Non-diagonal DVCS and studies of hadronic structure with $N \to N^*$ transition GPDs

Kirill Semenov-Tian-Shansky

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 20 references

Non-diagonal DVCS and studies of hadronic structure with $N \to N^*$ transition GPDs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quark-level model of nucleon resonances matches first JLab data

desk verdict A transparent proceedings-style review with no new results; its one evaluative claim—model consistency with CLAS data—is unquantified and rests on a self-admitted unproven factorization assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01114 v1 pith:CSP4DING submitted 2025-09-01 hep-ph hep-exnucl-th

Kirill Semenov-Tian-Shansky This is my paper

classification hep-phhep-exnucl-th

keywords transitionGPDsnon-diagonalDVCSbaryonresonancesbeamspinasymmetryCLAS12exclusiveelectroproductionnucleon-to-resonancetransitionsFroissart-Gribovprojections

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 a single framework — transition generalized parton distributions — can describe hard electroproduction of a pion and a photon off a nucleon, a reaction in which the nucleon is excited to a resonance that then decays into the πN system. The central claim is that phenomenological models of N→Δ and N→N* transition GPDs, constrained by measured electromagnetic transition form factors and by PCAC, give a good account of the existing beam-spin-asymmetry data for γ*p→γπ+n at JLab kinematics, indicating that the transition GPD approach is adequate for this process. If correct, this opens a route to quark-level tomographic images of nucleon resonances, access to transition gravitational form factors, and a new spectroscopy tool that excites resonances with QCD probes of arbitrary spin J, including gluonic probes.

What carries the argument

The transition GPDs themselves: non-diagonal matrix elements ⟨R|ψ̄(0)[0;z]ψ(z)|N⟩ (and the gluonic analogue) on the light cone. They carry the argument by organizing the hard subprocess γ*N→γR in the generalized Bjorken limit; the phenomenological model of Ref. [4] (large-Nc relations, VGG nucleon GPDs, PCAC/pion-pole constraints, double-distribution Ansatz) converts them into predictions for the 7-fold cross section and BSA compared with CLAS data.

What would settle it

Measure the full 7-fold cross section and beam-spin asymmetry for e−p→e−γπ+n in the CLAS12 kinematics of Fig. 2 with sufficient statistics in the second resonance region (M_πN ≈ 1.4–1.5 GeV): if the BSA does not show the resonance pattern produced by the P11 + D13 + S11 contributions, or if the Q2-dependence deviates from the perturbative scaling implied by factorization, the adequacy claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The claim: a phenomenological model of N→N* transition GPDs for the Δ, P11, D13, S11 resonances describes e−p→e−γπ+n at CLAS12 kinematics, as judged by beam-spin-asymmetry data in the first and second resonance regions. The model uses large-Nc relations, normalizes on electromagnetic transition form factors, and fixes polarized GPDs by PCAC and pion-pole dominance. These objects are non-diagonal matrix elements of nonlocal light-cone QCD operators between nucleon and resonance states; their images read as SU(6)/large-Nc symmetry-breaking effects. The outlook adds N→πN GPDs as a chiral-to-resonance bridge and Froissart-Gribov projections that isolate spin-J responses.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on collinear factorization of the hard subprocess γ*N→γR in the generalized Bjorken limit, even though the resonance is excited by a soft, hadronic-scale momentum transfer (the paper acknowledges this in Sec. 2 when it says the process 'probes a soft excitation of R by a low energy QCD string'); if factorization fails or receives large corrections, the model-data agreement loses its interpretation as validation of transition GPDs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Beam-spin-asymmetry measurements at CLAS12 in the first and second resonance regions become a direct test of transition GPD models, not just of resonance production.
If adequate, the framework yields transverse (impact-parameter) images of resonances, interpreted as SU(6)/large-Nc symmetry-breaking effects.
Non-diagonal DVCS/DVMP provides spectroscopy with probes of spin J=1,2,... and gluonic degrees of freedom, potentially revealing states weakly coupled to γ, W, Z.
The same formalism extends to N→πN GPDs, connecting chiral perturbation theory to the resonance region via dispersion relations and Watson's theorem.
Froissart-Gribov projections of Compton form factors offer a handle to discriminate between existing GPD parametrizations using the response to spin-J excitations.

Reading between the lines

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

A sharper test than the BSA comparison would be the charge asymmetry (BCA), which carries the real part of the amplitude; the paper motivates but does not pursue it.
If factorization holds, the extracted BSA should show a mild Q2 dependence; a strong Q2 dependence in future CLAS12 bins would signal that the 'soft excitation' caveat of Sec. 2 is not negligible.
The N→πN GPD program, if realized, would give a dispersive handle on the πN final-state interaction, effectively converting Watson's theorem into a tool for resonance spectroscopy from exclusive data.
The Froissart-Gribov decomposition could be applied to the non-diagonal Compton form factors themselves, turning the extracted F_J(t) into a spin-J 'response function' that may expose states weakly coupled to standard probes.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This is a conference proceedings review, and it reads like one. The one thing to know: there is no new result here. The phenomenological estimates and Fig. 2 come from the author's earlier PRD with Vanderhaeghen; the Froissart-Gribov section is from another of his papers. What the paper adds is interpretive glue: framing non-diagonal DVCS as a probe of nucleon resonances with arbitrary spin-J local operators, and tying that to the Roper question and future JLab data. That framing is done well, and the paper is transparent about what is borrowed—every figure and section is credited.

The paper also does something rare: it flags its own weakest link. In Sec. 2 it states that the process probes a soft excitation of the resonance by a low-energy QCD string and is more analogous to photoproduction than hard electroproduction. That is the factorization problem. The stress-test note is fair: collinear factorization for gamma* N -> gamma R with a resonant final state is not proven, and at Q2 = 2.3 GeV2 the hard scale is not imposing. The paper nevertheless proceeds to present model estimates and then, in Sec. 3, claims that the model is "reasonably consistent" with preliminary CLAS BSA data, concluding the transition GPD approach is adequate. That claim is load-bearing and unquantified: no chi-square, no data-model overlay, just a citation to preliminary results in the white paper [6]. For a review, this is acceptable if the conclusion is softened; for a claim of adequacy, it needs a published or shown comparison.

The soundness is otherwise fine. The models are anchored to external CLAS transition form factor data and to PCAC/pion pole arguments. The self-citation pattern is heavy, but in a review that summarizes the author's own program it is not a red flag. The circularity burden is low, as you said.

Bottom line: this is a competent, honest survey of an active program. It will be useful to people entering transition-GPD work or planning CLAS/JLab analyses. It is not a paper that changes anyone's mind, and the central consistency claim rests on a premise the paper itself admits is unestablished. A referee should engage with it—mainly to ask for either a quantitative comparison or a more guarded conclusion. I would not desk-reject it.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper, a HADRON2025 proceedings contribution, discusses non-diagonal deeply virtual Compton scattering (DVCS), e^- N -> e^- gamma pi N, as a probe of nucleon-to-resonance transition GPDs. It defines the process and its generalized Bjorken kinematics, reviews the existing models for N -> Delta(1232) and N* = P11(1440), D13(1520), S11(1535) transition GPDs, and shows cross-section and beam-spin-asymmetry (BSA) estimates for CLAS12 kinematics taken from Ref. [4]. The central phenomenological claim is that the model of Ref. [4] is 'reasonably consistent' with preliminary CLAS BSA data for gamma* p -> gamma pi+ n, which the paper takes as evidence that the transition GPD approach provides an adequate description. An outlook section sketches future directions involving N -> pi N GPDs and Froissart-Gribov projections of Compton form factors.

Significance. If the transition GPD interpretation is correct, the paper points to a genuinely new window into the quark-gluon structure of nucleon resonances, including spin-J probes beyond the usual photon and gravitational form factors. The synthesis of the formalism and the concrete CLAS12 estimates are useful, and the paper is honest in referring to the underlying model papers for details. The explicit connection to the Roper puzzle and to exotics is also valuable. However, the validation of the approach rests on an assumed collinear factorization for a resonant final state and on a data comparison that is only referenced through preliminary results; both need to be made explicit or quantified before the central claim can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 2, after Eq. (2)] The manuscript states that a collinear factorized description in terms of transition GPDs applies to gamma* N -> gamma R, with R a fixed-mass resonance, in the generalized Bjorken limit. However, no factorization theorem has been established for a final-state hadronic resonance (in contrast to diagonal DVCS). The text itself immediately notes that the process 'probes a soft excitation of R by a low energy QCD string' and is 'more analogous to R photoproduction.' At the kinematics used for Fig. 2 (Q2 = 2.3 GeV^2), power corrections are not obviously negligible. Since the conclusion in Sec. 3 that the model-data consistency indicates adequacy of the transition GPD approach presupposes this factorization, the paper should either substantiate the factorization premise or explicitly qualify the conclusion as being conditional on a leading-twist, factorization-based interpretation.
[Sec. 3, paragraph after Fig. 2] The sole phenomenological validation is the statement that the model of Ref. [4] is 'reasonably good consistency' with preliminary CLAS BSA data from [6]. No data-model overlay, chi-square, or other quantitative measure is provided, and the cited data are preliminary and not shown. This makes the central claim not independently checkable from the manuscript. The authors should either include a direct comparison plot, provide the quantitative metric used for 'reasonable consistency', or clearly state that the comparison is qualitative and refer the reader to a public or forthcoming CLAS publication.
[Fig. 2 and model uncertainties] The bands in Fig. 2 represent the variation between model I (b=infinity) and model II (b=1) within the double-distribution Ansatz, i.e., a two-point model spread rather than a full systematic uncertainty. The paper also has free parameters such as the electromagnetic transition form-factor normalizations. Since the conclusion is about the adequacy of the model and its consistency with data, the authors should specify what the bands do and do not cover, and whether the claimed consistency holds for the individual resonance contributions or only for the incoherent sum of all four resonances. This is essential for judging whether the agreement is a robust test of the transition GPD picture.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (2) and surrounding text] The sentence following Eq. (2) appears to have a missing symbol: 'where and [0;z] stand' should presumably read 'where psi(0) and [0;z] stand'.
[Throughout] There are many missing spaces and LaTeX artifacts, e.g., 'GeneralizedPartonDistributions', 'FirstMeasurement', and 'The21st International Conference'. A careful proofread would improve readability.
[References] The DOI for Ref. [7] appears malformed ('10.1103/tt7s-p9gj'), and Ref. [9] is listed as '2008, unpublished'; if this proposal has now appeared in another form, it should be updated.
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption states 'The thin (thick) curves represent the result of models I and II' but the main text refers to 'thin (thick)' curves; please clarify which line style corresponds to which model, since the figure as reproduced is not fully legible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper's evaluative claim rests on an externally calibrated model compared with external CLAS data, not on a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper is a proceedings-style review whose main substantive evaluative statement is that the phenomenological model of Ref. [4] is 'reasonably consistent' with preliminary CLAS beam-spin asymmetry data, indicating that the transition GPD approach provides an adequate description (Sec. 3, after Fig. 2). This is not a derivation: the model was constructed in prior work using external constraints (electromagnetic transition form factors [13], VGG nucleon GPDs, PCAC, double-distribution ansatz) and there is no indication in the text that it was fitted to the BSA observable with which it is compared. The comparison is to external CLAS data [5,6]. Heavy self-citation is present (Refs. [4,6,9,12,14,17,18,19] involve the author or close collaborators), but the cited results are either peer-reviewed publications or externally falsifiable empirical constraints, so this does not constitute circularity. The most fragile premise — collinear factorization for gamma* N -> gamma R with a resonant final state — is explicitly flagged by the paper itself as only analogous to hard electroproduction, not established; this is an unproven assumption and a correctness risk, not a circular step. No equation in the text reduces by construction to an input of the same paper, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Hence score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters and no invented entities; it assembles models whose parameters were fixed in prior work. The axioms listed are the physical premises the reviewed estimates depend on: collinear factorization for the non-diagonal process, large-N_c/SU(6) relations, PCAC plus pion pole dominance, the dispersive Froissart-Gribov framework, and Watson's theorem. Each is drawn from the cited literature rather than from this text.

free parameters (2)

double distribution profile parameter b = infinity (model I), 1 (model II)
Controls the x and xi dependence of the N to R transition GPDs in the estimates of Fig. 2; adopted from Ref. [4] and not fitted in this paper.
N to N* electromagnetic transition form-factor normalizations = set by CLAS@6 GeV data via Ref. [13]
Sec. 3 states the unpolarized transition GPDs are constrained by data on electromagnetic transition FFs [13], so the model estimates inherit parameters fitted to external data.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Collinear factorization applies to non-diagonal DVCS in the generalized Bjorken limit with M_pi-gamma of order Q^2 while t and M_pi N stay at the hadronic scale
Sec. 2, description of reaction (1); the paper itself notes the process probes a soft resonance excitation, making this assumption nontrivial.
domain assumption N to Delta transition form factors satisfy SU(6)/large-N_c relations, G_M(0) = 2 sqrt(2)/3 mu_p
Sec. 2, used to give physical content to N to Delta transition GPDs and transition FF images.
domain assumption Polarized N to N* GPDs are governed by PCAC and pion pole dominance
Sec. 3, constraint used to build the phenomenological models for P11(1440), D13(1520), S11(1535) transition GPDs in Ref. [4].
domain assumption Froissart-Gribov projections of Compton form factors extract spin-J response functions from the absorptive part of the DVCS amplitude
Sec. 4, Outlook; relies on the dispersive representation and cross-channel partial wave expansion, citing Refs. [18,19].
domain assumption Watson final-state-interaction theorem permits dispersive continuation from the chiral regime to the resonance regime for N to pi N GPDs
Sec. 4, Outlook; proposed future development citing Refs. [16,17].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-diagonal DVCS and studies of hadronic structure with $N \to N^*$ transition GPDs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CSP4DING

@misc{pith2026250901114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-diagonal DVCS and studies of hadronic structure with $N \to N^*$ transition GPDs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CSP4DING}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01114}
}

abstract

Transition generalized parton distributions (GPDs) describe matrix elements of nonlocal partonic QCD operators between the ground and excited baryon states and provide new tools for quantifying and interpreting the structure of baryon resonances in QCD. We discuss a description of non-diagonal Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering process involving a transition between a nucleon and a nucleon resonance in the $\pi N$ system within the framework of transition GPDs. We address the physical content of $N \to N^*$ and $N \to \Delta$ transition GPDs, review the existing theoretical models and present theoretical estimates of related observables for the kinematic conditions corresponding to the experimental studies with JLab@12GeV. We also discuss the perspective of exploring resonance production with help of transition GPDs and consider the application of the Froissart-Gribov projections to study excitation of nucleon resonances by means of QCD probes with spin-$J$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01114 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Non-diagonal DVCS involving a transition from nucleon to an excited nucleon state 𝑅 = Δ, 𝑁∗ . Corresponding hard subprocess may be seen as excitation of a nucleon resonance by a non-local QCD string operator (2), which can be expanded into a tower of local probes of arbitrary spin-𝐽. since the invariant momentum transfer from the QCD string to the target nucleon, 𝑡 = (𝑞1 − 𝑞2) 2 , is of hadronic mass scale. Therefor… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Dependence on the invariant mass of the 𝜋 +𝑛 system (𝑀𝜋 𝑁 ) of the 𝑒 − 𝑝 → 𝑒 −𝛾𝑅 → 𝑒 −𝛾𝜋+𝑛 cross section and corresponding BSA, integrated over the decay pion solid angle, with the cut 𝑀𝜋𝛾 > 1 GeV, for the kinematics accessible at CLAS12@JLab. Magenta dotted curves: BH + DVCS process for 𝑅 = Δ(1232); red dashed curves and red bands: BH + DVCS process for 𝑅 = 𝐷13 (1520); blue dashed-dotted curves and blue bands: BH +… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[6]

Exploring Baryon Resonances with Transition Generalized Parton Distributions: Status and Perspectives

S. Diehl, K. Joo, K. Semenov-Tian-Shansky, C. Weiss,et al. Exploring baryon resonances with transition generalized parton distributions: status and perspectivesEur. Phys. J. A61 (2025) no.6, 131. doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01552-2 [arXiv:2405.15386 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[4]

K. M. Semenov-Tian-Shansky and M. Vanderhaeghen, Deeply virtual Compton process 𝑒−𝑁→ 𝑒−𝛾𝜋𝑁 to study nucleon to resonance transitions, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) no.3, 034021, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.034021 [arXiv:2303.00119 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[1]

K.Goeke,M.V.PolyakovandM.Vanderhaeghen, Hardexclusivereactionsandthestructure of hadrons, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.47 (2001), 401-515 doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(01)00158-2 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106012 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2001
[2]

Lorcé, A

C. Lorcé, A. Metz, B. Pasquini and P. Schweitzer,Parton Distribution Functions and their Generalizations, arXiv:2507.12664 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[3]

Diehl,Experimental exploration of the 3D nucleon structure, Prog

S. Diehl,Experimental exploration of the 3D nucleon structure, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.133, 104069 (2023), doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104069. 6 Non-diagonal DVCS and studies of hadronic structure Kirill Semenov-Tian-Shansky

work page arXiv 2023
[5]

First measurement of hard exclusive $\pi^- \Delta^{++}$ electroproduction beam-spin asymmetries off the proton

S. Diehl et al. [CLAS], First Measurement of Hard Exclusive 𝜋−Δ++ Electroproduc- tion Beam-Spin Asymmetries off the Proton, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.2, 021901 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.021901 [arXiv:2303.11762 [hep-ex]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[7]

S.Owa,D.B.LeinweberandA.W.Thomas, Nucleonresonancestructureupto2GeVandthe natureoftheRoperresonance ,Phys.Rev.D 111,no.11,116002(2025)doi:10.1103/tt7s-p9gj [arXiv:2503.09945 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[8]

R.A.Arndt,W.J.Briscoe,I.I.StrakovskyandR.L.Workman, Extendedpartial-waveanalysis of 𝜋𝑁 scattering data, Phys. Rev. C74, 045205 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.74.045205 [arXiv:nucl-th/0605082 [nucl-th]]

arXiv 2006

Show all 20 references

[9]

Amarian, M.V

M. Amarian, M.V. Polyakov, K.M. Semenov-Tian-Shansky, I. Strakovsky,Baryon spec- troscopy in non-diagonal DVCS, 2008, unpublished

2008
[10]

C. E. Carlson and M. Vanderhaeghen, Empirical transverse charge densities in the nucleon and the nucleon-to- Δ transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 032004 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.032004 [arXiv:0710.0835 [hep-ph]]

2008 arXiv
[11]

J.Y.Kim,H.Y.Won,J.L.GoityandC.Weiss, QCDangularmomentumin 𝑁→Δtransitions, Phys. Lett. B844, 138083 (2023). doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138083 [arXiv:2304.08575 [hep-ph]]

2023
[12]

doi:10.1103/m4vj-bkqy [arXiv:2501.00185 [hep-ph]]

J.Y.Kim,K.M.Semenov-Tian-Shansky,H.Y.Won,S.SonandC.Weiss, Completedefinition of𝑁→Δtransitiongeneralizedpartondistributions ,Phys.Rev.D 111(2025)no.11,114010. doi:10.1103/m4vj-bkqy [arXiv:2501.00185 [hep-ph]]

2025
[13]

Ramalho and M

G. Ramalho and M. T. Peña, Electromagnetic transition form factors of baryon res- onances, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 136, 104097 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2024.104097 [arXiv:2306.13900 [hep-ph]]

2024
[14]

P. A. M. Guichon, L. Mossé and M. Vanderhaeghen,Pion production in deeply virtual Compton scattering , Phys. Rev. D68, 034018 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.034018 [arXiv:hep-ph/0305231 [hep-ph]]

2003 arXiv
[15]

M. V. Polyakov and S. Stratmann,Soft Pion Emission in Hard Exclusive Pion Production, arXiv:hep-ph/0609045 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[16]

Alharazin, B

H. Alharazin, B. D. Sun, E. Epelbaum, J. Gegelia and U. G. Meißner, Gravita- tional 𝑝→ Δ+ transition form factors in chiral perturbation theory, JHEP03, 007 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2024)007 [arXiv:2312.05193 [hep-ph]]. 7 Non-diagonal DVCS and studies of hadronic structure Ki...

2024 arXiv
[17]

Son and K

S. Son and K. M. Semenov-Tian-Shansky, Non-diagonal DVCS and transition GPDs: a unified framework for spinless hadron case 𝛾∗𝜋 → 𝛾𝜋𝜋, JHEP 01 (2025), 119. doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2025)119 [arXiv:2410.11388 [hep-ph]]

2025 arXiv
[18]

Müller, M

D. Müller, M. V. Polyakov and K. M. Semenov-Tian-Shansky,Dual parametrization of generalized parton distributions in two equivalent representations, JHEP 03, 052 (2015), doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2015)052 [arXiv:1412.4165 [hep-ph]]

2015 arXiv
[19]

K. M. Semenov-Tian-Shansky and P. Sznajder,Systematic description of hadron’s response to nonlocal QCD probes: Froissart-Gribov projections in analysis of deeply virtual Comp- ton scattering, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) no.5, 054010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.054010 [arXiv:2312.0962...

2024
[20]

Moutarde, P

H. Moutarde, P. Sznajder and J. Wagner, Unbiased determination of DVCS Compton Form Factors, Eur. Phys. J. C79, no.7, 614 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7117-5 [arXiv:1905.02089 [hep-ph]]. 8

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [6]

Exploring Baryon Resonances with Transition Generalized Parton Distributions: Status and Perspectives

S. Diehl, K. Joo, K. Semenov-Tian-Shansky, C. Weiss,et al. Exploring baryon resonances with transition generalized parton distributions: status and perspectivesEur. Phys. J. A61 (2025) no.6, 131. doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-025-01552-2 [arXiv:2405.15386 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[2] [4]

K. M. Semenov-Tian-Shansky and M. Vanderhaeghen, Deeply virtual Compton process 𝑒−𝑁→ 𝑒−𝛾𝜋𝑁 to study nucleon to resonance transitions, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) no.3, 034021, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.034021 [arXiv:2303.00119 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[3] [1]

K.Goeke,M.V.PolyakovandM.Vanderhaeghen, Hardexclusivereactionsandthestructure of hadrons, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.47 (2001), 401-515 doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(01)00158-2 [arXiv:hep-ph/0106012 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2001

[4] [2]

Lorcé, A

C. Lorcé, A. Metz, B. Pasquini and P. Schweitzer,Parton Distribution Functions and their Generalizations, arXiv:2507.12664 [hep-ph]

arXiv

[5] [3]

Diehl,Experimental exploration of the 3D nucleon structure, Prog

S. Diehl,Experimental exploration of the 3D nucleon structure, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.133, 104069 (2023), doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104069. 6 Non-diagonal DVCS and studies of hadronic structure Kirill Semenov-Tian-Shansky

work page arXiv 2023

[6] [5]

First measurement of hard exclusive $\pi^- \Delta^{++}$ electroproduction beam-spin asymmetries off the proton

S. Diehl et al. [CLAS], First Measurement of Hard Exclusive 𝜋−Δ++ Electroproduc- tion Beam-Spin Asymmetries off the Proton, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.2, 021901 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.021901 [arXiv:2303.11762 [hep-ex]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[7] [7]

S.Owa,D.B.LeinweberandA.W.Thomas, Nucleonresonancestructureupto2GeVandthe natureoftheRoperresonance ,Phys.Rev.D 111,no.11,116002(2025)doi:10.1103/tt7s-p9gj [arXiv:2503.09945 [hep-ph]]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[8] [8]

R.A.Arndt,W.J.Briscoe,I.I.StrakovskyandR.L.Workman, Extendedpartial-waveanalysis of 𝜋𝑁 scattering data, Phys. Rev. C74, 045205 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.74.045205 [arXiv:nucl-th/0605082 [nucl-th]]

arXiv 2006