Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Insights into the $\mathbf{\gamma^{(*)} + N(940)\frac{1}{2}^+ \to \Delta(1700)\frac{3}{2}^{-}}$ transition

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

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

Pith's one-line read A symmetry-preserving contact-interaction treatment yields the first algebraic predictions for the gamma(*) + N(940) -> Delta(1700) transition form factors and helicity amplitudes.

desk verdict First SCI-DSE benchmark for gamma* N -> Delta(1700) transition: honest, internally consistent, with a real but openly acknowledged static-approximation caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06206 v1 pith:EYPYBVQJ submitted 2025-02-10 hep-ph hep-exhep-latnucl-exnucl-th

L. Albino , G. Paredes-Torres , K. Raya , A. Bashir , J. Segovia This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-latnucl-exnucl-th
keywords nucleonresonancetransitionDelta(1700)formfactorshelicityamplitudesquark-diquarkFaddeevequationcontactinteractionDyson-Schwingerequationsstaticapproximation
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 aims to establish the first theoretical description of the electromagnetic excitation of the nucleon $N(940)\tfrac{1}{2}^+$ into the $\Delta(1700)\tfrac{3}{2}^-$ resonance, a transition for which no symmetry-preserving model prediction existed. Treating both baryons as quark-diquark composites through a Poincar\'e-covariant Faddeev equation with a vector$\,\otimes\,$vector contact interaction, it computes the magnetic dipole, electric quadrupole, and Coulomb quadrupole transition form factors $G_M^*$, $G_E^*$, $G_C^*$ and the helicity amplitudes $A_{1/2}$, $A_{3/2}$, $S_{1/2}$ over a range of photon virtualities. The calculation is parameter-free in the sense that all model parameters were fixed in earlier studies. The result that matters is that the leading magnetic dipole form factor agrees with experimental data at low and intermediate $Q^2$, whereas the quadrupole form factors come out too small at low $Q^2$, a deficit the authors trace to Faddeev amplitudes that carry no relative quark momentum and therefore no orbital angular momentum. If this diagnosis is right, the gap is not a sign that the quark-diquark picture fails but a calibration of what momentum-dependent kernels must add.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quark-diquark Faddeev amplitude built from a vector$\,\otimes\,$vector contact interaction, in which the dressed quark exchanged between diquarks is replaced by the constant $S_T = g_B^2/M$, the static approximation. This replacement makes the Faddeev amplitudes for $N(940)\tfrac{1}{2}^+$ and $\Delta(1700)\tfrac{3}{2}^-$ independent of relative quark momentum, so every diagram in the electromagnetic current reduces to algebraically tractable integrals. Photon couplings to the quark, to scalar and axial-vector diquarks, and to quark$\leftrightarrow$diquark transitions are all dressed by form factors fitted once in earlier studies; current conservation is enforced through Ward\textendash Takahashi-compatible vertices. The machinery turns the transition form factors into explicit functions of $Q^2$ from which the helicity amplitudes follow by the Jones\textendash Scadron relations.

What would settle it

A single decisive test: repeat the calculation with a momentum-dependent exchanged-quark propagator while keeping all other parameters fixed; if the low-$Q^2$ values of $|G_E^*|$ and $|G_C^*|$ rise substantially toward the experimental bands while $G_M^*$ stays within them, the static approximation rather than the quark-diquark picture is the limiting assumption. A purely data-side check would be precise $G_C^*$ measurements below $Q^2 = 0.6$ GeV$^2$, where the paper currently has no experimental comparison.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the $\gamma^{(*)} + N(940)\tfrac{1}{2}^+ \to \Delta(1700)\tfrac{3}{2}^-$ transition is governed, at leading order, by the same isoscalar-scalar and isovector-axial-vector diquark correlations that dominate the nucleon, with the $\Delta(1700)$ built purely from isovector-axial-vector diquarks. Using a symmetry-preserving regularization of the contact interaction, the authors derive the Jones\textendash Scadron form factors $G_M^*$, $G_E^*$, $G_C^*$ and, through algebraic relations, the helicity amplitudes. Computed $G_M^*$ falls inside the experimental band up to about $Q^2 \sim 1.4$ GeV$^2$ and then declines more smoothly than the data; $G_E^*$ and $G_C^*$ keep the observed sign but stay too small in the infrared. The paper attributes the shortfall to the static approximation for the exchanged quark, which makes Faddeev amplitudes momentum-independent, and shows that varying the $\Delta(1700)$ mass toward higher values enhances the infrared form factors, partially closing the gap.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation stands or falls with the static approximation $S_T = g_B^2/M$: replacing the exchanged quark by a constant makes the Faddeev amplitudes momentum-independent, and the paper itself identifies this as the reason the electric and Coulomb quadrupole form factors come out too small at low $Q^2$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the symmetry-preserving contact interaction gives the first algebraic benchmark for the $\gamma^{(*)} + N \to \Delta(1700)$ transition, against which momentum-dependent DSE, lattice QCD, and quark-model calculations can be compared.
  • The dominance of the axial-vector diquark in $\Delta(1700)$ and the absence of isovector-vector diquarks is a structural prediction of the interaction used here, consistent with more sophisticated DSE studies.
  • The underestimated $G_E^*$ and $G_C^*$ at low $Q^2$ quantify, within this framework, the missing orbital angular momentum and meson-cloud content, turning those deficits into diagnostics rather than simple failures.
  • The derived radii $r_M$, $r_E$, and $r_C$ are stable predictions (for example $r_M \approx 0.69$ fm at the central parameter value) that can be checked once more precise low-$Q^2$ data exist.
  • The sensitivity to the $\Delta(1700)$ mass suggests that beyond-rainbow-ladder effects enhance infrared transition strengths while leaving the high-$Q^2$ behavior largely fixed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the static approximation is the true source of the quadrupole deficit, switching to a momentum-dependent quark-quark interaction should increase $|G_E^*|$ and $|G_C^*|$ at low $Q^2$ while leaving $G_M^*$ nearly unchanged; this is a testable difference between contact and full DSE predictions.
  • Beyond the paper: the same machinery can be turned to the $N(940) \to \Delta(1600)\tfrac{3}{2}^+$ radial excitation and other parity-doubled transitions, where the ratio of quadrupole to dipole strength could reveal how orbital angular momentum enters across the baryon spectrum.
  • Beyond the paper: comparing the predicted Coulomb radius $r_C \approx 0.55$--$0.66$ fm with future precision electroproduction data would isolate the Coulomb quadrupole content, the observable most sensitive to diquark breakup and recombination dynamics.
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. This manuscript computes the transition form factors G*_M, G*_E, G*_C and the helicity amplitudes A_{1/2}, A_{3/2}, S_{1/2} for the process γ(*) + N(940)1/2+ → Δ(1700)3/2− within a symmetry-preserving vector⊗vector contact-interaction DSE approach. Both baryons are treated as quark-diquark composites; the Faddeev equations yield masses m_N=1.14 GeV and m_Δ=1.72 GeV, and the transition currents are built from quark-photon, elastic diquark-photon, and scalar-to-axial-vector diquark transition diagrams. The resulting form factors are compared with CLAS/PDG data, and the paper claims the SCI provides a first algebraic benchmark for this transition, with G*_M in reasonable agreement at low and intermediate Q² and G*_E, G*_C underestimated at low Q² because the Faddeev amplitudes are independent of relative momentum.

Significance. If the central claim is supported, the paper fills a genuine gap: it is the first quark-diquark SCI calculation of the γ*N→Δ(1700) transition. The formalism has real strengths: the currents are built to satisfy Ward-Takahashi identities, the Faddeev amplitudes are normalized via elastic form factors, and the derivation of helicity amplitudes from G*_M, G*_E, G*_C is algebraic and transparent. The authors are also candid about the model's limitations. However, the benchmark value of the calculation rests on the static approximation of Eq. (16) and on the treatment of negative parity for the Δ(1700); both are acknowledged but not quantified. The reader's stress-test concern about Eq. (16) therefore lands: the η band shown in the figures does not include the uncertainty from the static approximation, and the agreement in G*_M could be at least partly accidental.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II B, Eq. (16)] The load-bearing static approximation S_T = g_B^2/M is adopted "with impunity" [72], but its validity for the negative-parity Δ(1700) is not demonstrated. The Faddeev amplitude in Eq. (15) is momentum-independent, and Sec. III (Figs. 5-6) explicitly attributes the smallness of G*_E and G*_C to the absence of relative momentum and orbital angular momentum. Because the central benchmark claim is the reasonable G*_M, the authors should quantify the sensitivity of G*_M(0) and the helicity amplitudes to the static approximation, for instance by repeating the calculation with a momentum-dependent exchanged-quark propagator in the Faddeev kernel or by benchmarking against the N(1535) parity-partner case where more complete solutions exist. Without such a test, the agreement in G*_M is not enough to support the "benchmark" claim.
  2. [Sec. II B, Eq. (15) and Eq. (16)] The treatment of negative parity is not fully specified. A quark-diquark system with a positive-parity axial-vector diquark and no relative momentum has positive intrinsic parity, yet the Δ(1700) is 3/2−. The negative parity is inserted through the γ5 factors in the current and through the unexplained factor g_+- = sqrt(0.1). The authors should show explicitly how the Faddeev amplitude in Eq. (7) transforms under parity and state whether g_+- is an independent model input. If it is an input, the prediction should be accompanied by a sensitivity study with respect to g_+-, since this factor directly sets the scale of the Δ(1700) electromagnetic coupling.
  3. [Sec. III, first paragraph and Sec. IV] The statement that the calculation is parameter-free because all parameters were constrained in earlier works is overstated. While α_IR, m_g, τ_ir, τ_uv, m_0 and the diquark masses were indeed fixed previously, the couplings g_N and g_Δ, and especially g_+- for the negative-parity partner, are specific to the masses of the baryons in this study and are not independently predicted. The text should state this limitation more carefully, and the sensitivity of G*_M and the helicity amplitudes to g_Δ/g_+- should be quantified, because these couplings control the normalization of the computed currents.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I and Eq. (37)] The parametrization in Eq. (37) contains a coefficient a_2 for the x² term, but Table I has no a_2 column or statement that a_2=0 for all entries; without this information the fit is not fully reproducible.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (64)] There is a typo: "respectivly" should be "respectively".
  3. [Sec. II C, Eq. (17)] The notation G^±_{i,f} and G_{f/i} is introduced compactly and is easy to confuse with the form factors G*_M, G*_E, G*_C; a one-sentence explicit definition of the parity projectors and their placement in Eq. (17) would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. III, Figs. 4-6] The figure captions describe cyan, magenta, and blue bands, but the three panels in Fig. 9 use the same line styles; for accessibility, the captions should explicitly state the meaning of the line styles for each panel.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the transition form factors are computed from model inputs fixed in earlier studies and are not fitted to the target process.

full rationale

The target observables, namely G*_M, G*_E, G*_C and the helicity amplitudes, are obtained from the current in Eq. (17) using Faddeev amplitudes from Eqs. (13)-(15) that are normalized through the elastic charge condition at Q2=0. None of these quantities is adjusted to the gamma(*) N -> Delta(1700) data shown in Figs. 4-6 and 9. The model parameters, including the current-quark mass, alpha_IR, m_g, the diquark masses, the effective couplings g_N and g_Delta in the static approximation of Eq. (16), and the Table I diquark-photon dressing functions, are stated to have been fixed in previous studies of the pion, nucleon, N(1440), and N(1535) observables, not to the Delta(1700) transition. The static approximation is a truncation whose consequences the paper explicitly acknowledges: the small computed G*_E and G*_C at low Q2 are attributed to the momentum-independent Faddeev amplitudes and missing orbital angular momentum (Sec. III). An approximation that limits quantitative accuracy is not a circular reduction, because the prediction does not become equivalent to the experimental input by construction. The self-citations [18,72,73] are used to justify the model framework and the static approximation; they do not import the transition form-factor result itself. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim from prior work forces the reported curves. The comparison with experimental data is an external benchmark rather than a fit, so the derivation is self-contained against the target observable.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, dimensions or conserved quantities; diquarks are established model constructs borrowed from the DSE literature. The central prediction is conditional on a compact set of previously fitted parameters and model assumptions, all listed above.

free parameters (6)
  • SCI model parameters (alpha_IR, m_g, tau_ir, tau_uv, m0) = alpha_IR=0.36*pi, m_g=0.5 GeV, 1/tau_ir=0.240 GeV, 1/tau_uv=0.905 GeV, m0=7 MeV
    Taken from Ref [18], fitted to pion mass and decay constant; determine dressed quark mass M=0.37 GeV.
  • Diquark masses m0+, m1+ = m[ud]0+=0.78 GeV, m{uu/ud/dd}1+=1.06 GeV
    From Ref [18]; enter diquark propagators in Eqs. (9) and (10).
  • Faddeev couplings g_N, g_Delta = g_N=1.18, g_Delta=1.56*sqrt(0.1)
    Static approximation Eq. (16); chosen to reproduce m_N=1.14 GeV and m_Delta=1.72 GeV.
  • AMM parameter eta = scanned 0, 1/3, 2/3; central 1/3
    Controls the strength of the dressed-quark anomalous magnetic moment in Eq. (25); not fixed by prior constraints, treated as an uncertainty band.
  • Diquark-photon dressing fit coefficients (F0+, F1+1, F1+2, F1+3, F0+<->1+) = Table I
    Interpolation coefficients for diquark-photon form factors, fitted in Refs [40,51] and adopted here.
  • P_T(Q^2) interpolation coefficients = Eq. (29): (1+0.7743x+0.1548x^2)/(1+1.2706x+0.1317x^2)
    Parametrizes the SCI solution of Eq. (27) from Ref [75].
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Nucleon and Delta(1700) are quark-diquark composites with Faddeev amplitudes truncated to scalar and axial-vector diquarks.
    Sec. II B, Eqs. (6) and (7); dominance of these diquarks is imported from Refs [57,68,69], not derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper The static approximation S_T = g_B^2/M for the exchanged quark.
    Eq. (16); removes relative-momentum dependence from the Faddeev amplitudes, a simplification adopted 'with impunity' [72].
  • ad hoc to paper The parity factor g_+- = sqrt(0.1) enters the Delta(1700) coupling.
    Sec. II B, g_Delta = 1.56 g_+-; fixed phenomenologically in Ref [18].
  • domain assumption The dressed quark-photon vertex is gamma_T P_T(Q2) + eta sigma_mu_nu Q_nu F_AMM(Q2).
    Eq. (25); satisfies Ward-Takahashi identities, but the AMM term is an ansatz with eta scanned.
  • domain assumption Proper-time regularization with an infrared cutoff implements confinement.
    Eq. (4), Sec. II A; standard in SCI-DSE models, not derived from QCD.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Insights into the $\mathbf{\gamma^{(*)} + N(940)\frac{1}{2}^+ \to \Delta(1700)\frac{3}{2}^{-}}$ transition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EYPYBVQJ

@misc{pith2026250206206,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Insights into the $\mathbf\gamma^(*) + N(940)\frac12^+ \to \Delta(1700)\frac32^-$ transition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EYPYBVQJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06206}
}
abstract

We report novel theoretical results for the $\gamma^{(*)} + N(940)\frac{1}{2}^+ \to \Delta(1700)\frac{3}{2}^{-}$ transition, utilizing a symmetry-preserving treatment of a vector$\,\otimes\,$vector contact interaction (SCI) within the Dyson-Schwinger equations (DSEs) formalism. In this approach, both nucleon, $N(940)\frac{1}{2}^+$, and $\Delta(1232)$'s parity partner, $\Delta(1700)\frac{3}{2}^{-}$, are treated as quark-diquark composites, with their internal structures governed accordingly by a tractable truncation of the Poincar\'e-covariant Faddeev equation. Nonpointlike quark+quark (diquark) correlations within baryons, which are deeply tied to the processes driving hadron mass generation, are inherently dynamic in the sense that they continually break apart and recombine guided by the Faddeev kernel. For the nucleon, isoscalar-scalar and isovector-axial-vector diquarks dominate, while the $\Delta(1700)\frac{3}{2}^{-}$ state only includes contributions from isovector-axial-vector diquarks because the SCI-interaction excludes isovector-vector diquarks. Once the Faddeev wave function of the baryons involved in the electromagnetic transition is normalized taking into account that its elastic electric form factor must be one at the on-shell photon point, we compute the transition form factors that describe the $\gamma^{(*)} + N(940)\frac{1}{2}^+ \to \Delta(1700)\frac{3}{2}^{-}$ reaction and, using algebraic relations, derive the corresponding helicity amplitudes. When comparing with experiment, our findings highlight a strong sensitivity of these observables to the internal structure of baryons, offering valuable insights. Although the SCI-framework has obvious limitations, its algebraic simplicity provides analytical predictions that serve as useful benchmarks for guiding more refined studies within QCD-based DSEs frameworks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06206 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Poincar´e covariant Faddeev equation. Ψ is the Fad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Diagrammatic representation of contributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Quark-photon dressing function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Magnetic dipole ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Electric quadrupole ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Coulomb quadrupole ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The magnetic dipole ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: presents analogous results for the helicity am￾plitudes A1/2 (top panel), A3/2 (middle panel) and S1/2 (bottom panel), as a function of Q2 , that describes the γ (∗) + N(940) 1 2 + → ∆(1700) 3 2 − transition. These re￾sults are obtained from the transition form factors…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Qualitative analysis of the sensitivity of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [72]

    C. Chen, B. El-Bennich, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, J. Segovia, and S. Wan, Phys. Rev. D 97, 034016 (2018), arXiv:1711.03142 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    2 represents the contribu- tion of a photon directly coupled to a quark inside baryon with an electric charge eq

    The diagram D1: quark-photon coupling The upper diagram in Fig. 2 represents the contribu- tion of a photon directly coupled to a quark inside baryon with an electric charge eq. The corresponding interaction vertex reads ΛD1(J P ) µ[α][β] (k; Pf , Pi) = eqF Bf [α][δ]S(−k−f )Λqγq µ S(−k−i)∆J P [δλ](−k)F Bi [λ][β] , (24) where k±i(f ) = −k ± Pi(f ). Recall ...

    work page

  3. [2]

    The diagram D2: elastic diquark-photon coupling The elastic scattering of a photon from a diquark with electric charge eJ P is pictorially represented by the mid- dle diagram of Fig 2. This might be characterized as follows: Λ D2(J P ) µ[α][β] (k; Pf , Pi) = eJ P F Bf [α][δ]S(k)∆J P [δρ](kf )ΛγJ P µ[ρσ]∆J P [σλ](ki)F Bi [λ][β] , (30) where the structure o...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Ayudas para el desarrollo de l ´ ıneas de in- vestigaci´ on propias

    The diagram D3: photon-induced diquark transition The electro-coupling of a photon with a diquark of quantum numbers J P = 0 +, 1+ can induce a transition to a different diquark with J ′P ′ = 1 +, 0+, given that in our approach we are only considering scalar ( sc) and axial-vector (ax) diquarks. Electric charge conservation in ax ↔ sc transitions entails ...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Emergence of mass in the gauge sector of QCD

    J. Papavassiliou, Chin. Phys. C 46, 112001 (2022), arXiv:2207.04977 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  7. [6]

    Alkofer and J

    R. Alkofer and J. Greensite, J. Phys. G 34, S3 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0610365

    arXiv 2007

  8. [7]

    Mitter, J

    M. Mitter, J. M. Pawlowski, and N. Strodthoff, Phys. Rev. D 91, 054035 (2015), arXiv:1411.7978 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 80 references
  1. [8]

    Accardi et al

    A. Accardi et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 173 (2024), arXiv:2306.09360 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Englert, Rev

    F. Englert, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 843 (2014)

    2014

  3. [10]

    P. W. Higgs, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 851 (2014)

    2014

  4. [11]

    Dudek et al

    J. Dudek et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 187 (2012), arXiv:1208.1244 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Crede and W

    V. Crede and W. Roberts, Rept. Prog. Phys. 76, 076301 (2013), arXiv:1302.7299 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Tiator, D

    L. Tiator, D. Drechsel, S. S. Kamalov, and M. Van- derhaeghen, Eur. Phys. J. ST 198, 141 (2011), arXiv:1109.6745 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Tiator, Few Body Syst

    L. Tiator, Few Body Syst. 59, 21 (2018), arXiv:1801.04777 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Aoki et al

    K. Aoki et al. , (2021), arXiv:2110.04462 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Maris and C

    P. Maris and C. D. Roberts, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 12, 297 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0301049

    2003 arXiv

  10. [17]

    I. G. Aznauryan et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. C 80, 055203 (2009), arXiv:0909.2349 [nucl-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  11. [18]

    I. G. Aznauryan et al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 22, 1330015 (2013), arXiv:1212.4891 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [19]

    S. J. Brodsky et al. , Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 29, 2030006 (2020), arXiv:2006.06802 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Sanchis-Alepuz, R

    H. Sanchis-Alepuz, R. Alkofer, and C. S. Fischer, Eur. Phys. J. A 54, 41 (2018), arXiv:1707.08463 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [21]

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

    1994 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Yin, Z.-F

    P.-L. Yin, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, and J. Segovia, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 327 (2021), arXiv:2102.12568 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Eichmann, Phys

    G. Eichmann, Phys. Rev. D 84, 014014 (2011), arXiv:1104.4505 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Aoyama et al

    T. Aoyama et al. , Phys. Rept. 887, 1 (2020), arXiv:2006.04822 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [25]

    K. Raya, A. Bashir, and P. Roig, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074021 (2020), arXiv:1910.05960 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Miramontes, A

    A. Miramontes, A. Bashir, K. Raya, and P. Roig, Phys. Rev. D 105, 074013 (2022), arXiv:2112.13916 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [27]

    A. S. Miramontes, K. Raya, A. Bashir, P. Roig, and G. Paredes-Torres, (2024), arXiv:2411.02218 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Eichmann, I

    G. Eichmann, I. C. Cloet, R. Alkofer, A. Krassnigg, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C 79, 012202 (2009), arXiv:0810.1222 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [29]

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

    2011 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Binosi, L

    D. Binosi, L. Chang, J. Papavassiliou, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Lett. B 742, 183 (2015), arXiv:1412.4782 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Maris, Few Body Syst

    P. Maris, Few Body Syst. 32, 41 (2002), arXiv:nucl- th/0204020

    2002

  25. [32]

    F. E. Close and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B 212, 227 (1988)

    1988

  26. [33]

    I. C. Cloet, C. D. Roberts, and D. J. Wilson, AIP Conf. Proc. 1388, 121 (2011), arXiv:1103.2432 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Eichmann, H

    G. Eichmann, H. Sanchis-Alepuz, R. Williams, R. Alkofer, and C. S. Fischer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 91, 1 (2016), arXiv:1606.09602 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [35]

    M. Y. Barabanov et al. , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 116, 103835 (2021), arXiv:2008.07630 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [36]

    I. C. Cloet and G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C 86, 015208 (2012), arXiv:1204.4422 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  30. [37]

    I. C. Cloet, W. Bentz, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B 621, 246 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504229

    2005 arXiv

  31. [38]

    G. D. Cates, C. W. de Jager, S. Riordan, and B. Wojtsekhowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 252003 (2011), arXiv:1103.1808 [nucl-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Segovia, C

    J. Segovia, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B 750, 100 (2015), arXiv:1506.05112 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [40]

    and N (1535) 1 2 − [51]. It is important to highlight that while the parame- ter η, which controls the strength of the AMM, must be completely determined by the quark-photon interaction itself [76], the impact on the AMM could vary across the different diquark-photon scatterin...

  34. [41]

    I. C. Clo¨ et, W. Bentz, and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. C 90, 045202 (2014), arXiv:1405.5542 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  35. [42]

    D. B. Lichtenberg and L. J. Tassie, Phys. Rev. 155, 1601 (1967)

    1967

  36. [43]

    D. B. Lichtenberg, L. J. Tassie, and P. J. Keleman, Phys. Rev. 167, 1535 (1968)

    1968

  37. [44]

    D. J. Wilson, I. C. Cloet, L. Chang, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C 85, 025205 (2012), arXiv:1112.2212 [nucl- th]

    2012 arXiv

  38. [45]

    I. C. Cloet, G. Eichmann, B. El-Bennich, T. Klahn, and C. D. Roberts, Few Body Syst. 46, 1 (2009), arXiv:0812.0416 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Segovia, I

    J. Segovia, I. C. Cloet, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Few Body Syst. 55, 1185 (2014), arXiv:1408.2919 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Z.-F. Cui, C. Chen, D. Binosi, F. de Soto, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero, S. M. Schmidt, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 102, 014043 (2020), arXiv:2003.11655 [hep- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Z.-Q. Yao, D. Binosi, Z.-F. Cu, and C. D. Roberts, (2024), arXiv:2403.08088 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Segovia, C

    J. Segovia, C. Chen, C. D. Roberts, and S. Wan, Phys. Rev. C 88, 032201 (2013), arXiv:1305.0292 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Segovia, C

    J. Segovia, C. Chen, I. C. Clo¨ et, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, and S. Wan, Few Body Syst. 55, 1 (2014), arXiv:1308.5225 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Segovia and C

    J. Segovia and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C 94, 042201 (2016), arXiv:1607.04405 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Segovia, B

    J. Segovia, B. El-Bennich, E. Rojas, I. C. Cloet, C. D. Roberts, S.-S. Xu, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 171801 (2015), arXiv:1504.04386 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  46. [53]

    C. Chen, Y. Lu, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr ´ ıguez- Quintero, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 99, 034013 (2019), arXiv:1811.08440 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Y. Lu, C. Chen, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, J. Segovia, and H. S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D 100, 034001 (2019), arXiv:1904.03205 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [55]

    K. Raya, L. X. Guti´ errez-Guerrero, A. Bashir, L. Chang, Z.-F. Cui, Y. Lu, C. D. Roberts, and J. Segovia, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 266 (2021), arXiv:2108.02306 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [56]

    V. D. Burkert, R. De Vita, M. Battaglieri, M. Ri- pani, and V. Mokeev, Phys. Rev. C 67, 035204 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212108

    2003 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Dugger et al

    M. Dugger et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. C 79, 065206 (2009), arXiv:0903.1110 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  51. [58]

    V. I. Mokeev and I. G. Aznauryan, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 26, 1460080 (2014), arXiv:1310.1101 [nucl-ex]

    2014 arXiv

  52. [59]

    V. I. Mokeev et al. , Phys. Lett. B 805, 135457 (2020), 13 arXiv:2004.13531 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [60]

    V. I. Mokeev and D. S. Carman, Nuovo Cim. C 47, 216 (2024), arXiv:2401.04788 [nucl-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [61]

    L. Liu, C. Chen, Y. Lu, C. D. Roberts, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 105, 114047 (2022), arXiv:2203.12083 [hep- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [62]

    P. O. Bowman, U. M. Heller, D. B. Leinweber, M. B. Parappilly, and A. G. Williams, Phys. Rev. D 70, 034509 (2004), arXiv:hep-lat/0402032

    2004 arXiv

  56. [63]

    I. L. Bogolubsky, E. M. Ilgenfritz, M. Muller-Preussker, and A. Sternbeck, Phys. Lett. B 676, 69 (2009), arXiv:0901.0736 [hep-lat]

    2009 arXiv

  57. [64]

    A. C. Aguilar, D. Binosi, and J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. D 78, 025010 (2008), arXiv:0802.1870 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Binosi, C

    D. Binosi, C. Mezrag, J. Papavassiliou, C. D. Roberts, and J. Rodriguez-Quintero, Phys. Rev. D 96, 054026 (2017), arXiv:1612.04835 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Cui, J.-L

    Z.-F. Cui, J.-L. Zhang, D. Binosi, F. de Soto, C. Mezrag, J. Papavassiliou, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero, J. Segovia, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Chin. Phys. C 44, 083102 (2020), arXiv:1912.08232 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Ebert, T

    D. Ebert, T. Feldmann, and H. Reinhardt, Phys. Lett. B 388, 154 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9608223

    1996 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Krein, C

    G. Krein, C. D. Roberts, and A. G. Williams, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 7, 5607 (1992)

    1992

  62. [69]

    Chang, C

    L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, and P. C. Tandy, Chin. J. Phys. 49, 955 (2011), arXiv:1107.4003 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  63. [70]

    C. D. Roberts, IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys. 21, 355 (2015), arXiv:1203.5341 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  64. [71]

    L. X. Gutierrez-Guerrero, A. Bashir, I. C. Cloet, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. C 81, 065202 (2010), arXiv:1002.1968 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  65. [73]

    C. Chen, G. I. Krein, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D 100, 054009 (2019), arXiv:1901.04305 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  66. [74]

    C. Chen, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, S. Wan, and D. J. Wilson, Few Body Syst. 53, 293 (2012), arXiv:1204.2553 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  67. [75]

    H. L. L. Roberts, L. Chang, I. C. Cloet, and C. D. Roberts, Few Body Syst. 51, 1 (2011), arXiv:1101.4244 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  68. [76]

    S.-S. Xu, C. Chen, I. C. Cloet, C. D. Roberts, J. Segovia, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D 92, 114034 (2015), arXiv:1509.03311 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  69. [77]

    P.-L. Yin, C. Chen, G. a. Krein, C. D. Roberts, J. Segovia, and S.-S. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 100, 034008 (2019), arXiv:1903.00160 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  70. [78]

    A. Buck, R. Alkofer, and H. Reinhardt, Phys. Lett. B 286, 29 (1992)

    1992

  71. [79]

    H. L. L. Roberts, A. Bashir, L. X. Gutierrez-Guerrero, C. D. Roberts, and D. J. Wilson, Phys. Rev. C 83, 065206 (2011), arXiv:1102.4376 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Z. Xing, K. Raya, and L. Chang, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054038 (2021), arXiv:2107.05158 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.