Pion photoproduction off nucleons in covariant chiral perturbation theory

Astrid N. Hiller Blin; De-Liang Yao; Gustavo H. Guerrero Navarro; M. J. Vicente Vacas

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 91 references

Pion photoproduction off nucleons in covariant chiral perturbation theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that near-threshold pion photoproduction in all four charge channels is described by an O(p^3) covariant chiral perturbation theory calculation in the extended-on-mass-shell scheme that explicitly includes the Δ(1232)…

desk verdict A credible O(p^3) EOMS ChPT calculation with explicit Delta that convincingly shows the Delta is essential, but the quantitative LEC values and the claimed advantage over O(p^4) without Delta remain provisional because the fitted d18 is unstable under higher-order variations. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00890 v2 pith:JSG63S35 submitted 2019-08-02 hep-ph

Gustavo H. Guerrero Navarro , Astrid N. Hiller Blin , M. J. Vicente Vacas , De-Liang Yao This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords pionphotoproductionchiralperturbationtheoryextended-on-mass-shellschemeDelta(1232)resonancenear-thresholdnucleonreactionslow-energyconstantspolarizationobservables

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 attempts to show that a third-order covariant chiral perturbation theory calculation, with the Δ(1232) resonance included explicitly, can simultaneously describe the near-threshold pion photoproduction data for all four charge channels: total cross sections, angular distributions, and polarization observables. This matters because earlier O($p^{4}$) calculations without an explicit Δ only agreed with data within a narrow window roughly 20 MeV above threshold, and the authors claim their O($p^{3}$) calculation extends that range while using a systematic power counting. The delta resonance is not a small correction: removing it raises the fit's chi-squared per degree of freedom from 3.22 to 29.5 across 957 data points, even though the Δ couplings themselves are fixed by independent strong and electromagnetic decay information. If this is right, it would establish that explicit resonance degrees of freedom are necessary for precision low-energy predictions of pion photoproduction and related weak processes.

What carries the argument

The central technical object is the extended-on-mass-shell (EOMS) renormalization scheme combined with the δ-counting, in which the mass difference δ = mΔ − mN ≈ 300 MeV is treated as O($p^{{1/2}}$), so the Δ(1232) resonance enters the chiral power counting systematically. The EOMS scheme restores the power counting by absorbing finite shifts into the low-energy constants while preserving Lorentz covariance and the analytic structure of the amplitudes. The one-loop O($p^{3}$) amplitudes are built from the chiral Lagrangian for pions, nucleons, and the Δ(1232), with ultraviolet divergences removed in modified minimal subtraction and EOMS finite shifts applied to m, g, c1, c6, and c7. The wave-function renormalization and mass corrections are applied consistently, and the Δ propagator uses an energy-dependent width at the relevant order.

What would settle it

Measure the near-threshold γp→π0p differential cross section and the E0+ multipole with sufficiently small statistical and systematic errors over the range from threshold to roughly 30 MeV above it, and compare the energy slope to the prediction of Fit I: if the steep rise driven by the Δ tail is absent, or if the Δ-less O($p^{4}$) calculation reproduces the slope equally well, the paper's central claim that the Δ is essential would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the extended-on-mass-shell (EOMS) scheme of covariant baryon chiral perturbation theory, a complete one-loop calculation at O($p^{3}$) in the delta-counting, with the Δ(1232) treated explicitly, reproduces the available near-threshold data of pion photoproduction off nucleons for all charge channels. The model achieves an overall chi-squared per degree of freedom of 3.22 with most low-energy constants fixed from other processes; removing the Δ mechanisms worsens the same fit to 29.5, showing that the Δ(1232) tail is decisive even close to threshold. The improvement over earlier O($p^{4}$) heavy-baryon and covariant results without an explicit Δ is attributed to the systematic δ-counting and the resonance contribution, not to additional free parameters. The paper also extracts the combination d8+d9 with high precision from the neutral-pion channel, while other third-order constants are less constrained by the scarce charged-pion data.

Load-bearing premise

The chiral expansion has converged enough at O($p^{3}$) that the fitted low-energy constants and the quoted chi-squared values are meaningful; if higher-order contributions are not small, the fitted constants and the apparent improvement from the Δ are not stable predictions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, explicit Δ(1232) degrees of freedom should be regarded as mandatory in chiral perturbation theory analyses of pion photoproduction, not merely as an optional improvement.
The tightly determined combination d8+d9 serves as a benchmark low-energy constant that can be used as input in related processes, such as weak pion production, for which data are scarce.
The framework, at the same order and scheme, provides a consistent starting point for extending the calculation to O(p^{7/2}) and O(p^4), incorporating higher-order Δπ and Δγ couplings.
The near-threshold description of the γp → π0p channel, where the Δ contribution is most visible, is expected to improve substantially over Δ-less O(p^4) calculations, as the authors demonstrate through the χ2 behavior with photon energy.
New measurements in the charged-pion channels, especially γn → π−p, would directly constrain the currently poorly known third-order constants d9, d20, and d21.

Reading between the lines

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

A skeptical reader would note that the paper itself observes the fitted value of d18 shifts significantly under O(p^4) variations, indicating that the quoted chi-squared and the fitted constants may not be stable if higher-order contributions are not small; this is a testable concern rather than a proven flaw.
The Delta-dominance claim suggests a sharp prediction: the energy dependence of the neutral-pion E0+ and M1+ multipoles near threshold should show a rapid rise tied to the Δ tail, which future high-precision angular and polarization measurements could directly verify.
The same EOMS plus δ-counting machinery could be carried to electroproduction, where the additional photon virtuality would give a further test of whether the Δ contribution and the fitted LECs remain stable.
Because the charged-pion channels are relatively insensitive to the third-order operators, the paper implicitly predicts that the main benefit of improved charged-pion data will be to pin down d9 and d20 rather than to change the neutral-pion conclusions.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

This is a solid, workmanlike paper. The genuinely new piece is the extension of the EOMS ChPT + Delta framework from gamma p -> pi0 p (Refs. [43,44]) to all four pion photoproduction channels, with a global fit to 957 points and a consistent extraction of d8 +/- d9, d20, d21, and gM. That alone makes it useful for the weak-pion-production community, which needs these LECs.

What the paper does well: the Delta-essentiality claim is robust. Removing the Delta mechanisms blows up chi2/dof from 3.22 to 29.5, and the fitted gM stays close to the value from the Delta electromagnetic width. That is a real, parameter-free signal, not a fit artifact. The authors also deserve credit for including truncation uncertainties, for being explicit about which data they exclude and why, and for flagging the d18 instability in Section IV.A instead of burying it.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. First, the one-loop amplitudes are not published; they are available only "upon request," and no code or data file accompanies the paper. That makes independent verification harder than it should be for a fit of this importance. Second, the stress-test concern is valid: d18 shifts strongly under O(p^4) variations, and the unconstrained fit puts it at +5.69 GeV^-2, far from the piN prior. Fit I achieves its good chi2 by pinning d18 at the edge of the prior. The authors acknowledge this, and it means the quantitative LEC values and the "good agreement" claim should be treated as provisional until a full O(p^4) calculation, or at least a quantitative check of the e48/e50/e112 terms, is done. The qualitative Delta conclusion does not depend on d18, though. Third, the comparison with O(p^4) calculations without Delta is apples-to-oranges: different orders, different degrees of freedom, and possibly different fitting ranges. The claim of superiority is suggestive but not a controlled test.

The citation pattern looks honest; the LECs are mostly taken from independent processes, and self-citations are to prior work that this paper explicitly extends. No invented entities or circularity problems. The paper is exactly what it claims to be: a next step in a systematic program, with known limitations stated plainly.

Who is this for? Practitioners in baryon ChPT and neutrino-event generators who need LEC estimates. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review, but ask the referee to push for the amplitudes or at least a numerical benchmark, and for a more careful statement of what the O(p^3)+Delta vs O(p^4) comparison does and does not show.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a covariant chiral perturbation theory calculation of threshold pion photoproduction off nucleons at O(p^3) in the EOMS scheme, with an explicit Delta(1232) included through the delta counting. The authors fit the combinations d8+d9, d8-d9, and the LECs d20, d21, and gM to 957 data points covering all four charge channels, while fixing most other LECs from independent analyses and restricting d18 to its piN-scattering prior. Their main result is Fit I with chi2/dof = 3.22; removing the Delta gives Fit II at 29.5, and leaving d18 free gives Fit III at 1.58 but with a d18 value that is hardly compatible with g_piN. They conclude that the Delta is essential and that the model reproduces the data better over a wider energy range than published O(p4) calculations without the Delta.

Significance. If the O(p^3) truncation is reliable, this is a significant step: it shows that a covariant EOMS treatment with explicit Delta can describe a global multi-channel database, constrains previously poorly known LECs, and explains the energy dependence of pion photoproduction without invoking higher-order Delta-less terms. The paper has genuine strengths: it uses a large and heterogeneous database, fixes most LECs from independent processes, reports both statistical and truncation uncertainties, and demonstrates the qualitative Delta effect in a controlled way through Fit I versus Fit II. The main caveat is that the quantitative claims rest on an LEC, d18, that the authors themselves find to be strongly affected by O(p^4) variations; until that sensitivity is understood, the advertised 'good agreement' and the comparison with O(p^4) calculations remain provisional.

major comments (3)

[Section IV A, Table II] The load-bearing quantitative claim rests on constraining d18 to the 1-sigma range given in Table I. When d18 is left free in Fit III, chi2/dof improves from 3.22 to 1.58, but d18 moves to 5.69 +/- 0.14 GeV^-2, a value the authors describe as hardly compatible with g_piN. Section IV A also states that d18 is strongly affected by O(p^4) variations, such as the choice of wave-function renormalization, the use of m versus m2 in the loops, and the tree-level terms e48, e50, and e112. This means the O(p^3) minimum is not demonstrably chiral-stable. The central claim that the model reproduces the data well should be made conditional on a higher-order calculation, or the paper should provide a quantitative stability analysis showing that the relevant observables and the Delta-essentiality conclusion are unchanged under these variations.
[Summary and Section IV A, Fig. 5] The claim that the agreement is better, and for a wider range of energies, than in O(p^4) calculations without the Delta is not directly quantified in this manuscript. The comparison with Refs. [18,19] is based on published pi0-only figures, whereas the present chi2 is computed over a different 957-point database. Within this paper, the only direct controlled comparison is Fit I versus Fit II at O(p^3). Since Fit I still has chi2/dof = 3.22, an absolute statement of superiority over O(p^4) would require either a common re-fit of the Delta-less O(p^4) amplitudes on the same dataset or a table comparing chi2 per channel and energy range on matched datasets.
[Section III C, Eq. (28)] The truncation uncertainty estimator uses only the lowest-order and current-order amplitudes. Given the observed sensitivity of d18 to O(p^4) variations, this estimator may understate the systematic uncertainty in the plotted error bands and in the quoted LEC errors. The authors should state explicitly whether the bands in Figs. 6-13 include the spread generated by the O(p^4)-variation study of d18, or whether those variations are only discussed textually.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction] There is a typo in 'low energy contants' near the end of the first section; it should read 'low energy constants'.
[Figure 6 caption] The caption says the inner band is obtained by varying the LECs 'as shown in Table I', but the fitted LECs appear in Table II; Table I lists the externally fixed constants.
[Table II header] The header 'Fit II - /Delta' is unclear; please spell out that this is the fit without Delta mechanisms.
[Equation (28)] The notation in the truncation-error formula is hard to follow: the condition nLO <= j <= k <= n and the exponents Q^{n-nLO+1} and Q^{n-j} should be defined with a brief example or a reference to the original derivation.
[Section IV A, footnote 10] The footnote 'In Fit II, it rises up to chi2 = 31.7 at d18 = 0.6 GeV^-2' is ambiguous; clarify whether this refers to the d18 scan in Fit I or to a separate scan in Fit II.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: fitted LECs are endpoints, the Delta effect is tested by deletion, and self-cited inputs are independent observables.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a conventional EOMS chiral perturbation theory calculation: it constructs the O(p^3) amplitude, fits a small set of unknown LECs to 957 photoproduction data points, and fixes the remaining LECs from independent processes (magnetic moments, axial radius, Delta widths, and piN scattering). The central claim that the Delta(1232) is significant is tested by switching off Delta mechanisms (Fit II vs Fit I) at the same chiral order, so the conclusion is not forced by construction. The fitted LECs are endpoints of the analysis, not inputs that secretly encode the pion photoproduction result; in particular, d18 is constrained by an external piN-scattering analysis, and the paper explicitly explores an unconstrained refit (Fit III). The self-citations (Refs. [48-50,80]) supply LEC values derived from other observables—external, independently falsifiable inputs—rather than from the process under study, so they do not constitute circularity. The authors' caveat that d18 is strongly affected by O(p^4) variations is a chiral-convergence and robustness concern, appropriately classified as correctness risk rather than circularity, because no prediction reduces to its own input by definition or by fit. Overall, the analysis is self-contained against data and the cited external inputs do not embed the target result.

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

No new particles or forces are introduced; the Delta(1232) is a known resonance and all LECs are standard in ChPT. The main external inputs are the LECs in Table I and the experimental database. The five fitted LEC combinations are listed as free parameters, and the d18 constraint is also treated as a fitted parameter because it is varied within an external range and pushed to its boundary.

free parameters (6)

d8 + d9 = 1.16 +/- 0.01 GeV^-2 (Fit I)
Fitted to the full 957-point database; the gamma p -> pi0 p channel fixes this combination precisely.
d8 - d9 = 1.09 +/- 0.18 GeV^-2 (Fit I)
Fitted; less constrained because charged-pion data are scarcer.
d20 = -0.74 +/- 0.17 GeV^-2 (Fit I)
Fitted; affects only charged pion channels.
d21 = 4.32 +/- 0.14 GeV^-2 (Fit I)
Fitted; appears only in the 2d21 - d22 combination, with d22 fixed.
gM = 2.90 +/- 0.01 (Fit I)
Left free in the fit even though Table I quotes 3.16 +/- 0.16 from the Delta electromagnetic width; the fitted value is consistent with that external value.
d18 (constrained in Fit I) = 0.60 GeV^-2 (upper edge of 1-sigma range [-1.0, 0.60] from Table I)
Not fully free in Fit I but varied within the external range and pushed to the boundary; in Fit III, left completely free, it jumps to 5.69 GeV^-2, indicating instability.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption EOMS renormalization restores the chiral power counting in the presence of baryon loops.
Invoked in Sec II B and II C; the entire O(p^3) counting and finite shifts (Eqs. 22-25) rely on this scheme.
domain assumption Delta-counting with delta = m_Delta - m_N ~ O(p^{1/2}) and the diagram power counting of Eq. (10).
Used to assign orders to Delta mechanisms and to justify stopping at O(p^3) without Delta loops.
domain assumption Low-energy constants from other processes (Table I) are valid at O(p^3) in the same EOMS plus Delta framework.
Taken from Refs [27,48,49,50,78,80]; if the scheme or order matching is imperfect, the constraints on d18 and gM shift.
domain assumption Isospin symmetry is assumed; mass splittings near threshold are neglected.
Sec III A states the framework is not well suited for the first MeV above threshold, though inclusion or exclusion of those points does not change the results.
domain assumption The spectator model extraction of gamma n -> pi- p cross sections from deuteron data and the inverse radiative capture data are reliable enough for fitting.
Sec III A: data from Refs [69,70] use the spectator model; the LECs d8 - d9, d20, d21 are constrained by these channels.
domain assumption The chiral truncation uncertainty formula (Eq. 28) from Refs [42,82] is a valid estimate of missing higher orders.
Used for the outer error bands in all figures; the formula itself is not derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pion photoproduction off nucleons in covariant chiral perturbation theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JSG63S35

@misc{pith2026190800890,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pion photoproduction off nucleons in covariant chiral perturbation theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JSG63S35}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00890}
}

abstract

Pion photoproduction off the nucleon close to threshold is studied in covariant baryon chiral perturbation theory at O($p^3$) in the extended-on-mass-shell scheme, with the explicit inclusion of the $\Delta(1232)$ resonance using the $\delta$ counting. The theory is compared to the available data of cross sections and polarization observables for all the charge channels. Most of the necessary low energy constants are well known from the analysis of other processes and the comparison with data strongly constrains some of the still unknown ones. The $\Delta(1232)$ contribution is significant in improving the agreement with data, even at the low energies considered.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00890 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Topologies of tree-level Feynman diagrams for the reaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Direct (a) and crossed (b) Feynman diagrams for the reaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (10 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: One-loop topologies for the reaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Angular cross section for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: Beam asymmetry for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: Cross section for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9: Angular cross section for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10: Cross section for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11: Beam asymmetry for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12: Cross section for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13: Angular cross section for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[1]

Representations of the invariant amplitude We write the scattering amplitudeT as T =¯u(p′)[aNq·ϵVN + aEVE + aKq·ϵVK + aEK VEK ] u(p), (A1) where u(p) and ¯u(p′) = u†(p′)γ0 are the Dirac spinors corresponding to the initial and ﬁnal nucleon states respectively,ϵ is the photon polarization vector, and q is the 4-momentum of the outgoing pion, the coeﬃcients...
[2]

Tree level amplitude a. At O (p1) T (1) (a) = C(1) I eg F0 VE, (A12) T (1) (b) = C(1) II eg F0  ( s− m2 N ) ( m2 2− s ) VE + (mN + m2)( m2 2− s ) VEK , (A13) T (1) (c) = C(1) III eg F0  ( m2 N− u ) ( m2 2− u ) VE + 2(mN + m2)( m2 2− u ) q·ϵVN + (mN + m2)( m2 2− u ) VEK , (A14) T (1) (d) = C(1) IV 2 √ 2egmN F0 ( −2m2 N + s +...
[3]

S. L. Adler, Annals Phys. 50, 189 (1968), [,225(1968)]

1968
[4]

Drechsel, S

D. Drechsel, S. S. Kamalov, and L. Tiator, Eur. Phys. J. A34, 69 (2007), 0710.0306

arXiv 2007
[5]

Weinberg, Physica A96, 327 (1979)

S. Weinberg, Physica A96, 327 (1979)

1979
[6]

Gasser and H

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Annals Phys. 158, 142 (1984)

1984
[7]

Gasser and H

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B250, 465 (1985)

1985
[8]

Scherer and M

S. Scherer and M. R. Schindler, Lect. Notes Phys. 830, pp.1 (2012)

2012

Show all 91 references

[9]

N. M. Kroll and M. A. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. 93, 233 (1954), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRev.93.233

1954 doi
[10]

De Baenst, Nucl

P. De Baenst, Nucl. Phys. B24, 633 (1970)

1970
[11]

A. I. Vainshtein and V . I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys.B36, 589 (1972)

1972
[12]

Mazzucato et al., Phys

E. Mazzucato et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 3144 (1986)

1986
[13]

R. Beck, F. Kalleicher, B. Schoch, J. V ogt, G. Koch, H. Stroher, V . Metag, J. C. McGeorge, J. D. Kellie, and S. J. Hall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1841 (1990)

1990
[14]

Drechsel and L

D. Drechsel and L. Tiator, J. Phys. G18, 449 (1992)

1992
[15]

Bernard and U.-G

V . Bernard and U.-G. Meissner, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.57, 33 (2007), hep-ph/0611231

2007 arXiv
[16]

Bernard, N

V . Bernard, N. Kaiser, J. Gasser, and U. G. Meissner, Phys. Lett.B268, 291 (1991)

1991
[17]

Bernard, N

V . Bernard, N. Kaiser, and U. G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys.B383, 442 (1992)

1992
[18]

Bernard, N

V . Bernard, N. Kaiser, and U.-G. Meissner, Eur. Phys. J.A11, 209 (2001), hep-ph/0102066. 31

2001 arXiv
[19]

Hornidge et al

D. Hornidge et al. (A2, CB-TAPS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 062004 (2013), 1211.5495

2013 arXiv
[20]

Fernandez-Ramirez and A

C. Fernandez-Ramirez and A. M. Bernstein, Phys. Lett. B724, 253 (2013), 1212.3237

2013 arXiv
[21]

M. Hilt, S. Scherer, and L. Tiator, Phys. Rev. C87, 045204 (2013), 1301.5576

2013 arXiv
[22]

Bijnens and G

J. Bijnens and G. Ecker, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 64, 149 (2014), 1405.6488

2014 arXiv
[23]

Bernard, Prog

V . Bernard, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 60, 82 (2008), 0706.0312

2008 arXiv
[24]

Gasser, M

J. Gasser, M. E. Sainio, and A. Svarc, Nucl. Phys. B307, 779 (1988)

1988
[25]

E. E. Jenkins and A. V . Manohar, Phys. Lett. B255, 558 (1991)

1991
[26]

E. E. Jenkins and A. V . Manohar, Phys. Lett. B259, 353 (1991)

1991
[27]

Becher and H

T. Becher and H. Leutwyler, Eur. Phys. J. C9, 643 (1999), hep-ph/9901384

1999 arXiv
[28]

Fuchs, J

T. Fuchs, J. Gegelia, G. Japaridze, and S. Scherer, Phys. Rev. D68, 056005 (2003), hep-ph/0302117

2003 arXiv
[29]

J. M. Alarcon, J. Martin Camalich, and J. A. Oller, Annals Phys. 336, 413 (2013), 1210.4450

2013 arXiv
[30]

L. S. Geng, J. Martin Camalich, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 222002 (2008), 0805.1419

2008 arXiv
[31]

Martin Camalich, L

J. Martin Camalich, L. S. Geng, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D82, 074504 (2010), 1003.1929

2010 arXiv
[32]

Fuchs, J

T. Fuchs, J. Gegelia, and S. Scherer, J. Phys. G30, 1407 (2004), nucl-th/0305070

2004 arXiv
[33]

B. C. Lehnhart, J. Gegelia, and S. Scherer, J. Phys. G31, 89 (2005), hep-ph/0412092

2005 arXiv
[34]

M. R. Schindler, T. Fuchs, J. Gegelia, and S. Scherer, Phys. Rev. C75, 025202 (2007), nucl- th/0611083

2007
[35]

M. R. Schindler, D. Djukanovic, J. Gegelia, and S. Scherer, Phys. Lett. B649, 390 (2007), hep- ph/0612164

2007
[36]

L. S. Geng, J. Martin Camalich, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D79, 094022 (2009), 0903.4869

2009 arXiv
[37]

J. M. Alarcon, J. Martin Camalich, and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. D85, 051503 (2012), 1110.3797

2012 arXiv
[38]

Ledwig, J

T. Ledwig, J. Martin-Camalich, V . Pascalutsa, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev.D85, 034013 (2012), 1108.2523

2012 arXiv
[39]

Chen, D.-L

Y .-H. Chen, D.-L. Yao, and H. Q. Zheng, Phys. Rev.D87, 054019 (2013), 1212.1893

2013 arXiv
[40]

Alvarez-Ruso, T

L. Alvarez-Ruso, T. Ledwig, J. Martin Camalich, and M. J. Vicente-Vacas, Phys. Rev. D88, 054507 (2013), 1304.0483

2013 arXiv
[41]

Ledwig, J

T. Ledwig, J. Martin Camalich, L. S. Geng, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D90, 054502 (2014), 1405.5456

2014 arXiv
[42]

Lensky, J

V . Lensky, J. M. Alarc´on, and V . Pascalutsa, Phys. Rev.C90, 055202 (2014), 1407.2574

2014 arXiv
[43]

D.-L. Yao, D. Siemens, V . Bernard, E. Epelbaum, A. M. Gasparyan, J. Gegelia, H. Krebs, and U.-G. 32 Meißner, JHEP 05, 038 (2016), 1603.03638

2016 arXiv
[44]

Siemens, V

D. Siemens, V . Bernard, E. Epelbaum, A. Gasparyan, H. Krebs, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. C94, 014620 (2016), 1602.02640

2016 arXiv
[45]

A. N. Hiller Blin, T. Ledwig, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Lett. B747, 217 (2015), 1412.4083

2015 arXiv
[46]

A. N. Hiller Blin, T. Ledwig, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D93, 094018 (2016), 1602.08967

2016 arXiv
[47]

M. Hilt, B. C. Lehnhart, S. Scherer, and L. Tiator, Phys. Rev. C88, 055207 (2013), 1309.3385

2013 arXiv
[48]

T. E. O. Ericson and W. Weise, Pions and Nuclei, vol. 74 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 1988), ISBN 0198520085, URL http://www-spires.fnal.gov/spires/find/books/www?cl= QC793.5.M42E75::1988

1988
[49]

Lensky and V

V . Lensky and V . Pascalutsa, Eur. Phys. J.C65, 195 (2010), 0907.0451

2010 arXiv
[50]

Hiller Blin, T

A. Hiller Blin, T. Gutsche, T. Ledwig, and V . E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D92, 096004 (2015), 1509.00955

2015 arXiv
[51]

D.-L. Yao, L. Alvarez-Ruso, A. N. Hiller Blin, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev. D98, 076004 (2018), 1806.09364

2018 arXiv
[52]

D.-L. Yao, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. Lett. B794, 109 (2019), 1901.00773

2019 arXiv
[53]

T. R. Hemmert, B. R. Holstein, and J. Kambor, Phys. Lett. B395, 89 (1997), hep-ph/9606456

1997 arXiv
[54]

Bernard, N

V . Bernard, N. Kaiser, and U. G. Meißner, Phys. Lett.B331, 137 (1994), hep-ph/9312307

1994 arXiv
[55]

Alvarez-Ruso et al., Prog

L. Alvarez-Ruso et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 100, 1 (2018), 1706.03621

2018 arXiv
[56]

Alvarez-Ruso, Y

L. Alvarez-Ruso, Y . Hayato, and J. Nieves, New J. Phys.16, 075015 (2014), 1403.2673

2014 arXiv
[57]

G. F. Chew, M. L. Goldberger, F. E. Low, and Y . Nambu, Phys. Rev.106, 1345 (1957)

1957
[58]

A. M. Sandorﬁ, S. Hoblit, H. Kamano, and T. S. H. Lee, J. Phys. G38, 053001 (2011), 1010.4555

2011 arXiv
[59]

Pascalutsa and D

V . Pascalutsa and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev.C67, 055202 (2003), nucl-th/0212024

2003 arXiv
[60]

Fettes, U.-G

N. Fettes, U.-G. Meißner, M. Mojzis, and S. Steininger, Annals Phys. 283, 273 (2000), [Erratum: Annals Phys.288,249(2001)], hep-ph/0001308

2000 arXiv
[61]

Pascalutsa, Prog

V . Pascalutsa, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 61, 27 (2008), 0712.3919

2008 arXiv
[62]

Pascalutsa, M

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

2007 arXiv
[63]

Shtabovenko, R

V . Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, Comput. Phys. Commun.207, 432 (2016), 1601.01167

2016 arXiv
[64]

Mertig, M

R. Mertig, M. Bohm, and A. Denner, Comput. Phys. Commun. 64, 345 (1991)

1991
[65]

Lehmann, K

H. Lehmann, K. Symanzik, and W. Zimmermann, Nuovo Cim. 1, 205 (1955)

1955
[66]

Fuchs et al., Phys

M. Fuchs et al., Phys. Lett. B368, 20 (1996)

1996
[67]

J. C. Bergstrom, J. M. V ogt, R. Igarashi, K. J. Keeter, E. L. Hallin, G. A. Retzlaﬀ, D. M. Skopik, and 33 E. C. Booth, Phys. Rev. C53, R1052 (1996)

1996
[68]

J. C. Bergstrom, R. Igarashi, and J. M. V ogt, Phys. Rev.C55, 2016 (1997)

1997
[69]

Schmidt et al., Phys

A. Schmidt et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 232501 (2001), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.110,039903(2013)], nucl-ex/0105010

2001 arXiv
[70]

Blanpied et al., Phys

G. Blanpied et al., Phys. Rev. C64, 025203 (2001)

2001
[71]

Rossi et al., Nuovo Cim

V . Rossi et al., Nuovo Cim. A13, 59 (1973)

1973
[72]

Benz et al

P. Benz et al. (Aachen-Bonn-Hamburg-Heidelberg-Muenchen), Nucl. Phys. B65, 158 (1973)

1973
[73]

Salomon, D

M. Salomon, D. F. Measday, J. M. Poutissou, and B. C. Robertson, Nucl. Phys. A414, 493 (1984)

1984
[74]

Bagheri, K

A. Bagheri, K. A. Aniol, F. Entezami, M. D. Hasino ﬀ, D. F. Measday, J. M. Poutissou, M. Salomon, and B. C. Robertson, Phys. Rev. C38, 875 (1988)

1988
[75]

INS Data Analysis Center, URL http://gwdac.phys.gwu.edu/
[76]

Strandberg et al

B. Strandberg et al. (2018), 1812.03023

2018 arXiv
[77]

R. J. Walker, T. R. Palfrey, R. O. Haxby, and B. M. K. Nefkens, Phys. Rev.132, 2656 (1963)

1963
[78]

K. G. Fissum, H. S. Caplan, E. L. Hallin, D. M. Skopik, J. M. V ogt, M. Frodyma, D. P. Rosenzweig, D. W. Storm, G. V . O’Rielly, and K. R. Garrow, Phys. Rev.C53, 1278 (1996)

1996
[79]

Ahrens et al

J. Ahrens et al. (GDH, A2), Eur. Phys. J. A21, 323 (2004)

2004
[80]

Bauer, J

T. Bauer, J. C. Bernauer, and S. Scherer, Phys. Rev. C86, 065206 (2012), 1209.3872

2012 arXiv
[81]

Patrignani et al

C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C40, 100001 (2016)

2016
[82]

D.-L. Yao, L. Alvarez-Ruso, and M. J. Vicente-Vacas, Phys. Rev. D96, 116022 (2017), 1708.08776

2017 arXiv
[83]

Bernard, E

V . Bernard, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U.-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev.D87, 054032 (2013), 1209.2523

2013 arXiv
[84]

Epelbaum, H

E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, and U. G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A51, 53 (2015), 1412.0142

2015 arXiv
[85]

Schumann et al., Eur

S. Schumann et al., Eur. Phys. J. A43, 269 (2010), 1001.3626

2010 arXiv
[86]

Korkmaz et al., Phys

E. Korkmaz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3609 (1999)

1999
[87]

D. A. McPherson, D. C. Gates, R. W. Kenney, and W. P. Swanson, Phys. Rev.136, B1465 (1964)

1964
[88]

D. H. White, R. M. Schectman, and B. M. Chasan, Phys. Rev. 120, 614 (1960)

1960
[89]

Wang, Ph

M. Wang, Ph. D. thesis, University of Kentucky (1992)

1992
[90]

K. Liu, Ph. D. thesis, University of Kentucky (1994)

1994
[91]

Gegelia, U.-G

J. Gegelia, U.-G. Meißner, D. Siemens, and D.-L. Yao, Phys. Lett. B763, 1 (2016), 1608.00517. 34

2016 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Representations of the invariant amplitude We write the scattering amplitudeT as T =¯u(p′)[aNq·ϵVN + aEVE + aKq·ϵVK + aEK VEK ] u(p), (A1) where u(p) and ¯u(p′) = u†(p′)γ0 are the Dirac spinors corresponding to the initial and ﬁnal nucleon states respectively,ϵ is the photon polarization vector, and q is the 4-momentum of the outgoing pion, the coeﬃcients...

[2] [2]

Tree level amplitude a. At O (p1) T (1) (a) = C(1) I eg F0 VE, (A12) T (1) (b) = C(1) II eg F0  ( s− m2 N ) ( m2 2− s ) VE + (mN + m2)( m2 2− s ) VEK , (A13) T (1) (c) = C(1) III eg F0  ( m2 N− u ) ( m2 2− u ) VE + 2(mN + m2)( m2 2− u ) q·ϵVN + (mN + m2)( m2 2− u ) VEK , (A14) T (1) (d) = C(1) IV 2 √ 2egmN F0 ( −2m2 N + s +...

[3] [3]

S. L. Adler, Annals Phys. 50, 189 (1968), [,225(1968)]

1968

[4] [4]

Drechsel, S

D. Drechsel, S. S. Kamalov, and L. Tiator, Eur. Phys. J. A34, 69 (2007), 0710.0306

arXiv 2007

[5] [5]

Weinberg, Physica A96, 327 (1979)

S. Weinberg, Physica A96, 327 (1979)

1979

[6] [6]

Gasser and H

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Annals Phys. 158, 142 (1984)

1984

[7] [7]

Gasser and H

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B250, 465 (1985)

1985

[8] [8]

Scherer and M

S. Scherer and M. R. Schindler, Lect. Notes Phys. 830, pp.1 (2012)

2012