Nucleon tensor form factors at large $N_{c}$

Ho-Yeon Won; Hyun-Chul Kim; June-Young Kim; Nam-Yong Ghim

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Nucleon tensor form factors at large $N_{c}$

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the large-$N_c$ pion mean-field picture, valence quarks carry the nucleon's tensor charge and anomalous tensor magnetic moment while the sea-quark-dominated tensor quadrupole moment strengthens sharply near the chiral limit.

desk verdict Genuinely new Q_T prediction in a solid large-Nc mean-field framework, but the headline number rides on unquantified sea-quark scheme choices. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12241 v1 pith:AJ5YSN5Z submitted 2025-01-21 hep-ph

Nam-Yong Ghim , Ho-Yeon Won , June-Young Kim , Hyun-Chul Kim This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords nucleontensorformfactorslargeN_cQCDpionmean-fieldmodelchargequadrupolemomentanomalousmagneticchiral-oddgeneralizedpartondistributionsDiracsea

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

The paper tries to establish a complete, numerically reliable picture of the nucleon's tensor (chiral-odd) structure in the large-$N_c$ limit of QCD, where the nucleon is a bound state of $N_c$ valence quarks in a self-consistently generated pion mean field. Working strictly at leading order in $1/N_c$, it computes the three tensor form factors and their forward limits: the tensor charge $g^{u-d}_T = 0.99$, the anomalous tensor magnetic moment $\kappa^{u+d}_T = 7.61$, and the tensor quadrupole moment $Q^{u-d}_T = -7.02$, which had not been computed before. The central dynamical claim is a split: the charge and the magnetic moment are carried almost entirely by valence (discrete-level) quarks, while the quadrupole receives more than half of its value from the Dirac sea and strengthens sharply as the pion mass approaches zero. The paper also derives the large-$N_c$ relation $2\tilde{H}^{u-d}_T = -E^{u-d}_T + O(N_c^1)$, corrects an earlier inconsistent regularization of the tensor magnetic moment, and shows that the framework interpolates between the non-relativistic quark model and the Skyrme model as the mean-field size is varied. If the picture is right, it supplies predictions that lattice QCD can check directly, especially the sign and magnitude of the tensor quadrupole moment and its chiral enhancement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pion mean-field picture of the nucleon (the chiral quark-soliton model): in the large-$N_c$ limit the nucleon is a self-consistent hedgehog soliton, with $N_c$ quarks occupying a discrete level plus the negative-energy Dirac continuum, quantized by zero-mode rotations that give the nucleon spin and isospin. The argument runs through three mean-field form factors $F_{\mathrm{mf},L}$ (monopole, dipole, quadrupole), obtained as multipole projections of the tensor current onto the quark single-particle states and matched to $H_T$, $E_T$, $\tilde{H}_T$ at leading $1/N_c$ order. The Dirac-sea contributions, which dominate the quadrupole, are computed by summing occupied levels up to $k_{\max} \approx 4\ \mathrm{GeV}$ and then replacing the long-distance tails of the 3D densities at $r \approx 1$-$2\ \mathrm{fm}$ with gradient-expansion expressions derived from the fermion determinant; no UV regularization is needed because the tensor matrix element comes from the anomalous part of the determinant and is UV finite.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD determination of the tensor quadrupole moment $Q^{u-d}_T = 2\tilde{H}^{u-d}_T(0)$ at physical and heavier pion masses would settle the matter: the paper predicts $Q^{u-d}_T = -7.02$ at $m_\pi = 140\ \mathrm{MeV}$ and a strong rise toward the chiral limit ($-17.38$ from the gradient expansion), with the Dirac sea supplying more than half of the value, so a lattice result that is small, of the opposite sign, or nearly flat in the pion mass would falsify the sea-quark-dominance and chiral-enhancement claims. A second check is the relation $2\tilde{H}^{u-d}_T = -E^{u-d}_T$ at finite momentum transfer, which should hold up to $1/N_c$ corrections if the leading-order large-$N_c$ reduction is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At leading order in the $1/N_c$ expansion the nucleon matrix element of the antisymmetric tensor current reduces to three mean-field multipole form factors $F^{u-d}_{\mathrm{mf},0}$, $F^{u+d}_{\mathrm{mf},1}$, and $F^{u-d}_{\mathrm{mf},2}$, which map one-to-one onto the covariant form factors $H_T$, $E_T$, and $\tilde{H}_T$. In the forward limit the monopole is the tensor charge, the dipole combination $E_T + 2\tilde{H}_T$ is the anomalous tensor magnetic moment, and the quadrupole $2\tilde{H}_T$ is the tensor quadrupole moment. Numerically the paper finds $g^{u-d}_T = 0.99$ and $\kappa^{u+d}_T = 7.61$ with valence-quark dominance (the discrete level supplies 0.88 and 6.92 respectively), and $Q^{u-d}_T = -7.02$ with the Dirac sea supplying more than half of the value (3.94 of 7.02). From the $N_c$ scalings $\{H^{u-d}_T, E^{u-d}_T, \tilde{H}^{u-d}_T\} \sim \{N_c, N_c^3, N_c^3\}$ the paper derives the nontrivial relation $2\tilde{H}^{u-d}_T = -E^{u-d}_T + O(N_c^1)$, and it shows that the quadrupole tensor distribution falls off as $1/r^4$ at large $r$, more slowly than the monopole and dipole distributions, which drives the strong enhancement of $Q_T$ toward the chiral limit. The tensor charge agrees with lattice QCD, the relation is supported by a recent lattice study, and the quadrupole moment is offered as a new, testable prediction.

Load-bearing premise

The central numbers rest on the numerical treatment of the Dirac sea — summing occupied quark levels up to $k_{\max} \approx 4\ \mathrm{GeV}$ and replacing the long-distance tails of the densities with gradient-expansion forms at $r \approx 1$-$2\ \mathrm{fm}$, preferring the unrefined energy sum over the refined intermediate-cutoff extrapolation — so if that procedure is not robust, the quadrupole moment $Q_T$ and its chiral enhancement shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

$g^{u-d}_T = 0.99$ at the intrinsic scale $\mu \approx 600\ \mathrm{MeV}$ sits between the two lattice values the paper quotes (0.97(3)(2) and 1.11(2)), so lattice QCD can test the framework's scale and flavor content.
The large-$N_c$ relation $2\tilde{H}^{u-d}_T = -E^{u-d}_T + O(N_c^1)$ fixes the ratio of two tensor form factors and can be checked form-factor by form-factor, not only in the forward limit.
$Q^{u-d}_T = -7.02$ is a new prediction with no prior mean-field value; a lattice measurement of $\tilde{H}_T$ at zero momentum transfer can confirm or exclude the sea-quark dominance and the near-chiral enhancement.
$\kappa^{u+d}_T = 7.61$ corrects the older value of Ref. [53], whose regularized Dirac-sea contribution of 0.05 is replaced by 0.69 without regularization; the paper traces the discrepancy to an inconsistent regularization scheme.
As the mean-field size $R$ is varied, the framework moves between the non-relativistic quark model, where only the tensor charge survives with value $N_c/3$, and the Skyrme limit, where the higher moments scale as powers of $R$.

Reading between the lines

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

If lattice QCD confirms the strong chiral enhancement of $Q_T$, the tensor quadrupole moment would become a sharper probe of sea-quark and pion-cloud dynamics than the tensor charge, whose insensitivity to $m_\pi$ the paper itself demonstrates.
A concrete robustness test the paper does not perform is to recompute $Q_T$ with several tail-matching radii and box sizes and quote the spread as a systematic uncertainty, since Appendix B shows the refined extrapolation already underestimates the quadrupole.
Verified at nonzero momentum transfer, the relation $2\tilde{H}^{u-d}_T = -E^{u-d}_T$ would constrain chiral-odd GPD models generally; the paper notes that the same pattern appears in the bag-model extraction it compares with.
The same spin-flavor machinery can be turned on the $N \to \Delta$ transition and $\Delta$ tensor form factors, which the paper lists as an extension; those predictions would use the same numerical input and could be compared with future lattice data.

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

The thing to know: this is a clean, workmanlike large-Nc chiral-soliton calculation of the nucleon's tensor form factors. The genuinely new physics is the tensor quadrupole moment Q_T^{u-d}=-7.02 and its strong chiral enhancement, plus a corrected Dirac-sea contribution to kappa_T^{u+d}. The large-Nc relation (51) is a re-derivation of Kim-Weiss, but the numerical Q_T value and its pion-mass dependence are new.

The paper does several things well. The multipole decomposition in both the 3D Breit frame and the 2D Drell-Yan-West frame is careful and physically transparent. The spin-flavor reduction is internally consistent and yields the correct leading-Nc structure. The interpolation between non-relativistic quark model and Skyrme limits is instructive, and the pion-mass dependence in Table II is a nice qualitative result. The revised sea contribution to kappa_T (0.69 vs 0.05 in Ref. [53]) is a legitimate correction to a previous calculation; the paper gives a plausible argument for why the old numbers were inconsistent.

The soft spot is exactly where the reader puts it. Q_T is the load-bearing observable, and the Dirac sea carries more than half of it. Two numerical choices are not quantified. First, the long-distance tails of the densities are replaced by gradient-expansion forms at r ~ 1-2 fm (Sec. IV), and no sensitivity to that matching radius is reported. Since rho_2T ~ 1/r^4, the tail integral scales like 1/Rmatch, so the variation between 1 and 2 fm is not negligible. Second, Appendix B shows the refined intermediate-cutoff extrapolation gives a smaller Q_T than the unrefined kmax sum, and the authors prefer the unrefined result for chiral-dynamics reasons. That is a defensible judgment, but the two methods disagree precisely in the new observable, and the spread never appears as a systematic uncertainty. g_T and kappa_T are much less exposed because their sea pieces are ~10%, and the g_T comparison with lattice is reasonable. The paper also quotes no error bars at all, which is common in this framework but worth saying.

Who it's for: hadron-structure people working on chiral-odd GPDs and large-Nc methods. It deserves a serious referee; the right response is not rejection but a request for robustness checks on Q_T. I would send it to review, and I would cite it as a benchmark even while noting the scheme dependence.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates nucleon tensor form factors (H_T, tilde H_T, E_T) in the large-N_c pion mean-field approach derived from the instanton vacuum. It performs a multipole decomposition in the 3D Breit frame and the 2D Drell-Yan-West frame, derives the spin-flavor structure and N_c scaling of the mean-field form factors, and obtains a large-N_c relation 2 tilde H_T^{u-d} = -E_T^{u-d}+O(N_c^1). The authors compute the forward tensor moments at m_pi=140 MeV: g_T^{u-d}=0.99, kappa_T^{u+d}=7.61, and Q_T^{u-d}=-7.02, with discrete-level and Dirac-sea contributions separated in Table I. They also study the dependence on the mean-field size R, interpolating between non-relativistic quark and Skyrme limits, and the pion-mass dependence, finding that Q_T^{u-d} is strongly enhanced near the chiral limit. The numerical strategy combines a finite-box diagonalization of the quark Hamiltonian with a tail replacement using gradient-expansion densities at large r; Appendix B discusses an alternative intermediate-cutoff extrapolation that the authors do not adopt.

Significance. If the numerical results are robust, the paper provides a quantitative tensor charge consistent with lattice QCD, a corrected anomalous tensor magnetic moment, and a previously uncalculated tensor quadrupole moment with a distinctive chiral enhancement. Its analytic multipole decomposition and explicit N_c scaling are valuable and internally consistent, and the derivation of the large-N_c relation (51) is a useful addition to the chiral-odd GPD literature. The paper is self-contained in re-deriving the spin-flavor structure rather than merely importing it from Ref. [50], and the gradient-expansion analysis provides an independent check of the long-distance behavior. The main weakness is that the central value of the new observable Q_T^{u-d} depends on numerical choices that are not converted into a systematic uncertainty.

major comments (3)

[§IV, Table I, Appendix B] The headline prediction Q_T^{u-d}=-7.02 is not robust as presented. Table I attributes 3.94 of the 7.02 to the Dirac sea, which is exactly the part of the calculation where Appendix B shows the two numerical procedures disagree: the unrefined kmax ~ 4 GeV sum and the intermediate-cutoff extrapolation give different results for Q_T (Fig. 3), and the authors state that they prefer the unrefined result for chiral-dynamics reasons. No systematic uncertainty is assigned to this choice, and the tail-matching radius used in Section IV (about 1-2 fm) is never varied. Since Eq. (77c) gives rho_2T ~ 1/r^4, the tail integral from the matching radius to infinity scales as ~1/Rmatch, so the quoted Q_T is potentially sensitive to the choice of matching radius. The authors should provide a sensitivity study with respect to the matching radius, kmax, and the summation method, and translate the spread into an error bar on Q_T and on the chiral-enhancement claim.
[§IV and Eq. (84)] The comparison with lattice QCD is made without applying the scale evolution that the paper itself quotes in Eq. (84). The model results are defined at the intrinsic scale mu0 ~ 600 MeV, whereas the lattice determinations of Refs. [40,41] are renormalized at substantially different scales. The statement that g_T^{u-d}=0.99 is in good agreement with the lattice value 0.97(3)(2) therefore relies on an unstated assumption about the evolution and about the treatment of the different pion masses. The authors should either evolve the model results to the lattice scale using Eq. (84), evolve the lattice values down to mu0, or explicitly estimate the scale uncertainty in the comparison.
[§IV and Eq. (51)] The claimed lattice support for the large-N_c relation (51) is only qualitative. The text says that Ref. [79] supports 2 tilde H_T^{u-d} = -E_T^{u-d}, but no lattice values of E_T and tilde H_T at a common scale and pion mass are given, and no quantitative comparison, such as a plot of the combination 2 tilde H_T + E_T, is provided. Since this relation is one of the paper's central results, the authors should either show the lattice data against their prediction or explicitly label the statement as a qualitative observation.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] There are several typos and language errors, including 'desribing' in the Introduction, 'mutipole' in Section II A, 'unambigious' in Section II, 'justfied' in Section III A, and 'kinamtical' in Section V C; these should be corrected.
[Fig. 1] The vertical axis is unlabeled, and the legend entries 'g_T × 10', 'kappa_T', '-Q_T' do not make clear what is actually plotted; please add axis labels with units and clarify the scaling.
[Eq. (60b)] The form factor is written F^{u+d}_{1,mf}, while the rest of the paper uses F^{u+d}_{mf,1}; please unify the ordering of subscripts.
[Eq. (82)] The label 'Non-regularized' is confusing because the paper uses proper-time regularization for the level sum and the unrefined method in Appendix B; please define precisely which regularization, if any, is applied to the Dirac-sea contribution in each case.
[Table I and Table II] The column 'Gradient (m_pi=0)' is compared with physical-pion-mass results, but the chiral-limit results of the full calculation in Table II differ substantially (e.g., kappa_T: 4.25 versus 7.81; -Q_T: 17.38 versus 12.59). A sentence explaining the expected accuracy of the gradient expansion at MR ~ 1 would prevent confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tensor moments are computed outputs of a mean-field framework, and the one self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The tensor moments in Table I are outputs, not inputs: the only parameters fixed before the calculation are the dynamical quark mass M = 350 MeV (from the instanton vacuum), the current quark mass and UV cutoff m = 16 MeV and Lambda = 643 MeV, which are fixed by reproducing f_pi = 93 MeV and m_pi = 140 MeV, and the resulting classical nucleon mass M_N = 1254 MeV; none of these are adjusted to g_T, kappa_T, or Q_T. The spin-flavor decomposition (40)-(42) is re-derived in this paper from the quantized mean-field matrix element (36), and the text explicitly states that the result is consistent with, rather than imported from, the authors' earlier Ref. [50]; therefore the self-citation is not load-bearing. The large-Nc relation (51) follows algebraically from Eq. (48) via E_T^{u-d} = F_{mf,2}^{u-d} and Htilde_T^{u-d} = -1/2 F_{mf,2}^{u-d}, and its agreement with lattice QCD [79] is an external check. The gradient-expansion tail replacement and the preference for the unrefined kmax sum are numerical scheme choices that affect the Dirac-sea contribution to Q_T; this is a robustness or correctness concern, not a circularity, because the scheme is not fitted to reproduce the quoted tensor moments.

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

The calculation rests on a well-established but model-dependent framework: the large-Nc soliton picture, the effective chiral action from the instanton vacuum, and a numerical finite-box spectrum. No new entities are introduced. The main free parameters are M, Lambda, m, and R; none are fitted to the tensor moments. The least-controlled input is the arctangent profile ansatz used for the R-scan and chiral-limit gradient expansion.

free parameters (4)

Dynamical quark mass M = 350 MeV
Input from the instanton vacuum; not fitted to tensor observables, but it sets the scale of the mean field and of all computed tensor moments.
UV cutoff Lambda (proper-time regularization) = 643 MeV
Selected together with m to reproduce f_pi=93 MeV and m_pi=140 MeV (Section IV). Not fitted to the tensor results.
Current quark mass m = 16 MeV
Fixed by the physical pion mass in the same fitting step as Lambda; controls explicit chiral symmetry breaking.
Average pion mean-field size R = MR ~ 1 physical; varied over 0 to 1.8 in Fig. 1
Physical value is set by self-consistency or Eq. (74). Higher multipole moments scale like R^L, so the central Q_T value is sensitive to R.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The nucleon is a self-consistent pion mean-field soliton with N_c valence quarks occupying the discrete level and negative continuum.
Section III.A; this is the core large-Nc picture taken from Refs. [44,45]. If false, the whole form-factor calculation does not apply.
domain assumption The instanton-vacuum effective chiral action with a constant dynamical quark mass and a UV cutoff approximates QCD at the 600 MeV scale.
Section III; determines the quark propagator and loop sums. This is a model assumption, not derived in this paper.
ad hoc to paper The arctangent profile P(r)=2 arctan[R^2/r^2 (1+m_pi r) e^{-m_pi r}] represents the mean field for the R-variation and gradient-expansion studies.
Eq. (73); used for Fig. 1 and the gradient-expansion values Eq. (78). It is an ansatz, not the self-consistent solution.
domain assumption Zero-mode quantization at leading order in 1/N_c gives the nucleon quantum numbers with S=T=1/2.
Section III.B; treats rotational and translational zero modes to zeroth order, neglecting O(1/N_c) rotational corrections.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nucleon tensor form factors at large $N_{c}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AJ5YSN5Z

@misc{pith2026250112241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nucleon tensor form factors at large $N_c$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AJ5YSN5Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12241}
}

abstract

We investigate nucleon tensor form factors in the large-$N_{c}$ limit. In this picture, the nucleon emerges as a state of the $N_c$ valence quarks, which were bound by pion mean fields that were created by the presence of the valence quarks self-consistently. We find that the tensor charge ($g^{u-d}_{T}=0.99$) and the anomalous tensor magnetic moment ($\kappa^{u+d}_{T}=7.61$) are dominated by valence quarks, while the tensor quadrupole moment ($Q^{u-d}_{T}=-7.02$) shows significant sea quark effects. We examine how these quantities vary as the average size of the pion mean field is changed, showing interpolation between non-relativistic quark and Skyrme limits. We also observe that $g^{u-d}_{T}$ and $\kappa^{u+d}_{T}$ depend weakly on the pion mass. In contrast, $Q^{u-d}_{T}$ exhibits strong enhancement near the chiral limit. The numerical results are in good agreement with available lattice QCD data and provide predictions for unmeasured quantities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12241 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Tensor multipole moments as a function of the pion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

Chiral-odd generalized parton distributions in the large-$N_{c}$ limit of QCD: Next-to-leading-order contributions
hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Derives the NLO (1/Nc) chiral-odd GPDs in the pion mean-field picture, proves polynomiality and sum rules, and gives gradient-expansion estimates partially matching lattice QCD.
Gravitational form factors of the nucleon in the Skyrme model based on scale-invariant chiral perturbation theory
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A Skyrme model with a dilaton field attributes the proton's negative internal pressure and confining force to the gluonic scale anomaly, and reproduces the lattice QCD D(t) form factor.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[53]

H.-C. Kim, M. V. Polyakov, and K. Goeke, Phys. Rev. D 53, 4715 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9509283

arXiv 1996
[50]

Symmetry conserving approach to the quantization of the non-topological SU(3) soliton

M. Praszalowicz, T. Watabe, and K. Goeke, Nucl. Phys. A 647, 49 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9806431

work page Pith review arXiv 1999
[79]

Pascalutsa, M

V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen, and S. N. Yang, Phys. Rept. 437, 125 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0609004

arXiv 2007
[1]

When M Rreaches about 1.5, the discrete level quark merges with the Dirac sea. Examining these results, we have the following observations: (i) As R decreases below the physical value ( M R < 1), the tensor charge gu−d T [lev], proportional to f 2 0 + (1/3)f 2 1 , remains almost stable. This stability results from the dominance of the non-relativistic com...
[2]

Goeke, M

K. Goeke, M. V. Polyakov, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 47, 401 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0106012

arXiv 2001
[3]

hedgehog

(8) The operator ˆM can be either a unit operator 1 or a component of the spin operatorS = σ/2. In this context, the representations of the spin states in the 3D expansion are related to the orbital angular momentum L ˆM =1 (L = 0), σi (L = 1). (9) Using Eqs. (6) and (9), we perform the 3D multipole expansion of Eq. (2) for the separate 3D 0 k- and ij- co...
[4]

X.-D. Ji, J. Phys. G 24, 1181 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9807358

arXiv 1998
[5]

Diehl, Phys

M. Diehl, Phys. Rept. 388, 41 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0307382

arXiv 2003

Show all 87 references

[6]

A. V. Belitsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rept. 418, 1 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504030

2005 arXiv
[7]

Boffi and B

S. Boffi and B. Pasquini, Riv. Nuovo Cim.30, 387 (2007), arXiv:0711.2625 [hep-ph]

2007 arXiv
[8]

Guidal, H

M. Guidal, H. Moutarde, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Rept. Prog. Phys. 76, 066202 (2013), arXiv:1303.6600 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[9]

Kumericki, S

K. Kumericki, S. Liuti, and H. Moutarde, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 157 (2016), arXiv:1602.02763 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[10]

d’Hose, S

N. d’Hose, S. Niccolai, and A. Rostomyan, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 151 (2016)

2016
[11]

J. C. Collins and M. Diehl, Phys. Rev. D 61, 114015 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9907498

2000 arXiv
[12]

D. Y. Ivanov, B. Pire, L. Szymanowski, and O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Lett. B 550, 65 (2002), arXiv:hep- ph/0209300

2002
[13]

Enberg, B

R. Enberg, B. Pire, and L. Szymanowski, Eur. Phys. J. C 47, 87 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0601138

2006 arXiv
[14]

Pire and L

B. Pire and L. Szymanowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 072002 (2009), arXiv:0905.1258 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[15]

El Beiyad, B

M. El Beiyad, B. Pire, M. Segond, L. Szymanowski, and S. Wallon, Phys. Lett. B 688, 154 (2010), arXiv:1001.4491 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[16]

Pire and L

B. Pire and L. Szymanowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 092001 (2015), arXiv:1505.00917 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[17]

B. Pire, L. Szymanowski, and J. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 95, 094001 (2017), arXiv:1702.00316 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[18]

Duplanˇ ci´ c, S

G. Duplanˇ ci´ c, S. Nabeebaccus, K. Passek-Kumeriˇ cki, B. Pire, L. Szymanowski, and S. Wallon, Phys. Rev. D 107, 094023 (2023), arXiv:2302.12026 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[19]

Ahmad, G

S. Ahmad, G. R. Goldstein, and S. Liuti, Phys. Rev. D 79, 054014 (2009), arXiv:0805.3568 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[20]

S. V. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C 65, 137 (2010), arXiv:0906.0460 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[21]

S. V. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. A 47, 112 (2011), arXiv:1106.4897 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[22]

S. V. Goloskokov and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2725 (2014), arXiv:1310.1472 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[23]

Pasquini, M

B. Pasquini, M. Pincetti, and S. Boffi, Phys. Rev. D 72, 094029 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0510376

2005 arXiv
[24]

Burkardt and B

M. Burkardt and B. Hannafious, Phys. Lett. B 658, 130 (2008), arXiv:0705.1573 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[25]

Lorce, Phys

C. Lorce, Phys. Rev. D 79, 074027 (2009), arXiv:0708.4168 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[26]

Chakrabarti, R

D. Chakrabarti, R. Manohar, and A. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D 79, 034006 (2009), arXiv:0811.0521 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[27]

Kumar and H

N. Kumar and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D 91, 114031 (2015), arXiv:1506.03168 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[28]

Chakrabarti and C

D. Chakrabarti and C. Mondal, Phys. Rev. D 92, 074012 (2015), arXiv:1509.00598 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[29]

Tezgin, B

K. Tezgin, B. Maynard, and P. Schweitzer, (2024), arXiv:2404.11563 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[30]

Diehl and P

M. Diehl and P. Hagler, Eur. Phys. J. C 44, 87 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504175

2005 arXiv
[31]

J. P. Ralston and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B 152, 109 (1979)

1979
[32]

R. L. Jaffe and X.-D. Ji, Nucl. Phys. B 375, 527 (1992)

1992
[33]

R. L. Jaffe and X.-D. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 552 (1991). 20

1991
[34]

J. C. Collins, Nucl. Phys. B 394, 169 (1993), arXiv:hep- ph/9207265

1993
[35]

Barone et al

V. Barone et al. (PAX), (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0505054

2005 arXiv
[36]

Anselmino, M

M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, A. Kotzinian, F. Murgia, A. Prokudin, and C. Turk, Phys. Rev. D 75, 054032 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0701006

2007 arXiv
[37]

Anselmino, M

M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, A. Kotzinian, F. Murgia, A. Prokudin, and S. Melis, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 191, 98 (2009), arXiv:0812.4366 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[38]

Bacchetta, A

A. Bacchetta, A. Courtoy, and M. Radici, JHEP 03, 119 (2013), arXiv:1212.3568 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[39]

Anselmino, M

M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, S. Melis, F. Murgia, and A. Prokudin, Phys. Rev. D 87, 094019 (2013), arXiv:1303.3822 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[40]

Z.-B. Kang, A. Prokudin, P. Sun, and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 91, 071501 (2015), arXiv:1410.4877 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[41]

G¨ ockeler, P

M. G¨ ockeler, P. H¨ agler, R. Horsley, Y. Nakamura, D. Pleiter, P. E. L. Rakow, A. Sch¨ afer, G. Schierholz, H. St¨ uben, and J. M. Zanotti (QCDSF, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 222001 (2007), arXiv:hep-lat/0612032

2007 arXiv
[42]

S. Park, R. Gupta, B. Yoon, S. Mondal, T. Bhattacharya, Y.-C. Jang, B. Jo´ o, and F. Winter (Nucleon Matrix Elements (NME)), Phys. Rev. D 105, 054505 (2022), arXiv:2103.05599 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[43]

Alexandrou, M

C. Alexandrou, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, and F. Manigrasso, Phys. Rev. D 104, 054503 (2021), arXiv:2106.16065 [hep-lat]

2021
[44]

Sch¨ afer and E

T. Sch¨ afer and E. V. Shuryak, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 323 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9610451

1998 arXiv
[45]

Diakonov, Prog

D. Diakonov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51, 173 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212026

2003 arXiv
[46]

Diakonov, V

D. Diakonov, V. Y. Petrov, and P. V. Pobylitsa, Nucl. Phys. B 306, 809 (1988)

1988
[47]

Witten, Nucl

E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 160, 57 (1979)

1979
[48]

Zahed and G

I. Zahed and G. E. Brown, Phys. Rept. 142, 1 (1986)

1986
[49]

Praszalowicz, A

M. Praszalowicz, A. Blotz, and K. Goeke, Phys. Lett. B 354, 415 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9505328

1995 arXiv
[51]

C. V. Christov, A. Blotz, H.-C. Kim, P. Pobylitsa, T. Watabe, T. Meissner, E. Ruiz Arriola, and K. Goeke, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 37, 91 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9604441

1996
[52]

Kim and C

J.-Y. Kim and C. Weiss, (2024), arXiv:2411.17634 [hep- ph]

2024 arXiv
[54]

H.-C. Kim, M. V. Polyakov, and K. Goeke, Phys. Lett. B 387, 577 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9604442

1996 arXiv
[55]

Ledwig, A

T. Ledwig, A. Silva, and H.-C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 82, 054014 (2010), arXiv:1007.1355 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[56]

Diehl, Eur

M. Diehl, Eur. Phys. J. C 19, 485 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0101335

2001
[57]

Hagler, Phys

P. Hagler, Phys. Lett. B 594, 164 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0404138

2004
[58]

Kim, B.-D

J.-Y. Kim, B.-D. Sun, D. Fu, and H.-C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 107, 054007 (2023), arXiv:2208.01240 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[59]

Diakonov, M

D. Diakonov, M. V. Polyakov, and C. Weiss, Nucl. Phys. B 461, 539 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9510232

1996 arXiv
[60]

Pauli and S

W. Pauli and S. M. Dancoff, Phys. Rev. 62, 85 (1942)

1942
[61]

Kahana, G

S. Kahana, G. Ripka, and V. Soni, Nucl. Phys. A 415, 351 (1984)

1984
[62]

Kahana and G

S. Kahana and G. Ripka, Nucl. Phys. A 429, 462 (1984)

1984
[63]

Diakonov, in Advanced Summer School on Non- perturbative Quantum Field Physics (1997) pp

D. Diakonov, in Advanced Summer School on Non- perturbative Quantum Field Physics (1997) pp. 1–55, arXiv:hep-ph/9802298

1997 arXiv
[64]

Kim, H.-Y

J.-Y. Kim, H.-Y. Won, J. L. Goity, and C. Weiss, Phys. Lett. B 844, 138083 (2023), arXiv:2304.08575 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[65]

Schweitzer, S

P. Schweitzer, S. Boffi, and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D 66, 114004 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0207230

2002 arXiv
[66]

Schweitzer, M

P. Schweitzer, M. Colli, and S. Boffi, Phys. Rev. D 67, 114022 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0303166

2003 arXiv
[67]

M. P. Mattis, Phys. Rev. D 39, 994 (1989)

1989
[68]

M. P. Mattis and M. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1344 (1988)

1988
[69]

R. F. Lebed, Phys. Lett. B 639, 68 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0603150

2006
[70]

G. S. Adkins, C. R. Nappi, and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 228, 552 (1983)

1983
[71]

Diakonov, V

D. Diakonov, V. Petrov, P. Pobylitsa, M. V. Polyakov, and C. Weiss, Nucl. Phys. B 480, 341 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9606314

1996
[72]

Chan, Phys

L.-H. Chan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1199 (1986)

1986
[73]

Goeke, J

K. Goeke, J. Grabis, J. Ossmann, M. V. Polyakov, P. Schweitzer, A. Silva, and D. Urbano, Phys. Rev. D 75, 094021 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0702030

2007 arXiv
[74]

Alharazin, D

H. Alharazin, D. Djukanovic, J. Gegelia, and M. V. Polyakov, Phys. Rev. D 102, 076023 (2020), arXiv:2006.05890 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[75]

Goeke, J

K. Goeke, J. Ossmann, P. Schweitzer, and A. Silva, Eur. Phys. J. A 27, 77 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0505010

2006 arXiv
[76]

I. A. Perevalova, M. V. Polyakov, and P. Schweitzer, Phys. Rev. D 94, 054024 (2016), arXiv:1607.07008 [hep- ph]

2016 arXiv
[77]

M. V. Polyakov and P. Schweitzer, PoS SPIN2018, 066 (2019), arXiv:1812.06143 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[78]

Schweitzer, D

P. Schweitzer, D. Urbano, M. V. Polyakov, C. Weiss, P. V. Pobylitsa, and K. Goeke, Phys. Rev. D 64, 034013 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0101300

2001 arXiv
[80]

V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri, and F. X. Girod, Nature 557, 396 (2018)

2018
[81]

Alexandrou, K

C. Alexandrou, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, K. Had- jiyiannakou, K. Jansen, A. Scapellato, and F. Steffens, Phys. Rev. D 105, 034501 (2022), arXiv:2108.10789 [hep- lat]

2022 arXiv
[82]

S. Kaur, S. Xu, C. Mondal, X. Zhao, and J. P. Vary (BLFQ), Phys. Rev. D 109, 014015 (2024), arXiv:2307.09869 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[83]

Kodaira, S

J. Kodaira, S. Matsuda, K. Sasaki, and T. Uematsu, Nucl. Phys. B 159, 99 (1979)

1979
[84]

Artru and M

X. Artru and M. Mekhfi, Z. Phys. C 45, 669 (1990)

1990
[85]

Barone, A

V. Barone, A. Drago, and P. G. Ratcliffe, Phys. Rept. 359, 1 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0104283

2002 arXiv
[86]

A. N. Manashov, S. Moch, and L. A. Shumilov, JHEP 09, 192 (2024), arXiv:2407.12696 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[87]

Kim, Phys

J.-Y. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 108, 034024 (2023), arXiv:2305.12714 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [53]

H.-C. Kim, M. V. Polyakov, and K. Goeke, Phys. Rev. D 53, 4715 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9509283

arXiv 1996

[2] [50]

Symmetry conserving approach to the quantization of the non-topological SU(3) soliton

M. Praszalowicz, T. Watabe, and K. Goeke, Nucl. Phys. A 647, 49 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9806431

work page Pith review arXiv 1999

[3] [79]

Pascalutsa, M

V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen, and S. N. Yang, Phys. Rept. 437, 125 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0609004

arXiv 2007

[4] [1]

When M Rreaches about 1.5, the discrete level quark merges with the Dirac sea. Examining these results, we have the following observations: (i) As R decreases below the physical value ( M R < 1), the tensor charge gu−d T [lev], proportional to f 2 0 + (1/3)f 2 1 , remains almost stable. This stability results from the dominance of the non-relativistic com...

[5] [2]

Goeke, M

K. Goeke, M. V. Polyakov, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 47, 401 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0106012

arXiv 2001

[6] [3]

hedgehog

(8) The operator ˆM can be either a unit operator 1 or a component of the spin operatorS = σ/2. In this context, the representations of the spin states in the 3D expansion are related to the orbital angular momentum L ˆM =1 (L = 0), σi (L = 1). (9) Using Eqs. (6) and (9), we perform the 3D multipole expansion of Eq. (2) for the separate 3D 0 k- and ij- co...

[7] [4]

X.-D. Ji, J. Phys. G 24, 1181 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9807358

arXiv 1998

[8] [5]

Diehl, Phys

M. Diehl, Phys. Rept. 388, 41 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0307382

arXiv 2003