phase-shift analysis,” Phys. Rev. 138, B190–B210 (1965)

    1965

  47. [55]

    Quark models of baryon masses and decays,

    S. Capstick and W. Roberts, “Quark models of baryon masses and decays,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 45, S241–S331 (2000)

    2000

  48. [56]

    Progress towards understanding baryon resonances,

    V . Crede and W. Roberts, “Progress towards understanding baryon resonances,” Rept. Prog. Phys.76, 076301 (2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    Genuine quark state versus dynamically generated structure for the Roper resonance,

    B. Golli, H. Osmanovi ´c, S. Širca, and A. Švarc, “Genuine quark state versus dynamically generated structure for the Roper resonance,” Phys. Rev. C97, 035204 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    Colloquium : Roper resonance: Toward a solution to the fifty year puzzle,

    V . D. Burkert and C. D. Roberts, “Colloquium : Roper resonance: Toward a solution to the fifty year puzzle,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 011003 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    Completing the picture of the Roper resonance,

    J. Segovia, B. El-Bennich, E. Rojas, I. C. Cloet, C. D. Roberts, S.-S. Xu, and H.-S. Zong, “Completing the picture of the Roper resonance,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 171801 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    Structure of the nucleon and its first radial excitation,

    J. Segovia, “Structure of the nucleon and its first radial excitation,” Few Body Syst. 60, 34 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Current conservation in the covariant quark diquark model of the nucleon,

    M. Oettel, M. Pichowsky, and L. von Smekal, “Current conservation in the covariant quark diquark model of the nucleon,” Eur. Phys. J. A8, 251–281 (2000)

    2000

  54. [62]

    Simple parametrization of nucleon form factors,

    J. J. Kelly, “Simple parametrization of nucleon form factors,” Phys. Rev. C70, 068202 (2004)

    2004

  55. [63]

    A New parameterization of the nucleon elastic form-factors,

    R. Bradford, A. Bodek, H. S. Budd, and J. Arrington, “A New parameterization of the nucleon elastic form-factors,” NuInt05, proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Neutrino-Nucleus Interactions in the Few-GeV Region, Okayama, Japan, 26-29 September 2005 , Nucl. Phys. ...

    2006

  56. [64]

    Nucleon and Roper electromagnetic elastic and transition form factors,

    D. J. Wilson, I. C. Cloet, L. Chang, and C. D. Roberts, “Nucleon and Roper electromagnetic elastic and transition form factors,” Phys. Rev. C85, 025205 (2012)

    2012

  57. [65]

    Baryons and the Borromeo,

    C. D. Roberts and J. Segovia, “Baryons and the Borromeo,” Proceedings, ECT* Workshop on Nucleon Resonances: From Photoproduction to High Photon Virtualities: Trento, Italy, October 12-16, 2015 , Few Body Syst. 57, 1067–1076 (2016)

    2016

  58. [66]

    Configuration mixings and light-front relativistic quark model predictions for the electroexcitation of the Delta(1232)3/2+, N(1440)1/2+, and Delta(1600)3/2+,

    I. G. Aznauryan and V . D. Burkert, “Configuration mixings and light-front relativistic quark model predictions for the electroexcitation of the Delta(1232)3/2+, N(1440)1/2+, and Delta(1600)3/2+,” (2016), arXiv:1603.06692 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    pi+ photoproduction on the proton for photon energies from 0.725 to 2.875-GeV,

    M. Dugger et al. (CLAS), “pi+ photoproduction on the proton for photon energies from 0.725 to 2.875-GeV,” Phys. Rev.C79, 065206 (2009)

    2009

  60. [68]

    ELECTROMAGNETIC N - DELTA TRANSITION AT HIGH Q**2,

    C. E. Carlson, “ELECTROMAGNETIC N - DELTA TRANSITION AT HIGH Q**2,” Phys. Rev.D34, 2704 (1986)

    1986

  61. [69]

    Electromagnetic excitation of the Delta(1232)-resonance,

    V . Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen, and S. N. Yang, “Electromagnetic excitation of the Delta(1232)-resonance,” Phys. Rept. 437, 125–232 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0609004 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Nucleon to Delta electromagnetic transition in the Dyson-Schwinger approach,

    G. Eichmann and D. Nicmorus, “Nucleon to Delta electromagnetic transition in the Dyson-Schwinger approach,” Phys. Rev. D85, 093004 (2012)

    2012

  63. [71]

    The Shape of Hadrons,

    C. Alexandrou, C. N. Papanicolas, and M. Vanderhaeghen, “The Shape of Hadrons,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1231 (2012)

    2012

  64. [72]

    Systematic study of longitudinal and transverse helicity amplitudes in the hypercentral constituent quark model,

    E. Santopinto and M. M. Giannini, “Systematic study of longitudinal and transverse helicity amplitudes in the hypercentral constituent quark model,” Phys. Rev.C86, 065202 (2012)

    2012

  65. [73]

    Electromagnetic transition form factors of baryons in the space-like momentum region,

    H. Sanchis-Alepuz, R. Alkofer, and C. S. Fischer, “Electromagnetic transition form factors of baryons in the space-like momentum region,” Eur. Phys. J. A54, 41 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    Measurement of New Observables from theπ +π− p Electroproduction Off the Proton,

    A. Trivedi, “Measurement of New Observables from theπ +π− p Electroproduction Off the Proton,”Proceedings, 11th International Workshop on the Physics of Excited Nucleons (NSTAR 2017): Columbia, SC, USA, August 20-23, 2017 , Few Body Syst. 60 (2019), 10.1007/s00601-018- 1471-y

    2019 doi

  67. [75]

    Elastic and Transition Form Factors of the ∆(1232),

    J. Segovia, C. Chen, I. C. Cloët, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, and S. Wan, “Elastic and Transition Form Factors of the ∆(1232),” Few Body Syst. 55, 1–33 (2014)

    2014

  68. [76]

    Transition form factors: γ∗ + p→ ∆(1232), ∆(1600),

    Y . Lu, C. Chen, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, J. Segovia, and H. S. Zong, “Transition form factors: γ∗ + p→ ∆(1232), ∆(1600),” (2019), arXiv:1904.03205 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Multipole gamma N Delta form-factors and resonant photoproduction and electroproduction,

    H. F. Jones and M. D. Scadron, “Multipole gamma N Delta form-factors and resonant photoproduction and electroproduction,” Annals Phys. 81, 1–14 (1973)

    1973

  70. [78]

    Extraction and Interpretation of gamma N —> Delta Form Factors within a Dynamical Model,

    B. Julia-Diaz, T. S. H. Lee, T. Sato, and L. C. Smith, “Extraction and Interpretation of gamma N —> Delta Form Factors within a Dynamical Model,” Phys. Rev.C75, 015205 (2007)

    2007

  71. [79]

    Baryon current matrix elements in a light front framework,

    S. Capstick and B. D. Keister, “Baryon current matrix elements in a light front framework,” Phys. Rev. D51, 3598–3612 (1995)

    1995

  72. [80]

    Electroexcitation of the ∆(1232) 3 2 + and ∆(1600) 3 2 + in a light-front relativistic quark model,

    I. G. Aznauryan and V . D. Burkert, “Electroexcitation of the ∆(1232) 3 2 + and ∆(1600) 3 2 + in a light-front relativistic quark model,” Phys. Rev. C92, 035211 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.