Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 104 references

Distribution Functions of $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma^0$ Baryons

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper predicts the $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma^0$ baryons' valence, glue, and sea distribution functions from a quark+diquark contact interaction, showing that diquark correlations imprint spin-flavour signatures—notably, the $\Sigma^0$'s…

desk verdict First SCI prediction of Lambda/Sigma0 DFs, with a load-bearing caveat on the Lambda polarised light-quark cancellation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10663 v2 pith:E34OOOFT submitted 2025-05-15 hep-ph hep-exhep-latnucl-exnucl-th

Yang Yu , Peng Cheng , Hui-Yu Xing , Daniele Binosi , Craig D. Roberts This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-latnucl-exnucl-th
keywords LambdabaryonSigma0partondistributionfunctionspolariseddistributionsdiquarkcorrelationscontactinteractionspindecompositionall-ordersevolution
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 claims that the internal parton structure of the $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma^0$ baryons is set, to a large degree, by their spin-flavour wave functions, in which the same three valence quarks $(u,d,s)$ are arranged differently: the $\Lambda$ is dominated by an $s$ quark plus a scalar $[ud]$ diquark, while the $\Sigma^0$ has more axialvector-diquark strength. Using a symmetry-preserving contact interaction with quark-plus-interacting-diquark bound states, the authors compute unpolarised and polarised valence, glue, and four-flavour separated sea distribution functions at the hadron scale and evolve them to 2 GeV. The results expose clear diquark signatures: for instance, the $\Sigma^0$'s strange quark would carry none of the baryon's spin if axialvector diquarks were absent, and the $\Lambda$'s polarised light-quark distribution nearly cancels. The authors argue that these predictions, if confirmed, tie baryon spin decompositions and hard-scattering observables to emergent hadron mass and diquark correlations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Poincar\'e-covariant quark-plus-interacting-diquark Faddeev amplitude for octet baryons, built from scalar $[ud]$, $[ls]$ and axialvector $\{ud\}$, $\{ls\}$ diquark correlations with masses and amplitudes fixed by meson-tuned SCI parameters. Distribution functions are computed at the hadron scale $\zeta_H$, defined as the scale where all baryon momentum and spin reside in valence quasiparticles, so glue and sea DFs vanish there; all-orders evolution then undresses the valence quarks and generates glue and sea. The algebraic SCI formulae make the mechanism transparent: baryon-number and momentum sum rules follow from identities relating struck-quark terms to diquark momentum distributions, and helicity dependence enters through dressed-quark axial charges and axialvector-diquark transition form factors. This machinery converts the spin-flavour wave functions of Eqs. (1a) and (1b), rather than fitted parton parameters, into the shapes and moments of the DFs.

What would settle it

Recompute the $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma^0$ DFs with the quark-exchange diagram and its partner diagrams included in the interaction current (the diagrams omitted here); the central claim fails if the $\Lambda$ polarised light-quark DF's first moment is no longer near zero or the $\Sigma^0$ strange-quark spin fraction changes sign. A less direct check is unquenched lattice QCD for $\langle x\rangle_s^\Lambda$ and $a_0^{\Lambda,\Sigma^0}$ disagreeing with the paper's Table 4 beyond uncertainties.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within a symmetry-preserving treatment of a vector$\times$vector contact interaction, the paper derives hadron-scale valence-quark DFs for $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma^0$ from their Faddeev amplitudes, then uses all-orders evolution to predict glue and sea DFs at $\zeta_2=2$ GeV. The central discovery is that the different diquark content of the two isospin partners leaves measurable signatures: the $\Sigma^0$ $s$-quark DF resembles half the neutron's $d$-quark DF, the $\Lambda$ light-quark DF resembles the neutron's $u$ DF, and the polarised $\Lambda$ light-quark DF is nearly zero because large positive and negative contributions cancel. The most qualitative claim is that only the presence of axialvector diquarks allows the $\Sigma^0$'s strange quark to be struck by a hard probe or to carry spin; without them it would be sequestered inside an unpolarisable scalar diquark. Evolved spin decompositions put quark helicity at about 51% of the $\Lambda$ spin, 44% of the $\Sigma^0$ spin, and 45% of the proton spin at 2 GeV, with glue contributing about 41% in each case.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted $\Lambda$ polarised light-quark cancellation and the resulting spin decomposition rest on omitting quark-exchange (and partner) diagrams from the baryon-to-quark interaction current; if those diagrams shift helicity into light quarks, that prediction changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $\Sigma^0$'s strange quark can be a valence degree of freedom seen by hard probes only because axialvector diquarks exist; on $x\simeq1$, ratios like $l/s$ and $\Delta l/\Delta s$ would otherwise diverge.
  • The $\Lambda$ polarised light-quark DF is predicted to be almost zero at the hadron scale, so almost all of the $\Lambda$'s helicity is carried by the strange quark, with light-quark orbital angular momentum accommodating the remainder.
  • After evolution, glue and sea DFs in $\Lambda$, $\Sigma^0$, and proton are very similar in shape, with the same net gluon contribution to spin ($\approx 41\%$); the $\Lambda$ has about 13% more polarised glue than the proton and the $\Sigma^0$ about 3% less.
  • Higgs-generated mass differences between $s$ and light quarks are largely masked by emergent mass, so the $s$ quark carries only about 30% more momentum than each light quark in the $\Lambda$ and about 5% more in the $\Sigma^0$.
  • The predicted spin fractions at 2 GeV place contemporary proton spin data inside the model's band, offering a resolution of the proton spin crisis in which quark helicity, quark orbital angular momentum, and gluon angular momentum all contribute.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the wave-function signatures survive a calculation that includes the omitted quark-exchange diagrams, then polarised $\Lambda$ electroproduction spin-transfer measurements, once reliable fragmentation functions exist, would provide a direct experimental test of diquark content.
  • The near-cancellation of the $\Lambda$'s polarised light-quark DF is the most fragile prediction; including the omitted diagrams could flip its sign, changing $\ell^q_\Lambda$ and the inferred quark-orbital-angular-momentum fraction without necessarily disturbing the unpolarised DFs.
  • Because the SCI produces explicit interpolation coefficients and Mellin moments, unquenched lattice QCD calculations of $\langle x\rangle_s^\Lambda$ and $a_0^{\Lambda,\Sigma^0}$ could settle the comparison suggested in the paper; the authors already note that the quenched lattice moments should be revisited.
  • The same machinery, applied to decuplet baryons or singly-heavy baryons, would sharpen the diquark signatures because those wave functions are simpler and the scalar-versus-axialvector competition is more extreme.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends a symmetry-preserving vector×vector contact-interaction (SCI) quark + interacting-diquark treatment to compute helicity-independent and helicity-dependent valence distribution functions of the Λ and Σ0 baryons at the hadron scale, evolves them to 2 GeV using the all-orders scheme, and derives glue and four-flavour separated sea DFs, Mellin moments, and baryon spin decompositions. The core structural input is the different spin-flavour Faddeev wave functions of Λ(I=0) and Σ0(I=1), and the analysis emphasizes observable signatures of scalar versus axialvector diquark content, e.g., the claim that the s quark in Σ0 can carry spin only because of axialvector diquarks. All results follow from meson-sector-tuned SCI parameters and satisfy valence number and momentum sum rules.

Significance. If the results are robust, the paper provides the first extensive, internally consistent set of Λ and Σ0 unpolarised and polarised DFs from a symmetry-preserving quark+diquark framework, including evolved glue and sea distributions and spin decompositions. The strengths are the explicit algebraic formulae, the parameter-free character of the predictions once the SCI parameters are fixed by meson properties, the verification of sum rules, and the provision of interpolation coefficients that make the results reproducible. The paper also makes falsifiable predictions, such as scale-invariant polarised/unpolarised ratios and large-x relations. However, the central quantitative claim about where Λ spin resides rests on a delicate cancellation in the polarised light-quark channel that is not protected by any symmetry and depends on an omitted class of diagrams and on a phenomenological transition DF; this limits the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from the spin decomposition.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.2, Eq. (59)] The near-cancellation that produces ⟨Δl/g_A⟩_Λ = −0.018 versus ⟨Δs/g_A⟩_Λ = 0.593 is not protected by any sum rule. The paper itself states in Section 5.2 that the omitted quark-exchange and partner diagrams would shift “some helicity into light quarks within the Λ.” Since Eq. (57) makes Δq(x;ζ)/q(x;ζ) scale invariant, a hadron-scale shift in Δl propagates unchanged into the evolved polarised glue and sea DFs and into the spin decompositions in Eqs. (75)–(82). The unpolarised sum rules in Eqs. (24) and (32) do not constrain this helicity channel. The authors are honest about the omission, but as written the quantitative claim that the Λ spin is predominantly carried by the strange quark, and the related OAM fractions, are contingent on an uncalculated current contribution. I ask the authors either to estimate the size of these diagrams within the SCI, or to reframe the Λ spin conclusions as conditional on this omission.
  2. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A.9)–(A.10)] The scalar-to-axialvector diquark transition DF, which contributes a large negative term to the Λ polarised light-quark DF through Eqs. (39) and (45), is not computed from the model. Instead, l^01_V(x) is set proportional to the square of a phenomenological “middle” kaon DA of Ref. [53]. The sensitivity of the central Λ cancellation to this ad hoc choice is not tested. The proton analogue in Ref. [18] showed little sensitivity to the [ud]↔{ud} transition DF, but that does not establish the same for the [ls]↔{ls} transition in the Λ, where the cancellation is much more delicate. I request a sensitivity study using alternative transition shapes, or a computed transition DF, before the Λ polarised light-quark result and its spin consequences are presented as definitive.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 4] The column headers for the Σ0 rows repeat the Λ labels “Su_Λ, Sd_Λ, Ss_Λ, Sc_Λ”; these should be Σ0 labels to avoid confusion.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (26)] The projector Λ_+ is defined with m_Σ, but the symbol Λ_+ is the same as that used for the Λ baryon in Section 3.1. Using Σ_+ or a different notation would remove needless ambiguity.
  3. [Section 5.3, Eq. (61)] The entry “d/u 0.71/2 = 0.36” is confusing: the convention for comparing single-flavour ratios in Λ/Σ0 with the nucleon’s d/u should be stated clearly in the text or table caption.
  4. [Section 2, Table 3] The amplitude normalisation factor n_c^Λ = n_c^Σ = 0.217 is stated, but the unit-normalised coefficients in the table are used directly in later formulae; it would help to make explicit where the canonical normalisation factor enters the DF expressions in Appendices B.
  5. [Section 6, Eq. (63)] The Pauli-blocking modification is applied only to the proton; the text explains why for Λ/Σ0, but the statement could be made earlier in the section to prevent readers from asking whether the same factor should appear in all baryon evolutions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Lambda/Sigma0 DFs are outputs of a fixed meson-sector-tuned SCI model, not refits of the target observables.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained at the level that matters for circularity. The SCI parameters in Table 1 are fixed by flavoured pseudoscalar meson properties; the diquark masses and amplitudes (Table 2) and the Faddeev amplitudes (Table 3) are obtained by solving the SCI bound-state equations, not by fitting any Lambda or Sigma0 distribution function. The hadron-scale valence DFs are then computed from explicit operator definitions in Sects. 3 and 4, and the unpolarised results are checked against baryon-number and momentum sum rules in Eqs. (24) and (32). The evolved glue and sea DFs are generated from these valence inputs by the AO DGLAP scheme, with no reference to external moments and no parameter fitted to secure agreement (as the paper states explicitly for Table 4). The headline statements, including the role of axialvector diquarks in the Sigma0 and the near-cancellation of the Lambda light-quark polarised DF, are model consequences rather than fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The paper does rely on same-group prior work for the hadron-scale definition, the AO evolution scheme, axial-vector diquark form factors, and the [ls] <-> {ls} transition DF shape; these are declared model/input choices, not results whose derivation reduces to the target Lambda/Sigma0 DFs. The acknowledged omission of quark-exchange and partner diagrams in Section 5.2 is a genuine robustness caveat for the Lambda polarised light-quark DF, but it is a completeness limitation, not a circular reduction: no sum rule or fitted parameter forces that cancellation. Therefore no step meets the standard of being equivalent to its inputs by construction.

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

All numerical inputs are fixed by prior meson-sector fits or by stated model choices; none are fitted to Lambda or Sigma0 DFs. The central assumptions are the quark+diquark picture, the hadron-scale definition, the AO evolution scheme, and the two approximations for diquark and transition DFs.

free parameters (7)
  • SCI interaction strength alpha_IR/pi = 0.36 (u/d), 0.33 (s)
    Fitted to flavoured pseudoscalar meson properties in prior work (Table 1); central to all propagators and amplitudes used for the DFs.
  • UV cutoff Lambda_uv = 0.91 GeV (u/d), 0.94 GeV (s)
    Regularisation cutoff fixed with the meson-sector fit in Table 1.
  • Current quark masses m_u/d, m_s = 0.0068 GeV, 0.16 GeV
    Fitted to pion and kaon masses/decay constants (Table 1); the light-strange mass splitting drives SU(3) breaking effects in the DFs.
  • Hadron scale zeta_H = 0.331(2) GeV
    Taken from prior AO evolution analyses (Ref. 63); defines the starting scale where glue and sea vanish.
  • Threshold parameters delta_s, delta_c = 0.1 GeV, 0.9 GeV
    Chosen in Eq. (64) to control when strange and charm quarks enter evolution; not fitted to Lambda/Sigma0 data.
  • Transition DF shape parameters = rho=5.00, gamma=-5.97, alpha=0.0638, beta=0.0481
    The [ls] to {ls} transition DF is approximated by the square of a kaon DA from Ref. 53 (Eqs. A.9-A.10), rather than computed from the SCI.
  • Infrared regulator mass m_G and IR cutoff Lambda_ir = 0.5 GeV, 0.24 GeV
    Fixed regularization parameters of the SCI used in Table 1.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption J^P=(1/2)+ octet baryons are quark plus fully-interacting diquark bound states, with only isoscalar-scalar and isovector-axialvector diquarks.
    Introduced in Sec. 1 and used in the Faddeev amplitudes Eqs. (1), (6), (7); the entire DF calculation rests on this picture.
  • domain assumption The hadron scale zeta_H is the scale where all baryon properties are carried by valence degrees of freedom, and the AO evolution scheme with the SCI effective charge is valid for hyperons.
    Used in Sec. 6 to generate glue and sea DFs; the value 0.331(2) GeV comes from prior pion/proton analyses and is assumed universal.
  • domain assumption Isospin symmetry is exact: u and d quarks are mass degenerate and their DFs in Lambda/Sigma0 are identical.
    Stated in Sec. 1 and used throughout; it simplifies the flavour structure and all results.
  • ad hoc to paper The hadron-scale diquark DF is proportional to the square of the related distribution amplitude (Eq. A.1).
    Used in Appendix A to obtain diquark DFs; supported by a citation to Ref. 103 but not derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The [ls] to {ls} transition DF is represented by the square of a phenomenological kaon DA (Eqs. A.9-A.10).
    The actual transition is not calculated; sensitivity to this choice was only studied for the analogous proton [ud] to {ud} transition, not for the hyperon case.
  • domain assumption The DF interaction current excludes quark exchange and partner diagrams, and axial currents are treated in a static approximation.
    Explicitly stated in Secs. 3 and 5.2; the authors note this omission likely shifts helicity into light quarks in Lambda.
  • domain assumption AO evolution's two axioms (observable-defined effective charge and hadron scale) hold as described in Ref. 37.
    Adopted in Sec. 6; the AO scheme is the basis for all zeta2 results.
  • domain assumption Pauli blocking factor in Eq. (63) applies only to proton evolution; Lambda and Sigma0 evolution uses no such factor because no flavour is doubly represented.
    Stated in Sec. 6; this choice affects the flavour-separated sea predictions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distribution Functions of $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma^0$ Baryons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E34OOOFT

@misc{pith2026250510663,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distribution Functions of $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma^0$ Baryons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E34OOOFT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10663}
}
abstract

Treating baryons as quark + interacting-diquark bound states, a symmetry-preserving formulation of a vector$\,\times\,$vector contact interaction (SCI) is used to deliver an extensive, coherent set of predictions for $\Lambda, \Sigma^0$ baryon unpolarised and polarised distribution functions (DFs) -- valence, glue, and four-flavour separated sea -- and compare them with those of a like-structured nucleon. $\Lambda, \Sigma^0$ baryons are strangeness negative-one isospin partners within the SU$(3)$-flavour baryon octet. This makes such structural comparisons significant. The study reveals impacts of diquark correlations and SU$(3)$-flavour symmetry breaking on $\Lambda$, $\Sigma^0$ structure functions, some of which are significant. For instance, were it not for the presence of axialvector diquarks in the $\Sigma^0$ at the hadron scale, the $s$ quark could carry none of the $\Sigma^0$ spin. The discussion canvasses issues that include helicity retention in hard scattering processes; the sign and size of polarised gluon DFs; and the origin and decomposition of baryon spins. Interpreted judiciously, the SCI analysis delivers an insightful explanation of baryon structure as expressed in DFs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [53]

    Z.-F. Cui, M. Ding, F. Gao, K. Raya, D. Binosi, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr´ ıguez-Quintero, S. M. Schmidt, Kaon and pion parton distributions, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 1064

    2020

  2. [18]

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

    2024

  3. [1]

    Lin, et al., Parton distributions and lattice QCD calculations: a community white paper, Prog

    H.-W. Lin, et al., Parton distributions and lattice QCD calculations: a community white paper, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 100 (2018) 107–160

    2018

  4. [2]

    C. D. Roberts, A. G. Williams, Dyson-Schwinger equa- tions and their application to hadronic physics, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 33 (1994) 477–575

    1994

  5. [3]

    Eichmann, R

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

    2010

  6. [4]

    Eichmann, H

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

    2016

  7. [5]

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

    arXiv 2025

  8. [6]

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

    2025

Show all 104 references
  1. [7]

    R. T. Cahill, C. D. Roberts, J. Praschifka, Baryon struc- ture and QCD, Austral. J. Phys. 42 (1989) 129–145. 22

    1989

  2. [8]

    Reinhardt, Hadronization of Quark Flavor Dyna- mics, Phys

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

    1990

  3. [9]

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

    1990

  4. [10]

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

    2021

  5. [11]

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

    1989

  6. [12]

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

    2019

  7. [13]

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

    2020

  8. [14]

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

    2020

  9. [15]

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

    2023

  10. [16]

    Y. Lu, L. Chang, K. Raya, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr´ ıguez- Quintero, Proton and pion distribution functions in counterpoint, Phys. Lett. B 830 (2022) 137130

    2022

  11. [17]

    Cheng, Y

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

    2023

  12. [19]

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

    2024

  13. [20]

    P.-L. Yin, C. Chen, G. Krein, C. D. Roberts, J. Segovia, S.-S. Xu, Masses of ground-state mesons and baryons, including those with heavy quarks, Phys. Rev. D 100 (3) (2019) 034008

    2019

  14. [21]

    Yin, Z.-F

    P.-L. Yin, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, J. Segovia, Masses of positive- and negative-parity hadron ground-states, including those with heavy quarks, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (4) (2021) 327

    2021

  15. [22]

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

    2022

  16. [23]

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

    2022

  17. [24]

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

    2024

  18. [25]

    Torcato, A

    A. Torcato, A. Arriaga, G. Eichmann, M. T. Pe˜ na, Heavy Baryon Spectroscopy in a Quark–Diquark Ap- proach, Few Body Syst. 64 (3) (2023) 45

    2023

  19. [26]

    Boros, J

    C. Boros, J. T. Londergan, A. W. Thomas, Structure and production of Lambda baryons, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 014007

    2000

  20. [27]

    B.-Q. Ma, I. Schmidt, J. Soffer, J.-J. Yang, Quark dis- tributions of octet baryons from SU(3) symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 034004

    2002

  21. [28]

    Gockeler, R

    M. Gockeler, R. Horsley, D. Pleiter, P. E. L. Rakow, S. Schaefer, A. Schafer, G. Schierholz, A Lattice study of the spin structure of the Lambda hyperon, Phys. Lett. B 545 (2002) 112–118

    2002

  22. [29]

    Erkol, M

    G. Erkol, M. Oka, Spin Content of Lambda in QCD Sum Rules, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 114028

    2009

  23. [30]

    A. J. Chambers, et al., Feynman-Hellmann approach to the spin structure of hadrons, Phys. Rev. D 90 (1) (2014) 014510

    2014

  24. [31]

    T. Peng, Z. Zhu, S. Xu, X. Liu, C. Mondal, X. Zhao, J. P. Vary, Basis light-front quantization approach toΛ andΛc and their isospin triplet baryons, Phys. Rev. D 106 (11) (2022) 114040

    2022

  25. [32]

    L. X. Guti´ errez-Guerrero, A. Bashir, I. C. Cloet, C. D. Roberts, Pion form factor from a contact interaction, Phys. Rev. C 81 (2010) 065202

    2010

  26. [33]

    H. L. L. Roberts, C. D. Roberts, A. Bashir, L. X. Guti´ errez-Guerrero, P. C. Tandy, Abelian anomaly and neutral pion production, Phys. Rev. C 82 (2010) 065202

    2010

  27. [34]

    H. L. L. Roberts, A. Bashir, L. X. Guti´ errez-Guerrero, C. D. Roberts, D. J. Wilson,π- andρ-mesons, and their diquark partners, from a contact interaction, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 065206

    2011

  28. [35]

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

    2012

  29. [36]

    Cheng, F

    P. Cheng, F. E. Serna, Z.-Q. Yao, C. Chen, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, Contact interaction analysis of octet baryon axial-vector and pseudoscalar form factors, Phys. Rev. D 106 (5) (2022) 054031

    2022

  30. [37]

    Yin, Y.-Z

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

    2023

  31. [38]

    Y. L. Dokshitzer, Calculation of the Structure Functions for Deep Inelastic Scattering ande +e− Annihilation by Perturbation Theory in Quantum Chromodynamics. (In Russian), Sov. Phys. JETP 46 (1977) 641–653

    1977

  32. [39]

    V. N. Gribov, L. N. Lipatov, Deep inelastic electron scattering in perturbation theory, Phys. Lett. B 37 (1971) 78–80

    1971

  33. [40]

    L. N. Lipatov, The parton model and perturbation the- ory, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 20 (1975) 94–102

    1975

  34. [41]

    Altarelli, G

    G. Altarelli, G. Parisi, Asymptotic Freedom in Parton Language, Nucl. Phys. B 126 (1977) 298–318

    1977

  35. [42]

    Grunberg, Renormalization Group Improved Pertur- bative QCD, Phys

    G. Grunberg, Renormalization Group Improved Pertur- bative QCD, Phys. Lett. B 95 (1980) 70, [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B 110, 501 (1982)]

    1980

  36. [43]

    Grunberg, Renormalization Scheme Independent QCD and QED: The Method of Effective Charges, Phys

    G. Grunberg, Renormalization Scheme Independent QCD and QED: The Method of Effective Charges, Phys. Rev. D 29 (1984) 2315

    1984

  37. [44]

    A. Deur, S. J. Brodsky, C. D. Roberts, QCD Run- ning Couplings and Effective Charges, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 134 (2024) 104081

    2024

  38. [45]

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

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

    2024

  39. [46]

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

    2015

  40. [47]

    H. L. L. Roberts, L. Chang, I. C. Cloet, C. D. Roberts, Masses of ground and excited-state hadrons, Few Body Syst. 51 (2011) 1–25

    2011

  41. [48]

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

    2002

  42. [49]

    Sanchis-Alepuz, C

    H. Sanchis-Alepuz, C. S. Fischer, S. Kubrak, Pion cloud effects on baryon masses, Phys. Lett. B 733 (2014) 151– 157. 23

    2014

  43. [50]

    Garc´ ıa-Tecocoatzi, R

    H. Garc´ ıa-Tecocoatzi, R. Bijker, J. Ferretti, E. San- topinto, Self-energies of octet and decuplet baryons due to the coupling to the baryon-meson continuum, Eur. Phys. J. A 53 (6) (2017) 115

    2017

  44. [51]

    X. Chen, J. Ping, C. D. Roberts, J. Segovia, Light- meson masses in an unquenched quark model, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 094016

    2018

  45. [52]

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

    2013

  46. [54]

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

    2023

  47. [55]

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

    2024

  48. [56]

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

    2025

  49. [57]

    Lu, Y.-Z

    Y. Lu, Y.-Z. Xu, K. Raya, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr´ ıguez- Quintero, Pion distribution functions from low-order Mellin moments, Phys. Lett. B 850 (2024) 138534

    2024

  50. [58]

    Alexandrou, et al., Quark and Gluon Momentum Fractions in the Pion and in the Kaon, Phys

    C. Alexandrou, et al., Quark and Gluon Momentum Fractions in the Pion and in the Kaon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 (13) (2025) 131902

    2025

  51. [59]

    Xing, Z.-N

    H.-Y. Xing, Z.-N. Xu, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, C. Xu, Heavy + heavy and heavy + light pseudoscalar to vector semileptonic transitions, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (10) (2022) 889

    2022

  52. [60]

    S. J. Brodsky, M. Burkardt, I. Schmidt, Perturbative QCD constraints on the shape of polarized quark and gluon distributions, Nucl. Phys. B 441 (1995) 197–214

    1995

  53. [61]

    Yuan, Generalized parton distributions atx→1, Phys

    F. Yuan, Generalized parton distributions atx→1, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 051501

    2004

  54. [62]

    R. J. Holt, C. D. Roberts, Distribution Functions of the Nucleon and Pion in the Valence Region, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 2991–3044

    2010

  55. [63]

    Z. F. Cui, M. Ding, J. M. Morgado, K. Raya, D. Binosi, L. Chang, J. Papavassiliou, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr´ ıguez- Quintero, S. M. Schmidt, Concerning pion parton dis- tributions, Eur. Phys. J. A 58 (1) (2022) 10

    2022

  56. [64]

    Z. F. Cui, M. Ding, J. M. Morgado, K. Raya, D. Binosi, L. Chang, F. De Soto, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr´ ıguez- Quintero, S. M. Schmidt, Emergence of pion parton dis- tributions, Phys. Rev. D 105 (9) (2022) L091502

    2022

  57. [65]

    G. R. Farrar, D. R. Jackson, Pion and Nucleon Structure Functions Nearx= 1, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35 (1975) 1416

    1975

  58. [66]

    Airapetian, et al., Quark helicity distributions in the nucleon for up, down, and strange quarks from semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering, Phys

    A. Airapetian, et al., Quark helicity distributions in the nucleon for up, down, and strange quarks from semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 012003

    2005

  59. [67]

    M. G. Alekseev, et al., Quark helicity distributions from longitudinal spin asymmetries in muon-proton and muon-deuteron scattering, Phys. Lett. B 693 (2010) 227–235

    2010

  60. [68]

    K. V. Dharmawardane, et al., Measurement of thex- andQ 2-dependence of the asymmetryA 1 on the nu- cleon, Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006) 11–17

    2006

  61. [69]

    Prok, et al., Moments of the Spin Structure Functions gp 1 andg d 1 for 0.05< Q 2 <3-GeV 2, Phys

    Y. Prok, et al., Moments of the Spin Structure Functions gp 1 andg d 1 for 0.05< Q 2 <3-GeV 2, Phys. Lett. B 672 (2009) 12–16

    2009

  62. [70]

    Guler, et al., Precise determination of the deuteron spin structure at low to moderateQ 2 with CLAS and extraction of the neutron contribution, Phys

    N. Guler, et al., Precise determination of the deuteron spin structure at low to moderateQ 2 with CLAS and extraction of the neutron contribution, Phys. Rev. C 92 (5) (2015) 055201

    2015

  63. [71]

    Fersch, et al., Determination of the Proton Spin Structure Functions for 0.05< Q 2 <5 GeV 2 using CLAS, Phys

    R. Fersch, et al., Determination of the Proton Spin Structure Functions for 0.05< Q 2 <5 GeV 2 using CLAS, Phys. Rev. C 96 (6) (2017) 065208

    2017

  64. [72]

    D. S. Parno, et al., Precision Measurements ofA n 1 in the Deep Inelastic Regime, Phys. Lett. B 744 (2015) 309–314

    2015

  65. [73]

    Zheng, et al., Precision measurement of the neutron spin asymmetryA N 1 and spin flavor decomposition in the valence quark region, Phys

    X. Zheng, et al., Precision measurement of the neutron spin asymmetryA N 1 and spin flavor decomposition in the valence quark region, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 012004

    2004

  66. [74]

    Zheng, et al., Precision measurement of the neutron spin asymmetries and spin-dependent structure func- tions in the valence quark region, Phys

    X. Zheng, et al., Precision measurement of the neutron spin asymmetries and spin-dependent structure func- tions in the valence quark region, Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 065207

    2004

  67. [75]

    Kuhn, et al.,The Longitudinal Spin Structure of the Nucleon, CLAS Collaboration (E12-06-109)

    S. Kuhn, et al.,The Longitudinal Spin Structure of the Nucleon, CLAS Collaboration (E12-06-109)

  68. [76]

    Zheng, et al.,Measurement of Neutron Spin Asym- metry A n 1 in the Valence Quark Region using an 11 GeV Beam and a Polarized 3He Target in Hall C, E12- 06-110 Collaboration

    X. Zheng, et al.,Measurement of Neutron Spin Asym- metry A n 1 in the Valence Quark Region using an 11 GeV Beam and a Polarized 3He Target in Hall C, E12- 06-110 Collaboration

  69. [77]

    Chang, F

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

    2022

  70. [78]

    Y.-Z. Xu, K. Raya, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr´ ıguez-Quintero, Empirical Determination of the Pion Mass Distribution, Chin. Phys. Lett.Express 40 (4) (2023) 041201

    2023

  71. [79]

    Xing, W.-H

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

  72. [80]

    Binosi, C

    D. Binosi, C. Mezrag, J. Papavassiliou, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr´ ıguez-Quintero, Process-independent strong run- ning coupling, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 054026

    2017

  73. [81]

    Cui, J.-L

    Z.-F. Cui, J.-L. Zhang, D. Binosi, F. de Soto, C. Mezrag, J. Papavassiliou, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr´ ıguez-Quintero, J. Segovia, S. Zafeiropoulos, Effective charge from lat- tice QCD, Chin. Phys. C 44 (2020) 083102

    2020

  74. [82]

    S. J. Brodsky, A. Deur, C. D. Roberts, The Secret to the Strongest Force in the Universe, Sci. Am. 5 (May) (2024) 32–39

    2024

  75. [83]

    R. L. Jaffe, G. G. Ross, Normalizing the Renormaliza- tion Group Analysis of Deep Inelastic Leptoproduction, Phys. Lett. B 93 (1980) 313–317

    1980

  76. [84]

    Adolph, et al., Leading-order determination of the gluon polarisation from semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering data, Eur

    C. Adolph, et al., Leading-order determination of the gluon polarisation from semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering data, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (4) (2017) 209

    2017

  77. [85]

    Hatta, S

    Y. Hatta, S. Yoshida, Twist analysis of the nucleon spin in QCD, JHEP 10 (2012) 080

    2012

  78. [86]

    Bhattacharya, D

    S. Bhattacharya, D. Zheng, J. Zhou, Probing the Quark Orbital Angular Momentum at Electron-Ion Colliders Using Exclusiveπ 0 Production, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (5) (2024) 051901

    2024

  79. [87]

    Altarelli, G

    G. Altarelli, G. G. Ross, The Anomalous Gluon Contri- bution to Polarized Leptoproduction, Phys. Lett. B 212 (1988) 391–396

    1988

  80. [88]

    Adolph, et al., Final COMPASS results on the deuteron spin-dependent structure functiong d 1 and the Bjorken sum rule, Phys

    C. Adolph, et al., Final COMPASS results on the deuteron spin-dependent structure functiong d 1 and the Bjorken sum rule, Phys. Lett. B 769 (2017) 34–41

    2017

  81. [89]

    Ashman, et al., A Measurement of the Spin Asym- metry and Determination of the Structure Functiong 1 in Deep Inelastic Muon-Proton Scattering, Phys

    J. Ashman, et al., A Measurement of the Spin Asym- metry and Determination of the Structure Functiong 1 in Deep Inelastic Muon-Proton Scattering, Phys. Lett. B 206 (1988) 364. 24

    1988

  82. [90]

    R. L. Jaffe, A. Manohar, The G(1) Problem: Fact and Fantasy on the Spin of the Proton, Nucl. Phys. B 337 (1990) 509–546

    1990

  83. [91]

    M. S. Bhagwat, L. Chang, Y.-X. Liu, C. D. Roberts, P. C. Tandy, Flavour symmetry breaking and meson masses, Phys. Rev. C 76 (2007) 045203

    2007

  84. [92]

    K. Raya, M. Ding, A. Bashir, L. Chang, C. D. Ro- berts, Partonic structure of neutral pseudoscalars via two photon transition form factors, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 074014

    2017

  85. [93]

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

    2019

  86. [94]

    S. D. Bass, Spin structure in nonforward partons, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 074025

    2002

  87. [95]

    C. A. Aidala, S. D. Bass, D. Hasch, G. K. Mallot, The Spin Structure of the Nucleon, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85 (2013) 655–691

    2013

  88. [96]

    A. Deur, S. J. Brodsky, G. F. De T´ eramond, The Spin Structure of the Nucleon, Rept. Prog. Phys. 82 (076201)

  89. [97]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, M. Constantinou, J. Finken- rath, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, G. Koutsou, H. Panagopoulos, G. Spanoudes, Complete flavor de- composition of the spin and momentum fraction of the proton using lattice QCD simulations at physical pion mass, Phys. Rev....

    2020

  90. [98]

    Airapetian, et al., Measurement of longitudinal spin transfer to Lambda hyperons in deep inelastic lepton scattering, Phys

    A. Airapetian, et al., Measurement of longitudinal spin transfer to Lambda hyperons in deep inelastic lepton scattering, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 112005

    2001

  91. [99]

    Schnell, Di-hadron fragmentation in reduced di- mensionality andΛhyperon beam-spin transfer, PoS Transversity2024 (2024) 034

    G. Schnell, Di-hadron fragmentation in reduced di- mensionality andΛhyperon beam-spin transfer, PoS Transversity2024 (2024) 034

    2024

  92. [100]

    A. Metz, A. Vossen, Parton Fragmentation Functions, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 91 (2016) 136–202

    2016

  93. [101]

    J. Zhao, Z. Zhang, Z.-t. Liang, T. Liu, Y.-j. Zhou, Semi- inclusive production of spin-3/2 hadrons in deep inelas- tic scattering, Phys. Rev. D 109 (7) (2024) 074017

    2024

  94. [102]

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

    2022

  95. [103]

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

    2021

  96. [104]

    Y. Lu, D. Binosi, M. Ding, C. D. Roberts, H.-Y. Xing, C. Xu, Distribution amplitudes of light diquarks, Eur. Phys. J A (Lett) 57 (4) (2021) 115

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.