Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Quark + Diquark Description of Nucleon Elastic Electromagnetic Form Factors

T0 review · 4 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 quark+diquark Faddeev calculation with a refined symmetry-preserving current reproduces nearly all three-body predictions for nucleon elastic electromagnetic form factors, and predicts a proton ratio zero near $x=Q^2/m_N^2\simeq 11$, no…

desk verdict A careful technical upgrade of the quark+diquark framework with testable zero predictions, but the fitting to the authors' own 3-body results and the SPM extrapolation deserve referee scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13484 v1 pith:BN5A6SWB submitted 2025-07-17 hep-ph hep-exhep-latnucl-exnucl-th

Peng Cheng , Zhao Qian Yao , Daniele Binosi , Ya Lu , Craig D. Roberts This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-latnucl-exnucl-th
keywords nucleonelectromagneticformfactorsquark-diquarkFaddeevequationPoincarécovarianceemergenthadronmassphoton-quarkvertexSchlessingerpointmethoddiquarkcorrelationsflavourseparation
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 argues that the quark-plus-diquark ($q(qq)$) Faddeev picture, a long-used simplification of the nucleon as one dressed quark bound to a fully correlated quark pair, can stand in for the far more expensive direct three-quark calculation for elastic electron-nucleon scattering. Its claim is that a refined, symmetry-preserving electromagnetic current with only eight parameters reproduces almost all the predictions of contemporary three-body analyses, and in several places agrees with data better than those analyses do. If true, the simplified picture becomes a trustworthy tool for observables the three-body method has not yet reached, such as many nucleon-to-resonance transition form factors. It also makes sharp empirical predictions: a zero in the proton electric-to-magnetic form-factor ratio near $x=Q^2/m_N^2\simeq 11$, no such zero for the neutron on $x\lesssim 15$, and a zero in the proton's $d$-quark Dirac form factor near $x\simeq 5.8$.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Poincar\'e-covariant Faddeev amplitude in which the nucleon is a dressed quark plus fully interacting scalar $[ud]$ and axial-vector $\{uu\},\{ud\},\{dd\}$ diquark correlations whose propagators are pole-free on the timelike axis. The new load-bearing element is the six-term electromagnetic current, especially the parametrised unamputated photon-quark vertex of Eq. (25), whose transverse part is fixed by six parameters $(a_i,b_i)$ together with the scalar and axial-vector diquark radii; this current is constrained by Ward-Green-Takahashi identities and replaces the earlier amputated-vertex Ansatz. The Schlessinger point method analytically continues direct calculations from $x\le 6$ to $x\le 30$, making the large-$x$ zero predictions possible.

What would settle it

A direct falsifier is a high-precision measurement of the proton polarization-transfer ratio $G_E^p/G_M^p$ at $Q^2/m_N^2$ between 9 and 13; if the ratio stays positive through that domain, the predicted zero near $x\simeq 11$ is wrong. Likewise, a flavour-separated determination of $F_1^d$ from new data that places its zero far from $x\simeq 5.8$ would falsify that prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the quark + fully-interacting diquark Faddeev description of the nucleon, when supplied with a Ward-Green-Takahashi-preserving current built from an unamputated photon-quark vertex Ansatz and nonzero diquark radii, is quantitatively equivalent to the ab initio three valence-quark framework for elastic electromagnetic form factors. The eight parameters of the current are fixed by a least-squares fit to only the proton's $G_E$ on $x\in(0,4.5)$ and $\mu_p G_E/G_M$ on $x\in(2,4.5)$, yet the framework reproduces almost all of the three-body predictions across the computed range and often improves agreement with data. Distinctly, it predicts a zero in $G_E^p/G_M^p$ at $x=10.82^{+1.60}_{-0.88}$, the absence of a zero in $G_E^n/G_M^n$ on $x\lesssim 15$, and a zero in the proton's $d$-quark Dirac form factor at $x=5.80^{+0.20}_{-0.14}$. The match marks the $q(qq)$ picture as a benchmarked alternative, not merely a phenomenology.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the six-parameter photon-quark vertex Ansatz, fitted only on $x<4.5$, correctly represents the true nonperturbative photon-quark interaction at all momenta where the zeros are predicted, so those large-$x$ zeros are not artifacts of the parametrisation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $q(qq)$ framework can be applied with confidence to nucleon-to-resonance transition form factors and other baryon observables that full three-body calculations have not yet reached.
  • The predicted zero in $G_E^p/G_M^p$ and its absence in $G_E^n/G_M^n$ become empirical signatures of diquark correlations inside the nucleon.
  • The zero in $F_1^d$ at $x\approx 5.8$ implies that apparent power-law scaling of nucleon form factors on the accessible $x$ domain is likely incidental, not a fundamental regime.
  • Flavour-separated transverse densities provide testable statements about proton structure: an excess of $u$-quarks near the centre of transverse momentum and one magnetically active $d$-quark spread farther out than the $u$-quarks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper does not pursue is to fix the eight parameters once, then predict without further fitting observables such as the nucleon axial form factor or the $\gamma^* N\to\Delta$ transition; agreement there would strongly confirm the benchmark, while disagreement would expose what the two-body truncation misses.
  • The zero locations are controlled by the relative scalar-to-axial-vector diquark probability, so precise measurements of the predicted zeros would translate into a quantitative constraint on the axial-vector diquark content of the proton, similar in spirit to the $d/u$ parton distribution ratio.
  • The unamputated vertex Ansatz and the Schlessinger-point continuation could be tested internally by computing direct form-factor points out to $x=8$ or $x=10$ with improved quadrature and checking whether the interpolated curves and uncertainty bands shift materially.
  • Because the Faddeev calculation describes only the dressed-quark core and omits meson-cloud effects, the large-$x$ zero predictions are likely more robust than the transverse densities at separations beyond about 0.6 fm from the centre of transverse momentum.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a refined, symmetry-preserving electromagnetic current for the Poincaré-covariant quark+diquark (q(qq)) Faddeev description of the nucleon. The current includes six parameters in the transverse part of the unamputated photon-quark vertex, Eq. (25) with Eq. (27), and two diquark radii, Eq. (30), for a total of eight parameters. These are fitted to a subset of the authors' 3-body results from Ref. [25]: the proton electric form factor G_E^p on x∈(0,4.5) and the ratio μ_p G_E^p/G_M^p on x∈(2,4.5). The resulting model is used to compute proton and neutron Sachs form factors, flavour-separated Dirac and Pauli form factors, and light-front transverse densities. The central predictions are a zero in G_E^p/G_M^p at x≈10.8, the absence of a zero in G_E^n/G_M^n up to x≈15, and a zero in the proton's d-quark Dirac form factor F_1^d at x≈5.8. The calculations use direct integration up to x≤6 and Schlessinger point method (SPM) analytic continuation to reach larger x.

Significance. If the claims are robust, the paper is significant: it would validate the q(qq) framework as a cheaper surrogate for full 3-body calculations and provide testable empirical signatures of diquark correlations, especially the predicted zeros in the electric-to-magnetic ratio and in F_1^d. The paper's strengths are the systematic construction of a conserved current via the Ward-Green-Takahashi identity, the inclusion of exchange and seagull diagrams, the detailed diagram-by-diagram decomposition, and the comparison with a wide body of data. The SPM uncertainty bands are a useful feature. However, the fitting of the eight parameters to the same group's earlier 3-body results makes part of the 'reproduction' claim circular, no parameter uncertainties or identifiability analysis is given, and the SPM continuation from x≤6 to x≤30 is a structural assumption that needs validation before the predicted zeros can be accepted as robust predictions rather than artifacts of the Ansatz and extrapolation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4 and Table 1] The eight parameters are determined by a least-squares fit to the 3-body results of Ref. [25] for G_E^p on x∈(0,4.5) and μ_p G_E^p/G_M^p on x∈(2,4.5), i.e., to the authors' own previous calculation. Agreement with the 3-body curves on the fitted domains is therefore by construction; the genuinely predictive content is the neutron form factors, the d-quark Dirac zero at x≈5.8, and the proton ratio zero at x≈10.8. The paper reports no parameter uncertainties or covariance matrix, so it is not possible to judge whether the fit is overdetermined or whether another parameter set would move the predicted zeros. Please provide at least a bootstrap or Hessian estimate of parameter uncertainties and a statement of which predictions are stable under reasonable parameter variations.
  2. [§3.1, Eqs. (25) and (27)] The transverse part of the photon-quark vertex is not constrained by the Ward-Green-Takahashi identity, and the functional form used for s_i(ℓ), an exponential of E(ℓ)/M_E^q with six fitted constants, is a modelling choice. Since the fitted domains (x<4.5) lie below the two claimed zeros (x≈5.8 and x≈10.8), the zero locations could be artifacts of this choice. The paper should demonstrate robustness by varying the transverse functional form (e.g., power-law versus exponential) or by comparing with an independent determination of the vertex from the inhomogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation on the relevant momentum domain.
  3. [§4, SPM extrapolation steps] The SPM continuation is the only bridge from direct calculations on x≤6 to the claimed zeros at x≈10.8 and to the flavour-separated form factors up to x=12. The acceptance criterion 'singularity free on 0≤x≤30' is necessary but not sufficient for the continued fraction to be the true analytic continuation. The two SPM variants (H1 and H2) share the same direct input data, so their mutual agreement does not by itself validate the extrapolation. I recommend a concrete validation: apply the same SPM pipeline to a known analytic form factor, or to the 3-body results of Ref. [25] truncated at x≤6, and confirm that the predicted zeros are recovered within the quoted uncertainty; if feasible, also compute direct q(qq) results beyond x=6 with improved Chebyshev and Monte Carlo parameters to check the SPM at intermediate x.
  4. [§3.4-3.5] The replacement of the multiplicative factor 0.406973 in Diagrams 4-6 by unity is presented without justification, with the text stating only 'We cannot find a justification for retaining that factor.' This factor changes the normalisation of the exchange and seagull contributions, which are significant terms in the current. No sensitivity study is shown, yet the paper later states that its predictions supersede earlier studies wherever conflicts exist. Please provide either a derivation of the factor from the underlying five-point Schwinger function or a scan of the predictions as the factor is varied between the old value and unity.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 7 caption] The phrase 'The data depicted data are from' contains a duplicated word and should be corrected to 'The data are from'.
  2. [Figs. 5, 8, 9] The labels H1 and H2 are used in the figures and captions before the text defines them as SPM 1 and SPM 2; please define them at first use and use consistent notation throughout.
  3. [Eq. (52)] The equality with -4 d/dx ln F_1^f(x)|_{x=0} should specify that the derivative is with respect to x=Q^2/m_N^2 and should state the frame and normalisation assumptions implicit in the transverse-density definition.
  4. [Table 2] The notation r^2_E M^2 in the column headers is undefined; please clarify what the second moment column represents and how it is computed.
  5. [Abstract and §5] The claim that the q(qq) picture 'reproduces almost all the 3-body predictions' is not quantified. A metric such as relative L1 differences for the non-fitted observables would make the claim concrete and testable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: parameters are transparently fitted to a 3-body benchmark, and the central zero predictions lie outside the fitted domains.

full rationale

The paper is a calibration exercise, not a disguised prediction. Section 4 states that the eight parameters are determined "via a least-squares fit to ... G_E^p(x) on x\in(0,4.5) and \mu_p G_E^p(x)/G_M^p(x) on x\in(2,4.5)", and Sect. 5 explicitly concedes that agreement with the 3-body results on those curves "should be the case because these form factors were used in part to constrain the parameters in Table 1." This is transparent input/output bookkeeping, not a claim that the fitted subset is independently predicted. The advertised predictions—the zero in G_E^p/G_M^p at x\approx10.8, the absence of a zero in the neutron ratio, and the F_1^d zero at x\approx5.8—are not elements of the fit: the proton ratio zero lies well outside x\le4.5 and even outside the direct-calculation window (x\le6), and F_1^d is a flavour combination of proton and neutron Dirac form factors, neither of which is the fitted object. The 3-body benchmark [25] is a separate truncation by overlapping authors, but it is a different calculation, not an unverified premise for the present framework, and the paper also validates against experimental data (Figs. 4\textendash 9). The unamputated photon-quark vertex and SPM large-x continuation are model-robustness concerns (parameter identifiability and extrapolation reliability), not circular reductions; no equation in the paper defines its target observable in terms of its output. Hence no circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the parametrized quark propagator, diquark correlation amplitudes, and the new electromagnetic vertex Ansatz. The eight free parameters are fitted to a subset of the authors' own three-body results. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • a1 = 0.17
    Photon-quark vertex transverse parameter, Eq. (27a), fitted by least squares to 3-body G_E^p and ratio.
  • a2 = 1.47
    Photon-quark vertex transverse parameter, Eq. (27a), fitted alongside a1.
  • a3 = -0.93
    Photon-quark vertex transverse parameter, Eq. (27a), fitted alongside a1.
  • b1 = 1.03
    Photon-quark vertex transverse parameter, Eq. (27a), fitted alongside a1.
  • b2 = -0.17
    Photon-quark vertex transverse parameter, Eq. (27a), fitted alongside a1.
  • b3 = 1.61
    Photon-quark vertex transverse parameter, Eq. (27a), fitted alongside a1.
  • r_sc = 0.31 fm
    Scalar diquark radius in Eq. (30), fitted to 3-body results; previously set to zero in Refs. [13,46,58].
  • r_av = 1.05 fm
    Axialvector diquark radius in Eq. (30), fitted to 3-body results.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The dressed quark propagator parametrization, Eqs. (3)-(5), with parameters fixed by light-meson analyses, is a sound representation of the QCD quark propagator.
    Used without re-solving the gap equation; the paper relies on this parametrization for all form factor calculations.
  • domain assumption Only scalar and axialvector diquark correlations contribute significantly to the nucleon; negative-parity diquarks are negligible.
    Stated in Sect. 2.2 and supported by prior work, but not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The Faddeev equation kernel is unchanged from Ref. [34] and yields the dressed-quark core of the nucleon with m_N=1.18 GeV.
    The paper preserves the kernel exactly and does not re-justify its form.
  • standard math The Schlessinger point method (SPM) provides reliable analytic continuation of form factors from x<=6 to x up to 30.
    SPM is grounded in analytic function theory; the paper cites blind tests, but this is a mathematical assumption about the location of branch points.
  • domain assumption Isospin symmetry is exact for the nucleon system.
    Assumed throughout (Sect. 2), standard in the approach.
  • domain assumption Meson-cloud effects are negligible for the observables discussed.
    The framework describes only the dressed-quark core; the paper notes this in Sects. 2.5 and 6.4.
  • domain assumption The three-body results of Ref. [25] are accurate benchmarks for the form factors.
    These are the fit targets; the paper assumes their correctness without independent verification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quark + Diquark Description of Nucleon Elastic Electromagnetic Form Factors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BN5A6SWB

@misc{pith2026250713484,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quark + Diquark Description of Nucleon Elastic Electromagnetic Form Factors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BN5A6SWB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13484}
}
abstract

Working with a Poincar\'e-covariant quark + diquark, $q(qq)$, Faddeev equation approach to nucleon structure, a refined symmetry preserving current for electron + nucleon elastic scattering is developed. The parameters in the interaction current are chosen to ensure that the $q(qq)$ picture reproduces selected results from contemporary $3$-body analyses of nucleon elastic electromagnetic form factors. Although the subset of fitted results is small, the $q(qq)$ picture reproduces almost all the $3$-body predictions and often results in better agreement with available data. Notably, the $q(qq)$ framework predicts a zero in $G_E^p/G_M^p$, the absence of such a zero in $G_E^n/G_M^n$, and a zero in the proton's $d$-quark Dirac form factor. Derived $q(qq)$ results for proton flavour-separated light-front-transverse number and anomalous magnetisation densities are also discussed. With the $q(qq)$ framework thus newly benchmarked, one may proceed to comparisons with a broader array of $3$-body results. This may enable new steps to be made toward answering an important question, viz. is the quark + fully-interacting diquark picture of baryon structure only a useful phenomenology or does it come close to expressing robust features of baryon structure?

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. Implications of exclusive photon leptoproduction measurements for the proton charge-radius puzzle

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    After excluding or cutting low-|t| CLAS 2018 data, BH-dominated EP measurements yield a proton charge radius smaller than the PDG average and consistent with PRad and muonic hydrogen.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [25]

    Z.-Q. Yao, D. Binosi, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, Nucleon charge and magnetisation distributions: flavour separa- tion and zeroes – arXiv:2403.08088 [hep-ph], Fund. Res. (2025)in press10.1016/j.fmre.2024.11.005

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Anselmino, E

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

    1993

  3. [2]

    M. Y. Barabanov, et al., Diquark Correlations in Hadron Physics: Origin, Impact and Evidence, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 116 (2021) 103835

    2021

  4. [3]

    R. T. Cahill, C. D. Roberts, J. Praschifka, Baryon struc- ture and QCD, Austral. J. Phys. 42 (1989) 129–145

    1989

  5. [4]

    Reinhardt, Hadronization of Quark Flavor Dyna- mics, Phys

    H. Reinhardt, Hadronization of Quark Flavor Dyna- mics, Phys. Lett. B 244 (1990) 316–326

    1990

  6. [5]

    G. V. Efimov, M. A. Ivanov, V. E. Lyubovitskij, Quark - diquark approximation of the three quark structure of baryons in the quark confinement model, Z. Phys. C 47 (1990) 583–594

    1990

  7. [6]

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

    1989

  8. [7]

    Eichmann, H

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

    2016

Show all 106 references
  1. [8]

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

    2019

  2. [9]

    S. J. Brodsky, et al., Strong QCD from Hadron Struc- ture Experiments, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 29 (08) (2020) 2030006

    2020

  3. [10]

    C. D. Roberts, Empirical Consequences of Emergent Mass, Symmetry 12 (2020) 1468

    2020

  4. [11]

    C. Chen, Y. Lu, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr ´ ıguez- Quintero, J. Segovia, Nucleon-to-Roper electromagnetic transition form factors at largeQ 2, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 034013

    2019

  5. [12]

    Y. Lu, C. Chen, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, J. Segovia, H. S. Zong, Transition form factors:γ∗ +p→ ∆(1232),∆(1600), Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 034001

    2019

  6. [13]

    Z.-F. Cui, C. Chen, D. Binosi, F. de Soto, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero, S. M. Schmidt, J. Segovia, Nu- cleon elastic form factors at accessible large spacelike momenta, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 014043

    2020

  7. [14]

    Z.-F. Cui, F. Gao, D. Binosi, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, Valence quark ratio in the proton, Chin. Phys. Lett.Express39 (04) (2022) 041401

    2022

  8. [15]

    C. Chen, C. S. Fischer, C. D. Roberts, J. Segovia, Nu- cleon axial-vector and pseudoscalar form factors and PCAC relations, Phys. Rev. D 105 (9) (2022) 094022

    2022

  9. [16]

    Chang, F

    L. Chang, F. Gao, C. D. Roberts, Parton distributions of light quarks and antiquarks in the proton, Phys. Lett. B 829 (2022) 137078

    2022

  10. [17]

    P.-L. Yin, C. Chen, C. S. Fischer, C. D. Roberts,∆- Baryon axialvector and pseudoscalar form factors, and associated PCAC relations, Eur. Phys. J. A 59 (7) (2023) 163

    2023

  11. [18]

    C. Chen, C. S. Fischer, C. D. Roberts, Nucleon to∆ax- ial and pseudoscalar transition form factors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (13) (2024) 131901

    2024

  12. [19]

    L. Liu, C. S. Fischer, Space-like electromagnetic form factors ofΛ- andΣ-baryons from quark-diquark Fad- deev equations, Eur. Phys. J. A 60 (4) (2024) 84

    2024

  13. [20]

    D. S. Carman, R. W. Gothe, V. I. Mokeev, C. D. Ro- berts, Nucleon Resonance Electroexcitation Amplitudes and Emergent Hadron Mass, Particles 6 (1) (2023) 416– 439

    2023

  14. [21]

    Achenbach, D

    P. Achenbach, D. S. Carman, R. W. Gothe, K. Joo, V. I. Mokeev, C. D. Roberts, Electroexcitation of Nu- cleon Resonances and the Emergence of Hadron Mass, Symmetry 17 (7) (2025) 1106

    2025

  15. [22]

    Eichmann, C

    G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, J. Hoffer, Functional meth- ods for hadron spectroscopy – arXiv:2503.20718 [hep- ph], in: 16th Conference on Quark Confinement and the Hadron Spectrum, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Eichmann, M

    G. Eichmann, M. T. Pe˜ na, R. D. Torres, Five-body sys- tems with Bethe-Salpeter equations, Phys. Lett. B 866 (2025) 139525

    2025

  17. [24]

    Eichmann, R

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

    2010

  18. [26]

    Z. Q. Yao, Y. Z. Xu, D. Binosi, Z. F. Cui, M. Ding, K. Raya, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero, S. M. Schmidt, Nucleon gravitational form factors, Eur. Phys. J. A 61 (5) (2025) 92

    2025

  19. [27]

    M. K. Jones, et al.,G Ep /GMp ratio by polarization transfer in⃗ ep→e⃗ p, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 1398– 1402

    2000

  20. [28]

    Gayou, et al., Measurement of G(E(p))/G(M(p)) in ⃗ ep→e⃗ ptoQ2 = 5.6 GeV2, Phys

    O. Gayou, et al., Measurement of G(E(p))/G(M(p)) in ⃗ ep→e⃗ ptoQ2 = 5.6 GeV2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 092301

    2002

  21. [29]

    Punjabi, et al., Proton elastic form factor ratios to Q2 = 3.5 GeV2 by polarization transfer, Phys

    V. Punjabi, et al., Proton elastic form factor ratios to Q2 = 3.5 GeV2 by polarization transfer, Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 055202, [Erratum-ibid. C71, 069902 (2005)]

    2005

  22. [30]

    A. J. R. Puckett, et al., Recoil Polarization Measure- ments of the Proton Electromagnetic Form Factor Ratio toQ 2 = 8.5 GeV2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 242301

    2010

  23. [31]

    A. J. R. Puckett, et al., Polarization Transfer Observ- ables in Elastic Electron Proton Scattering atQ 2 =2.5, 5.2, 6.8, and 8.5 GeV 2, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 055203, [erratum: Phys. Rev. C98, 019907 (2018)]

    2017

  24. [32]

    Riordan, S

    S. Riordan, S. Abrahamyan, B. Craver, A. Kelleher, A. Kolarkar, et al., Measurements of the Electric Form Factor of the Neutron up toQ 2 = 3.4GeV 2 using the Reaction 3 ⃗He(⃗ e, e′n)pp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 262302

    2010

  25. [33]

    Madey, A

    R. Madey, A. Y. Semenov, S. Taylor, et al., Mea- surements ofG n E/Gn M from the 2H(⃗ e, e′⃗ n) reaction to Q2 = 1.45 (GeV/c)2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 122002

    2003

  26. [34]

    Alkofer, A

    R. Alkofer, A. H¨ oll, M. Kloker, A. Krassnigg, C. D. Roberts, On nucleon electromagnetic form-factors, Few Body Syst. 37 (2005) 1–31

    2005

  27. [35]

    Binosi, L

    D. Binosi, L. Chang, J. Papavassiliou, S.-X. Qin, C. D. Roberts, Natural constraints on the gluon-quark vertex, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 031501(R)

    2017

  28. [36]

    C. D. Roberts, D. G. Richards, T. Horn, L. Chang, In- sights into the emergence of mass from studies of pion and kaon structure, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 120 (2021) 103883

    2021

  29. [37]

    M. Ding, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, Emergence of Hadron Mass and Structure, Particles 6 (1) (2023) 57– 120. 18

    2023

  30. [38]

    Binosi, Emergent Hadron Mass in Strong Dynamics, Few Body Syst

    D. Binosi, Emergent Hadron Mass in Strong Dynamics, Few Body Syst. 63 (2) (2022) 42

    2022

  31. [39]

    M. N. Ferreira, J. Papavassiliou, Gauge Sector Dyna- mics in QCD, Particles 6 (1) (2023) 312–363

    2023

  32. [40]

    K. Raya, A. Bashir, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero, Pseudoscalar Mesons and Emer- gent Mass, Few Body Syst. 65 (2) (2024) 60

    2024

  33. [41]

    C. J. Burden, C. D. Roberts, M. J. Thomson, Electro- magnetic Form Factors of Charged and Neutral Kaons, Phys. Lett. B 371 (1996) 163–168

    1996

  34. [42]

    M. B. Hecht, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, Valence- quark distributions in the pion, Phys. Rev. C 63 (2001) 025213

    2001

  35. [43]

    C. Chen, B. El-Bennich, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, J. Segovia, S. Wan, Structure of the nucleon’s low-lying excitations, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 034016

    2018

  36. [44]

    L. Liu, C. Chen, Y. Lu, C. D. Roberts, J. Segovia, Com- position of low-lyingJ= 3 2 ± ∆-baryons, Phys. Rev. D 105 (11) (2022) 114047

    2022

  37. [45]

    L. Liu, C. Chen, C. D. Roberts, Wave functions of (I, JP ) = ( 1 2 , 3 2 ∓) baryons, Phys. Rev. D 107 (1) (2023) 014002

    2023

  38. [46]

    Segovia, I

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

    2014

  39. [47]

    M. B. Hecht, M. Oettel, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, P. C. Tandy, A. W. Thomas, Nucleon mass and pion loops, Phys. Rev. C 65 (2002) 055204

    2002

  40. [48]

    Sanchis-Alepuz, C

    H. Sanchis-Alepuz, C. S. Fischer, S. Kubrak, Pion cloud effects on baryon masses, Phys. Lett. B 733 (2014) 151– 157

    2014

  41. [49]

    I. G. Aznauryan, et al., Studies of Nucleon Resonance Structure in Exclusive Meson Electroproduction, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 22 (2013) 1330015

    2013

  42. [50]

    Sachs, High-Energy Behavior of Nucleon Electromag- netic Form Factors, Phys

    R. Sachs, High-Energy Behavior of Nucleon Electromag- netic Form Factors, Phys. Rev. 126 (1962) 2256–2260

    1962

  43. [51]

    Oettel, M

    M. Oettel, M. Pichowsky, L. von Smekal, Current con- servation in the covariant quark-diquark model of the nucleon, Eur. Phys. J. A 8 (2000) 251–281

    2000

  44. [52]

    Yin, Y.-Z

    P.-L. Yin, Y.-Z. Xu, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero, All-Orders Evolution of Par- ton Distributions: Principle, Practice, and Predictions, Chin. Phys. Lett.Express40 (9) (2023) 091201

    2023

  45. [53]

    Raya, Z.-F

    K. Raya, Z.-F. Cui, L. Chang, J.-M. Morgado, C. D. Ro- berts, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero, Revealing pion and kaon structure via generalised parton distributions, Chin. Phys. C 46 (26) (2022) 013105

    2022

  46. [54]

    de Paula, E

    W. de Paula, E. Ydrefors, J. H. Nogueira Alvarenga, T. Frederico, G. Salm` e, Parton distribution function in a pion with Minkowskian dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 105 (7) (2022) L071505

    2022

  47. [55]

    Z.-N. Xu, D. Binosi, C. Chen, K. Raya, C. D. Ro- berts, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero, Kaon distribution func- tions from empirical information, Phys. Lett. B 865 (2025) 139451

    2025

  48. [56]

    Xing, W.-H

    H.-Y. Xing, W.-H. Bian, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, Kaon and Pion Fragmentation Functions – arXiv:2504.08142 [hep-ph]

  49. [57]

    M. Ding, K. Raya, A. Bashir, D. Binosi, L. Chang, M. Chen, C. D. Roberts,γ ∗γ→η, η ′ transition form factors, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 014014

    2019

  50. [58]

    I. C. Cloet, G. Eichmann, B. El-Bennich, T. Kl¨ ahn, C. D. Roberts, Survey of nucleon electromagnetic form factors, Few Body Syst. 46 (2009) 1–36

    2009

  51. [59]

    Oettel, R

    M. Oettel, R. Alkofer, L. von Smekal, Nucleon proper- ties in the covariant quark diquark model, Eur. Phys. J. A 8 (2000) 553–566

    2000

  52. [60]

    Bicudo, S

    P. Bicudo, S. Cotanch, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, P. Maris, E. Ribeiro, A. Szczepaniak, Chirally symmetric quark description of low energyππscattering, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 076008

    2002

  53. [61]

    S. R. Cotanch, P. Maris, QCD based quark description ofπ πscattering up to theσandρregion, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 116010

    2002

  54. [62]

    M. Ding, K. Raya, D. Binosi, L. Chang, C. D. Ro- berts, S. M. Schmidt, Symmetry, symmetry breaking, and pion parton distributions, Phys. Rev. D 101 (5) (2020) 054014

    2020

  55. [63]

    D. J. Wilson, I. C. Cloet, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, Nu- cleon and Roper electromagnetic elastic and transition form factors, Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 025205

    2012

  56. [64]

    Segovia, C

    J. Segovia, C. Chen, C. D. Roberts, S.-L. Wan, Insights into theγ ∗N→∆transition, Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 032201(R)

    2013

  57. [65]

    S.-S. Xu, C. Chen, I. C. Cloet, C. D. Roberts, J. Segovia, H.-S. Zong, Contact-interaction Faddeev equation and, inter alia, proton tensor charges, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 114034

    2015

  58. [66]

    K. Raya, L. X. Guti´ errez-Guerrero, A. Bashir, L. Chang, Z. F. Cui, Y. Lu, C. D. Roberts, J. Segovia, Dynami- cal diquarks in theγ (∗)p→N(1535) 1 2 − transition, Eur. Phys. J. A 57 (9) (2021) 266

    2021

  59. [67]

    Schlessinger, C

    L. Schlessinger, C. Schwartz, Analyticity as a Useful Computation Tool, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16 (1966) 1173– 1174

    1966

  60. [68]

    Schlessinger, Use of Analyticity in the Calculation of Nonrelativistic Scattering Amplitudes, Phys

    L. Schlessinger, Use of Analyticity in the Calculation of Nonrelativistic Scattering Amplitudes, Phys. Rev. 167 (1968) 1411–1423

    1968

  61. [69]

    R. A. Tripolt, I. Haritan, J. Wambach, N. Moiseyev, Threshold energies and poles for hadron physical prob- lems by a model-independent universal algorithm, Phys. Lett. B 774 (2017) 411–416

    2017

  62. [70]

    Z.-F. Cui, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, Hadron and light nucleus radii from electron scattering, Chin. Phys. C 46 (12) (2022) 122001

    2022

  63. [71]

    Binosi, A

    D. Binosi, A. Pilloni, R.-A. Tripolt, Study for a model- independent pole determination of overlapping reso- nances, Phys. Lett. B 839 (2023) 137809

    2023

  64. [72]

    Z.-F. Cui, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, D. N. Triantafyllopoulos, Fresh look at experimental ev- idence for odderon exchange, Phys. Lett. B 839 (2023) 137826

    2023

  65. [73]

    Z.-Q. Yao, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts, Onset of scaling violation in pion and kaon elastic electromagnetic form factors, Phys. Lett. B 855 (2024) 138823

    2024

  66. [74]

    Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys

    S. Navas, et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 110 (3) (2024) 030001

    2024

  67. [75]

    Z.-F. Cui, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, Pauli radius of the proton, Chin. Phys. Lett.Express 38 (12) (2021) 121401

    2021

  68. [76]

    Z.-F. Cui, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, Fresh extraction of the proton charge radius from elec- tron scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 (9) (2021) 092001

    2021

  69. [77]

    Abrams, et al., Measurement of the Nucleon F n 2 /F p 2 Structure Function Ratio by the Jefferson Lab MARATHON Tritium/Helium-3 Deep Inelastic Scat- tering Experiment, Phys

    D. Abrams, et al., Measurement of the Nucleon F n 2 /F p 2 Structure Function Ratio by the Jefferson Lab MARATHON Tritium/Helium-3 Deep Inelastic Scat- tering Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (13) (2022) 132003

    2022

  70. [78]

    C. D. Roberts, R. J. Holt, S. M. Schmidt, Nucleon spin structure at very highx, Phys. Lett. B 727 (2013) 249– 254. 19

    2013

  71. [79]

    Arrington, W

    J. Arrington, W. Melnitchouk, J. A. Tjon, Global anal- ysis of proton elastic form factor data with two-photon exchange corrections, Phys. Rev. C 76 (2007) 035205

    2007

  72. [80]

    Cheng, Z.-Q

    P. Cheng, Z.-Q. Yao, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts, Likeli- hood of a zero in the proton elastic electric form factor, Phys. Lett. B 862 (2025) 139323

    2025

  73. [81]

    J. J. Kelly, Simple parametrization of nucleon form fac- tors, Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 068202

    2004

  74. [82]

    Passchier, R

    I. Passchier, R. Alarcon, T. S. Bauer, et al., The Charge form-factor of the neutron from the reaction2H(⃗ e, e′n)p, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 4988–4991

    1999

  75. [83]

    Herberg, M

    C. Herberg, M. Ostrick, H. G. Andresen, et al., De- termination of the neutron electric form-factor in the D(e, e′n)preaction and the influence of nuclear bind- ing, Eur. Phys. J. A 5 (1999) 131–135

    1999

  76. [84]

    H. Zhu, A. Ahmidouch, H. Anklin, et al., A Measure- ment of the electric form-factor of the neutron through ⃗d(⃗ e, e′n)patQ 2 = 0.5 (GeV/c) 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 081801

    2001

  77. [85]

    Bermuth, P

    J. Bermuth, P. Merle, C. Carasco, et al., The Neutron charge form-factor and target analyzing powers from 3He(⃗ e, e′n) scattering, Phys. Lett. B 564 (2003) 199– 204

    2003

  78. [86]

    Warren, F

    G. Warren, F. R. Wesselmann, H. Zhu, et al., Measure- ment of the electric form-factor of the neutron atQ 2 = 0.5 and 1.0GeV 2/c2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 042301

    2004

  79. [87]

    Glazier, M

    D. Glazier, M. Seimetz, J. R. M. Annand, et al., Mea- surement of the electric form-factor of the neutron at Q2 = 0.3 (GeV/c)2 to 0.8 (GeV/c)2, Eur. Phys. J. A 24 (2005) 101–109

    2005

  80. [88]

    Plaster, A

    B. Plaster, A. m. Semenov, A. Aghalaryan, et al., Mea- surements of the neutron electric to magnetic form- factor ratioG n E/Gn M via the 2H(⃗ e, e′⃗ n)1H reaction to Q2 = 1.45 (GeV/c)2, Phys. Rev. C 73 (2006) 025205

    2006

  81. [89]

    E. Geis, M. Kohl, V. Ziskin, et al., The Charge Form Factor of the Neutron at Low Momentum Transfer from the 2 ⃗H(⃗ e, e′n)pReaction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 042501

    2008

  82. [90]

    Lung, et al., Measurements of the electric and magnetic form-factors of the neutron fromQ 2 = 1.75 (GeV/c)2 to 4 (GeV/c)2, Phys

    A. Lung, et al., Measurements of the electric and magnetic form-factors of the neutron fromQ 2 = 1.75 (GeV/c)2 to 4 (GeV/c)2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 718–721

    1993

  83. [91]

    Anklin, et al., Precise measurements of the neutron magnetic form-factor, Phys

    H. Anklin, et al., Precise measurements of the neutron magnetic form-factor, Phys. Lett. B 428 (1998) 248–253

    1998

  84. [92]

    Kubon, H

    G. Kubon, H. Anklin, P. Bartsch, et al., Precise neutron magnetic form-factors, Phys. Lett. B 524 (2002) 26–32

    2002

  85. [93]

    Anderson, T

    B. Anderson, T. Auerbach, L. annd Averett, et al., Ex- traction of the Neutron Magnetic Form Factor from Quasi-elastic 3 ⃗He(⃗ e, e′) at Q 2 = 0.1 - 0.6 (GeV/c) 2, Phys. Rev. C 75 (2007) 034003

    2007

  86. [94]

    Lachniet, A

    J. Lachniet, A. Afanasev, H. Arenhovel, et al., A Precise Measurement of the Neutron Magnetic Form FactorGn M in the few-GeV 2 Region, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 192001

    2009

  87. [95]

    Cates, C

    G. Cates, C. de Jager, S. Riordan, B. Wojtsekhowski, Flavor decomposition of the elastic nucleon electromag- netic form factors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 252003

    2011

  88. [96]

    Burkardt, Impact parameter space interpretation for generalized parton distributions, Int

    M. Burkardt, Impact parameter space interpretation for generalized parton distributions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 18 (2003) 173–208

    2003

  89. [97]

    Diehl, Generalized parton distributions, Phys

    M. Diehl, Generalized parton distributions, Phys. Rept. 388 (2003) 41–277

    2003

  90. [98]

    Mezrag, Generalised Parton Distributions in Contin- uum Schwinger Methods: Progresses, Opportunities and Challenges, Particles 6 (1) (2023) 262–296

    C. Mezrag, Generalised Parton Distributions in Contin- uum Schwinger Methods: Progresses, Opportunities and Challenges, Particles 6 (1) (2023) 262–296

    2023

  91. [99]

    G. A. Miller, Transverse Charge Densities, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 1–25

    2010

  92. [100]

    Mondal, D

    C. Mondal, D. Chakrabarti, Generalized parton dis- tributions and transverse densities in a light-front quark–diquark model for the nucleons, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (6) (2015) 261

    2015

  93. [101]

    Cheng, Y

    P. Cheng, Y. Yu, H.-Y. Xing, C. Chen, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, Perspective on polarised parton distribution functions and proton spin, Phys. Lett. B 844 (2023) 138074

    2023

  94. [102]

    Y. Yu, P. Cheng, H.-Y. Xing, F. Gao, C. D. Roberts, Contact interaction study of proton parton distribu- tions, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (7) (2024) 739

    2024

  95. [103]

    Y. Yu, C. D. Roberts, Impressions of Parton Distribu- tion Functions, Chin. Phys. Lett. 41 (2024) 121202

    2024

  96. [104]

    C. E. Carlson, M. Vanderhaeghen, Empirical transverse charge densities in the nucleon and the nucleon-to-Delta transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 032004

    2008

  97. [105]

    Tiator, M

    L. Tiator, M. Vanderhaeghen, Empirical transverse charge densities in the nucleon-to-P(11)(1440) transi- tion, Phys. Lett. B 672 (2009) 344–348

    2009

  98. [106]

    C. D. Roberts, N* Structure and Strong QCD, Few Body Syst. 59 (2018) 72

    2018

Pith tools

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