Electroexcitation of Nucleon Resonances and the Emergence of Hadron Mass

Craig D. Roberts; Daniel S. Carman; Kyungseon Joo; Patrick Achenbach; Ralf W. Gothe; Victor I. Mokeev

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 191 references

Electroexcitation of Nucleon Resonances and the Emergence of Hadron Mass

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Measured resonance electrocouplings reveal that dressed quark mass runs with distance.

desk verdict A credible review of the CSM case for emergent mass from N* electrocouplings, with a pre-data prediction confirmed, but the headline mass-coverage percentages rest on an unverified heuristic. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23550 v2 pith:64EX2R3G submitted 2025-05-29 hep-ph nucl-exnucl-th

Patrick Achenbach , Daniel S. Carman , Ralf W. Gothe , Kyungseon Joo , Victor I. Mokeev , Craig D. Roberts This is my paper

classification hep-phnucl-exnucl-th

keywords nucleonresonanceselectrocouplingsemergenceofhadronmassdressedquarkfunctioncontinuumSchwingermethodsexclusivemesonelectroproductionquantumchromodynamics

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 review aims to establish that the mass of a quark dressed by strong interactions is not a fixed constant but a function of distance (equivalently, of momentum), and that this running dressed-quark mass is the emergent hadron mass mechanism. The authors argue that the measured $Q^2$ evolution of the $\gamma_v p N^*$ electroexcitation amplitudes (electrocouplings) for the $\Delta(1232)3/2^+$, $N(1440)1/2^+$, and $\Delta(1600)3/2^+$ resonances, analyzed with continuum Schwinger function methods, matches predictions built on a momentum-dependent quark mass, while a momentum-independent "frozen" mass fails. If correct, the same mass function that describes pion and nucleon elastic form factors also describes resonance electroexcitation, meaning that dressed quarks with running masses are the common active degrees of freedom across meson and baryon structure. The paper also documents a specific predictive success: the 2019 prediction for the $\Delta(1600)3/2^+$ electrocouplings was confirmed by experimental results published in 2023.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the continuum Schwinger function method (CSM) treatment of the dressed-quark propagator $S(k)=Z(k^2)/[i\gamma\cdot k + M(k^2)]$, whose scalar part $M(k^2)$ is the running dressed-quark mass. The electroexcitation amplitudes are computed from diagrams in which the virtual photon interacts with each dressed quark and with diquark correlations inside the resonance; these amplitudes inherit the momentum dependence of $M(k^2)$. To connect theory to experiment the paper uses the relation $k\approx\sqrt{Q^2/3}$ from Eq. (19), which converts the photon virtuality into the momentum carried by a single dressed quark, and it invokes quark-core dominance at $Q^2\gtrsim 1.5\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$ so that the comparison between CSM predictions and data is meaningful.

What would settle it

Measure the $N(1440)1/2^+$ and $\Delta(1232)3/2^+$ electrocouplings out to $Q^2\approx 30\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$; the running-mass interpretation predicts that the data continue to follow the momentum-dependent CSM curves and deviate ever more strongly from the frozen-mass contact-interaction prediction, which already overshoots the $\Delta(1232)$ data by more than an order of magnitude at $Q^2 > 4\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On this paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the momentum dependence of the dressed-quark mass function $M(k^2)$ is empirically accessible through the $Q^2$ evolution of nucleon-resonance electroexcitation amplitudes, and that the existing data already reveal that mass running is required. CSM calculations that express a momentum-dependent mass function of the kind generated by QCD's dynamics describe the electrocouplings of the $\Delta(1232)3/2^+$ and $N(1440)1/2^+$ over the whole measured range, whereas calculations with a momentum-independent dressed-quark mass overestimate the $\Delta(1232)$ results by more than an order of magnitude at $Q^2 > 4\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$ and fail to reproduce the $N(1440)$ amplitudes. The same mass function also describes pion and nucleon elastic form factors. A further element of the discovery is that the $\Delta(1600)3/2^+$ electrocouplings predicted in 2019 agree with the first experimental extraction from 2023, supporting the presence of a quark core for this resonance and validating the mapping from photon virtuality to the momentum of a single dressed quark.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the photon's virtuality is shared roughly equally among the three dressed quarks, so that the momentum of a single quark is $k\approx\sqrt{Q^2/3}$; if this simple mapping or the related quark-core-dominance assumption fails, the paper's quantitative statements about how much of the emergent quark mass is mapped by current and future data lose their support.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the running-mass interpretation is correct, continuing measurements up to $Q^2\approx 10\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$ will map roughly the first half of the emergent quark mass, covering the region where about 50% of it is generated.
An energy upgrade to 22 GeV would extend electrocoupling measurements to $Q^2\approx 30\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$, making it possible to trace the dressed-quark mass out to the perturbative domain where almost 100% of the emergent mass has appeared.
The predicted zero crossing in the proton electric-to-magnetic form factor ratio near $Q^2\approx 10\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$ provides an independent, same-framework check of the mass function used for the electrocouplings.
Combined CSM analyses of pion, kaon, and nucleon elastic form factors with the resonance electrocouplings would test whether one universal dressed-quark mass function describes all these channels.

Reading between the lines

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

A sharper falsification of the $k\approx\sqrt{Q^2/3}$ mapping could come from comparing resonances with different internal orbital structure: if the mapping is universal, the same effective quark momentum should be extracted from, say, the $\Delta(1232)3/2^+$ and the orbital-excitation $N(1520)3/2^-$, and any systematic difference would indicate that the relation needs refinement.
The paper's framework implies a concrete quantitative target for model builders: the longitudinal $S_{1/2}$ electrocouplings, which are sensitive to the scalar part of the dressed-quark propagator, should provide an even more direct measure of $M(k^2)$ than the transverse amplitudes, so future high-$Q^2$ data on $S_{1/2}$ for the $\Delta(1700)3/2^-$ would be a stringent test.
If the universal mass-function claim is right, electrocoupling data could be used as a new input to global QCD analyses of parton distributions, effectively fixing the size of the dynamical mass at intermediate scales.

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

You should know two things about this paper. First, the core claim—that a momentum-dependent dressed quark mass, fixed by pion and nucleon properties, also describes the Q2 evolution of the Δ(1232), N(1440), and Δ(1600) electrocouplings—holds up. The 2019 prediction for Δ(1600), confirmed by 2023 data, is a genuinely impressive predictive success and the strongest part of the paper. Second, the paper's most distinctive quantitative claim, that CEBAF 6/12/22 GeV programs map 30%, 50%, and 100% of the emergent quark mass, rests entirely on Eq. (19), k≈sqrt(Q2/3). That relation is introduced with a hand-wavy 'roughly equal sharing' argument and no derivation, check, or uncertainty estimate. If the true mean struck-quark momentum differs by a factor of order unity, the coverage percentages are not supported. The stress-test note is right about this, and it is a real soft spot.

What the paper does well: it lays out the experimental extractions, the reaction model cross-checks, and the CSM calculations in a clear, coherent way. The consistency across independent πN and π+π−p channels is presented honestly. The authors also give a fair account of the meson–baryon cloud contribution and its Q2 dependence, and they clearly state that CSM comparisons are meaningful only where quark-core dominance applies. That is good scientific practice.

Soft spots beyond Eq. (19): the fits in Figs. 6 and 7 are judged visually, with no uncertainty bands on the CSM curves. The paper repeatedly claims CSMs are the 'only' approach capable of certain calculations; that may be true for resonance electrocouplings at present, but it is stated without a systematic comparison of competing frameworks and comes across as stronger than warranted. The review also relies heavily on the authors' own prior work, which is acceptable but should be balanced by more discussion of independent quark-model and lattice results, especially where those agree or disagree.

My overall reading: the central argument for a running dressed-quark mass is credible and not circular, but the specific quantitative mass-coverage numbers in the conclusions are not established. This is a review article, not a new measurement or derivation, but it is a useful and reasonably careful synthesis. It deserves a serious referee, and the referees should push the authors to either justify Eq. (19) or visibly soften the coverage claims. I would accept it after minor revision, and I would cite it if I were writing about N* electrocouplings or the CSM approach to EHM.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review article argues that Jefferson Lab measurements of the γ_v p N* electrocouplings for the Δ(1232)3/2+, N(1440)1/2+, and Δ(1600)3/2+, when analyzed with continuum Schwinger function methods (CSMs), provide strong evidence that the dressed-quark mass function runs with momentum, and hence support the emergence of hadron mass (EHM). The paper reviews the experimental extraction of electrocouplings from CLAS data, summarizes CSM predictions including a 2019 prediction for Δ(1600) later confirmed by 2023 data, and outlines how future CLAS12 and a possible 22 GeV CEBAF upgrade would extend the mapping of the dressed-quark mass function. The central quantitative projection, that existing, 12-GeV, and 22-GeV programs cover about 30%, 50%, and 100% of the emergent dressed-quark mass, rests on the heuristic relation k ≈ √(Q²/3) introduced in Sec. 5.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper documents an important scientific achievement: the same momentum-dependent dressed-quark mass function that describes pion and nucleon elastic form factors also explains the Q² evolution of resonance electrocouplings, with a genuine pre-data prediction for Δ(1600) confirmed by subsequent JLab data. The review is valuable as a synthesis of experimental and CSM results, and it clearly identifies experimental milestones and future opportunities. Its main strengths are the explicit documentation of the independent-channel extraction of electrocouplings, the emphasis on a common dressed-quark mass function across meson and baryon observables, and the honest distinction between the robust comparison in Figs. 6 and 7 and the more speculative extrapolations. The significance is tempered by the absence of uncertainty bands on the theoretical curves and by the largely unvalidated Q²-to-k mapping used for the quantitative coverage statements.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 5, Eq. (19)] The relation k ≈ √(Q²/3) is introduced with only the statement that it follows from 'roughly equal sharing of Q² among the three dressed quarks,' and it is then used to convert the measured photon virtuality into the momentum of a single dressed quark, yielding the specific coverage percentages 30%, 50%, and 100% quoted in Sec. 5 and the Conclusions. In the CSM transition current the photon couples to a single quark line, and the momentum scale that enters the dressed-quark mass function is the momentum of that struck quark as weighted by the Faddeev/Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes; it is not self-evident that this scale equals √(Q²/3). Because an O(1) error in this mapping would change the coverage percentages substantially, the paper needs either a derivation or numerical check of Eq. (19), or a rephrasing of the percentages as qualitative estimates under an explicit assumption.
[Sec. 4.2, Figs. 6 and 7] The central evidence for a running dressed-quark mass is presented as a visual agreement between CSM curves and electrocoupling data, but the theoretical curves carry no uncertainty bands and no quantitative goodness-of-fit measure is reported. Given that the claim is that the same mass function describes three resonances, the paper should provide at least a χ² per data point or an equivalent measure, together with an estimate of the theory uncertainty arising from the kernel parameters, so that the quality of the agreement can be assessed independently of the visual impression.
[Sec. 4.2, paragraph beginning 'The N* electroexcitation experiment-theory comparisons'] The text states that 'the mass of dressed quarks runs with distance, which may be defined by the inverse of the photon virtuality Q².' This conflates the photon virtuality with the momentum scale of a dressed quark inside the bound state, which is precisely the step that Eq. (19) attempts to quantify. The manuscript should state more carefully that this identification is an inference requiring the quark-core-dominance assumption and the momentum-sharing assumption, rather than presenting it as a direct definition.
[Sec. 4.2, discussion of quark-core dominance] The comparison of CSM (quark-core-only) results to data is justified by the assertion that quark-core contributions dominate for Q² above roughly 1-2 GeV², and gray bands in Fig. 6 indicate where meson-baryon cloud contributions remain substantial. However, the criteria for establishing the quark-core-dominance region are not documented, and no sensitivity test is shown. Since all three central comparisons rely on this assumption, the paper should either provide supporting evidence from the reaction-model analyses or discuss how the conclusions would change if the quark-core-dominance boundary shifted.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 4.2] The text refers to the '∆(1223)3/2+' in the paragraph comparing it with the ∆(1700)3/2-; this should be '∆(1232)3/2+'.
[Sec. 6] The 'Slessinger Point Method' is a misspelling of 'Schlessinger Point Method'.
[Eq. (17)] The notation p² = (iE)² + p⃗² is potentially confusing because p already denotes the four-momentum; a brief remark that E and p⃗ are the energy and three-momentum of the off-shell particle would help.
[Fig. 14] The label 'CLAS22' is used in the left panel but is not defined in the caption or text; please define it as the proposed CLAS detector configuration for a 22 GeV beam.
[Sec. 3.2 and Table 4] The text refers to 'Section IV A' of Ref. [14] when describing the averaging procedure; for a self-contained review it would be helpful to summarize that procedure explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the electrocoupling predictions use a dressed-quark mass function fixed by independent meson and nucleon elastic channels, and the Delta(1600) prediction preceded the data; Eq. (19) is a heuristic mapping, not a constructional equivalence.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: solve the quark gap equation to obtain M(k); use that M(k) in the CSM transition current; compare the computed gamma_v p N* electrocouplings with CLAS data. The mass function is not fitted to the electrocoupling data; it is the same function already used for pion, kaon, and nucleon elastic form factors, and the Delta(1600) electrocouplings were published in 2019 [139] before the 2023 CLAS extraction [14]. This is a genuine prediction-and-confirmation structure, not an input renamed as an output. The consistency of the same M(k) across independent observables would be falsified if the CSM curves disagreed with the data, so the comparison carries real evidential weight. The most questionable quantitative step is Eq. (19), k approximately sqrt(Q^2/3), introduced in Sec. 5 to convert photon virtuality into a single-quark momentum for the '30%, 50%, 100% of emergent mass' coverage statements. The paper states this as an assumption justified by bound-state wavefunction character, and it is not derived or assigned an uncertainty. However, it is not used to build the electrocoupling predictions, nor is it fitted to the data whose interpretation it supports; it is an interpretive heuristic. A wrong or oversimplified mapping would weaken the coverage percentages, but it does not make the electrocoupling predictions equivalent to the paper's inputs by construction. The paper also relies heavily on the authors' own CSM framework and reaction-model extractions, but independent lattice-QCD results for the quark and gluon mass functions, external Bjorken-sum-rule charge data, and the temporal ordering of prediction and measurement prevent the central claim from reducing to self-citation. No circular step meeting the required standard of an explicit Eq.-to-Eq. or fitted-parameter-to-prediction reduction was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the CSM framework's assumptions about the interaction kernel, the ad hoc k↔Q² mapping, and the quark-core dominance in the relevant Q² range. No new entities are introduced, but the free parameters of the CSM interaction are inherited from earlier meson phenomenology and are not documented in this paper.

free parameters (3)

SCI interaction strength αIR = αIR/π = 0.36
Used in Eq. (18) for the momentum-independent contact interaction; tuned to light-meson properties. Serves as the negative control that fails to describe the data.
SCI gluon mass scale mG = 0.5 GeV
Set to match the emergent gluon mass scale m0 ≈ 0.43 GeV in Eq. (5); part of the contact interaction kernel.
QCD-kindred interaction kernel parameters = not specified in this paper
The central CSM calculations (Refs. [123,124,139]) rely on a momentum-dependent interaction kernel whose parameters were fixed in earlier meson studies; values are not transparent here.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The quark-gluon vertex and interaction kernel used in the CSM calculations faithfully represent QCD's nonperturbative dynamics (rainbow-ladder and beyond).
Invoked in Section 4.2 and Fig. 6; underpins the reliability of the M(k²) used in the electrocoupling predictions.
ad hoc to paper The relation k≈sqrt(Q²/3) connects photon virtuality to single-quark momentum.
Eq. (19); justified only by 'the character of bound-state wavefunctions'; used to convert Q² coverage into mass-function coverage in Figs. 10 and 14.
domain assumption Quark-core contributions dominate the electrocouplings for Q² ≳ 1.5 GeV², so meson-baryon cloud effects can be neglected in comparisons.
Section 4.2: 'a direct comparison between CSM predictions and experimental results ... is meaningful only at length scales where quark core contributions dominate'.
domain assumption The hadron scale ζH = 1.7 m0 and the sQCD↔pQCD transition domain (Eq. 9) are correctly identified from the process-independent charge of Ref. [48].
Used in Section 5 to argue about which momentum ranges the experiments cover.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electroexcitation of Nucleon Resonances and the Emergence of Hadron Mass." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/64EX2R3G

@misc{pith2026250523550,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electroexcitation of Nucleon Resonances and the Emergence of Hadron Mass},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/64EX2R3G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23550}
}

abstract

Developing an understanding of phenomena driven by the emergence of hadron mass (EHM) is one of the most challenging problems in the Standard Model. This discussion focuses on the impact of results on nucleon resonance ($N^\ast$) electroexcitation amplitudes (or $\gamma_vpN^\ast$ electrocouplings) obtained from experiments during the 6-GeV era in Hall~B at Jefferson Lab on understanding EHM. Analyzed using continuum Schwinger function methods (CSMs), these results have revealed new pathways for the elucidation of EHM. A good description of the $\Delta(1232)3/2^+$, $N(1440)1/2^+$, and $\Delta(1600)3/2^+$ electrocouplings, achieved by CSM analyses that express a realistic dressed quark mass function, sheds light on the strong interaction dynamics that underlies EHM. Extensions to nucleon resonance studies for higher-mass states are outlined, as well as experimental results anticipated in the 12-GeV era at Jefferson Lab and those that would be enabled by a further increase of the beam energy to 22~GeV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23550 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Left: CSM predictions for the momentum dependence of the dressed gluon (solid blue curve) and quark (dot-dashed green) mass functions in the chiral limit [6,55,56]. For the quark, the associated like-colored bands express existing uncertainties in the CSM predictions. Relative uncertainties for the gluon are similar. Crucially, both functions are essentially nonperturbative, viz., neither can appear at any finite or… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Simplified diagrammatic representation of the resonant and non-resonant amplitudes contributing to various exclusive meson electroproduction channels in the resonance region. sum of the projections of the virtual photon and target proton (nucleon) spins onto an axis that is aligned along the three-momentum of the virtual photon. These electrocouplings are uniquely determined through their relationship with the reson… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** N(1440)1/2 + and N(1520)3/2 − electrocouplings extracted from the πN [109] and π +π − p [14,113,114] electroproduction channels. The photocouplings from the Particle Data Group (PDG) [47] and from Ref. [120] are shown by the blue squares and triangles, respectively. The key to the symbols and the color coding is shown in the left panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (14 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: N(1675)5/2 − and N(1680)5/2 + electrocouplings extracted from the πN [84] and π +π − p [121] electroproduction channels. The key to the symbols and the color coding is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: CSM description of resonance electroexcitation amplitudes [25,122–125]. All diagrams describe the transition p → dressed quark plus fully interacting diquark correlations → N∗ . The Faddeev amplitudes for the transitions between dressed quark + diquark configurations a…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Description of the N → ∆ magnetic transition form factor normalized to the dipole fit G ∗ M/3GD with GD(Q2 ) = (1 + Q2/0.71 GeV2 ) −2 (left) and the electrocoupling A1/2 for the N(1440)1/2 + (right) achieved using CSMs [123,124,131]. Results obtained with a momentumin…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: ∆(1600)3/2 + electrocouplings obtained from the π +π − p electroproduction cross sections measured with the CLAS detector [14]: A1/2 (left), S1/2 (center), and A3/2 (right) in comparison with the CSM predictions [139]. CSM predictions for the electrocouplings of the ∆(…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Fits of the nine one-fold differential π +π − p electroproduction cross sections measured with CLAS [101,102] (in black) achieved within the JM23 model [14] for W from 1.500 – 1.525 GeV and Q2 from 3.0 – 3.5 GeV2 . The data point uncertainties are evaluated as a quadra…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: (Top): Electrocouplings of the ∆(1232)3/2 + obtained from the analysis of πN electroproduction data [109]. (Bottom): Electrocouplings of the ∆(1700)3/2 − obtained from the π +π − p channel (blue) in combined studies of photo- and electroproduction [119] and (black) pr…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Capabilities for mapping the momentum dependence of the dressed quark mass in studies of the γv pN∗ electrocouplings using data from CLAS, expected results from CLAS12, and projections for a potential CEBAF energy upgrade to 22 GeV, are presented in terms of the acces…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Inclusive electron scattering cross sections determined from CLAS12 data in the nucleon resonance region for Q2 from 2.55 – 10.4 GeV2 [148]. The statistical uncertainties are shown but they are smaller than the data point size for the majority of the data points. The …

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Inclusive electron scattering cross sections from CLAS12 data (black points) as a function of W for selected bins in Q2 as shown. The blue points represent the computed resonant contributions from experimental results on the resonance electrocouplings [118,150]. The s…

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: The kinematic coverage Q2 vs. W for exclusive π +n (left), K +Y (Y=Λ, Σ) (center), and π +π − p (right) electroproduction channels measured with CLAS12 [121] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: (Left) Comparison of previous, current, and planned facilities for studying hadron structure in electroproduction, shown as a correlation plot of luminosity vs. W. (Right) Available (red and green) and projected results (blue) on the Q2 evolution of the N(1440)1/2+ el…

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Mass budgets for A– proton, B– pion, and C– kaon, drawn using a Poincaré invariant decomposition. Units MeV, separation at the renormalization scale of ζ = 2 GeV - produced using information from Refs. [47,158–160]. There are crucial differences in the mass budgets of…

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: (Left, top) CSM predictions for the π + [169–171] and (right, top) K + elastic electromagnetic form factors [172–174] in comparison with experimental results [176]. The projected results for 12-GeV era experiments in Halls A/C at JLab for the π + and K + form factors …

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Ratios of Sachs form factors, µpG p E (Q2 )/G p M(Q2 ), for the proton. Left: CSM prediction in Ref. [182] compared with data (brown up-triangles [183]; green squares [184]; blue circles [185]; black down-triangles [186]; and cyan diamonds [187]). Right: Available res…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

191 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

Leader, E.; Predazzi, E.An Introduction to Gauge Theories and Modern Particle Physics. Vol. 2: CP Violation, QCD and Hard Processes; Cambridge University Press, 1996

1996
[2]

Weinberg, S.The Quantum Theory of Fields. Vol. 2: Modern Applications; Cambridge University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.101 7/CBO9781139644174

2013
[3]

Current Algebra: Quarks and what else?eConf1972,C720906V2, 135–165, [hep-ph/0208010]

Fritzsch, H.; Gell-Mann, M. Current Algebra: Quarks and what else?eConf1972,C720906V2, 135–165, [hep-ph/0208010]

arXiv
[4]

Three Lectures on Hadron Physics.J

Roberts, C.D. Three Lectures on Hadron Physics.J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2016,706, 022003, [arXiv:nucl-th/1509.02925]. https: //doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/706/2/022003

arXiv 2016
[5]

The Pion: An Enigma within the Standard Model.J

Horn, T.; Roberts, C.D. The Pion: An Enigma within the Standard Model.J. Phys. G2016,43, 073001, [arXiv:nucl-th/1602.04016]. https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/43/7/073001

arXiv
[6]

Insights into the Emergence of Mass from Studies of Pion and Kaon Structure

Roberts, C.D.; Richards, D.G.; Horn, T.; Chang, L. Insights into the Emergence of Mass from Studies of Pion and Kaon Structure. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.2021,120, 103883, [arXiv:hep-ph/2102.01765]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103883

arXiv 2021
[7]

Emergent Hadron Mass in Strong Dynamics.Few Body Syst.2022,63, 42, [arXiv:hep-ph/2203.00942]

Binosi, D. Emergent Hadron Mass in Strong Dynamics.Few Body Syst.2022,63, 42, [arXiv:hep-ph/2203.00942]. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00601-022-01740-6

arXiv 2022
[8]

Emergence of Hadron Mass and Structure.Particles2023,6, 57–120, [arXiv:hep- ph/2211.07763]

Ding, M.; Roberts, C.D.; Schmidt, S.M. Emergence of Hadron Mass and Structure.Particles2023,6, 57–120, [arXiv:hep- ph/2211.07763]. https://doi.org/10.3390/particles6010004

arXiv

Show all 191 references

[9]

Nucleon Resonance Electroexcitation Amplitudes and Emergent Hadron Mass.Particles2023,6, 416–439, [arXiv:hep-ph/2301.07777]

Carman, D.S.; Gothe, R.W.; Mokeev, V .I.; Roberts, C.D. Nucleon Resonance Electroexcitation Amplitudes and Emergent Hadron Mass.Particles2023,6, 416–439, [arXiv:hep-ph/2301.07777]. https://doi.org/10.3390/particles6010023

arXiv
[10]

Gauge Sector Dynamics in QCD.Particles2023,6, 312–363, [arXiv:hep-ph/2301.02314]

Ferreira, M.N.; Papavassiliou, J. Gauge Sector Dynamics in QCD.Particles2023,6, 312–363, [arXiv:hep-ph/2301.02314]. https://doi.org/10.3390/particles6010017

arXiv
[11]

Pseudoscalar Mesons and Emergent Mass.Few Body Syst

Raya, K.; Bashir, A.; Binosi, D.; Roberts, C.D.; Rodríguez-Quintero, J. Pseudoscalar Mesons and Emergent Mass.Few Body Syst. 2024,65, 60, [arXiv:hep-ph/2403.00629]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00601-024-01924-2

2024 arXiv
[12]

Divergence of Perturbation Theory in Quantum Electrodynamics.Phys

Dyson, F.J. Divergence of Perturbation Theory in Quantum Electrodynamics.Phys. Rev.1952,85, 631–632. https://doi.org/10.1 103/PhysRev.85.631

1952
[13]

Photo- and Electrocouplings of Nucleon Resonances.Few Body Syst.2022,63, 59, [arXiv:nucl- ex/2202.04180]

Mokeev, V .I.; Carman, D.S. Photo- and Electrocouplings of Nucleon Resonances.Few Body Syst.2022,63, 59, [arXiv:nucl- ex/2202.04180]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00601-022-01760-2. Symmetry2025,1, 1 31 of 37

2022 arXiv
[14]

First Results on Nucleon Resonance Electroexcitation Amplitudes fromep→e ′π+π− p′ Cross Sections atW = 1.4 – 1.7 GeV and Q2 = 2.0 – 5.0 GeV2.Phys

Mokeev, V .I.; Achenbach, P .; Burkert, V .D.; Carman, D.S.; Gothe, R.W.; Hiller Blin, A.N.; Isupov, E.L.; Joo, K.; Neupane, K.; Trivedi, A. First Results on Nucleon Resonance Electroexcitation Amplitudes fromep→e ′π+π− p′ Cross Sections atW = 1.4 – 1.7 GeV and Q2 = 2.0 – 5.0 ...

arXiv
[15]

Nucleon Resonances and Transition Form Factors

Burkert, V .D. Nucleon Resonances and Transition Form Factors. In50 Years of Quantum Chromodynamics; Published inEur. Phys. J. C 83, 1125, 2023; [arXiv:hep-ph/2212.08980]. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11949-2

2023 arXiv
[16]

Electroexcitation of Nucleon Resonances.Prog

Aznauryan, I.G.; Burkert, V .D. Electroexcitation of Nucleon Resonances.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.2012,67, 1–54, [arXiv:hep- ph/1109.1720]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2011.08.001

2012 arXiv
[17]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Carman, D.S.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Nucleon Resonance Structure Studies Via Exclusive KY Electroproduction.Few Body Syst.2016,57, 941–948, [arXiv:nucl-ex/1601.02488]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00601-016-1131-z

2016 arXiv
[18]

Electromagnetic Production of KΣ on the Nucleon Near Threshold.Phys

Mart, T. Electromagnetic Production of KΣ on the Nucleon Near Threshold.Phys. Rev. C2014,90, 065202, [arXiv:nucl- th/1412.1555]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.90.065202

arXiv
[19]

Measurements of the γ∗ p→∆ Reaction at low Q2.Eur

Sparveris, N.; et al. Measurements of the γ∗ p→∆ Reaction at low Q2.Eur. Phys. J. A2013,49, 136, [arXiv:nucl-ex/1307.0751]. https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2013-13136-2

arXiv
[20]

(A1 Collaboration)

Achenbach, P .; et al. (A1 Collaboration). Beam Helicity Asymmetries inK+Λ Electroproduction off the Proton at low Q2.Eur. Phys. J. A2017,53, 198. https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2017-12395-1

doi
[21]

Virtual Compton Scattering Measurements in the Nucleon Resonance Region.Eur

Blomberg, A.; et al. Virtual Compton Scattering Measurements in the Nucleon Resonance Region.Eur. Phys. J. A2019,55, 182, [arXiv:nucl-ex/1901.08951]. https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2019-12877-0

1901 arXiv
[22]

(MIT-Bates OOPS Collaboration)

Kunz, C.; et al. (MIT-Bates OOPS Collaboration). Measurement of the Transverse Longitudinal Cross Sections in the p(⃗e, e′ p)π0 Reaction in the∆Region.Phys. Lett. B2003,564, 21–26, [nucl-ex/0302018]. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00675-0

arXiv
[23]

The CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer (CLAS).Nucl

Mecking, B.A.; et al. The CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer (CLAS).Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A2003,503, 513–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01001-5

doi
[24]

Strong QCD from Hadron Structure Experiments: Newport News, VA, USA, November 4–8, 2019.Int

Brodsky, S.J.; et al. Strong QCD from Hadron Structure Experiments: Newport News, VA, USA, November 4–8, 2019.Int. J. Mod. Phys. E2020,29, 2030006, [arXiv:hep-ph/2006.06802]. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218301320300064

2019 arXiv
[25]

Colloquium: Roper Resonance: Toward a Solution to the Fifty Year Puzzle.Rev

Burkert, V .D.; Roberts, C.D. Colloquium: Roper Resonance: Toward a Solution to the Fifty Year Puzzle.Rev. Mod. Phys.2019, 91, 011003, [arXiv:nucl-ex/1710.02549]. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.91.011003

2019 arXiv
[26]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Burkert, V .D.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). The CLAS12 Spectrometer at Jefferson Laboratory.Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A2020, 959, 163419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2020.163419

2020
[27]

Strong Interaction Physics at the Luminosity Frontier with 22 GeV Electrons at Jefferson Lab.Eur

Accardi, A.; et al. Strong Interaction Physics at the Luminosity Frontier with 22 GeV Electrons at Jefferson Lab.Eur. Phys. J. A 2024,60, 173, [arXiv:nucl-ex/2306.09360]. https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-024-01282-x

2024 arXiv
[28]

Origin of the Proton Mass.EPJ Web Conf.2023,282, 01006, [arXiv:hep-ph/2211.09905]

Roberts, C.D. Origin of the Proton Mass.EPJ Web Conf.2023,282, 01006, [arXiv:hep-ph/2211.09905]. https://doi.org/10.1051/ epjconf/202328201006

2023 arXiv
[29]

Dyson-Schwinger Equations and their Application to Hadronic Physics.Prog

Roberts, C.D.; Williams, A.G. Dyson-Schwinger Equations and their Application to Hadronic Physics.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 1994,33, 477–575, [hep-ph/9403224]. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6410(94)90049-3

1994 arXiv
[30]

The Dilemma of Attribution.Proc

Politzer, H.D. The Dilemma of Attribution.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.2005,102, 7789–7793. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0501644102

2005 doi
[31]

Asymptotic freedom: From Paradox to Paradigm.Proc

Wilczek, F. Asymptotic freedom: From Paradox to Paradigm.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.2005,102, 8403–8413, [hep-ph/0502113]. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.857

2005 arXiv
[32]

The Discovery of Asymptotic Freedom and the Emergence of QCD.Proc

Gross, D.J. The Discovery of Asymptotic Freedom and the Emergence of QCD.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.2005,102, 9099–9108. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0503831102

2005 doi
[33]

Pi- and K Meson Bethe–Salpeter amplitudes.Phys

Maris, P .; Roberts, C.D. Pi- and K Meson Bethe–Salpeter amplitudes.Phys. Rev. C1997,56, 3369–3383, [nucl-th/9708029]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.56.3369

arXiv
[34]

Perspective on the Origin of Hadron Masses.Few Body Syst.2017,58, 5, [arXiv:nucl-th/1606.03909]

Roberts, C.D. Perspective on the Origin of Hadron Masses.Few Body Syst.2017,58, 5, [arXiv:nucl-th/1606.03909]. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00601-016-1168-z

2017 arXiv
[35]

Colloquium: Gravitational Form Factors of the Proton.Rev

Burkert, V .D.; Elouadrhiri, L.; Girod, F.X.; Lorcé, C.; Schweitzer, P .; Shanahan, P .E. Colloquium: Gravitational Form Factors of the Proton.Rev. Mod. Phys.2023,95, 041002, [arXiv:hep-ph/2303.08347]. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.95.041002

2023 arXiv
[36]

The Present and Future of QCD.Nucl

Achenbach, P .; et al. The Present and Future of QCD.Nucl. Phys. A2024,1047, 122874, [arXiv:hep-ph/2303.02579]. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2024.122874

2024 arXiv
[37]

Deciphering the Mechanism of Near- Threshold J/ψ Photoproduction.Eur

Du, M.L.; Baru, V .; Guo, F.K.; Hanhart, C.; Meißner, U.G.; Nefediev, A.; Strakovsky, I. Deciphering the Mechanism of Near- Threshold J/ψ Photoproduction.Eur. Phys. J. C2020,80, 1053, [arXiv:hep-ph/2009.08345]. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052 -020-08620-5

2009 arXiv
[38]

Vector-Meson Production and Vector Meson Dominance.Eur

Xu, Y.Z.; Chen, S.; Yao, Z.Q.; Binosi, D.; Cui, Z.F.; Roberts, C.D. Vector-Meson Production and Vector Meson Dominance.Eur. Phys. J. C2021,81, 895, [arXiv:hep-ph/2107.03488]. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09673-w

arXiv
[39]

Near Threshold Heavy Quarkonium Photoproduction at Large Momentum Transfer.Phys

Sun, P .; Tong, X.B.; Yuan, F. Near Threshold Heavy Quarkonium Photoproduction at Large Momentum Transfer.Phys. Rev. D 2022,105, 054032, [arXiv:hep-ph/2111.07034]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.054032

2022 arXiv
[40]

(Joint Physics Analysis Center)

Winney, D.; et al. (Joint Physics Analysis Center). Dynamics in Near-Threshold J/ ψ Photoproduction.Phys. Rev. D2023, 108, 054018, [arXiv:hep-ph/2305.01449]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.054018

arXiv
[41]

J/ψ Photoproduction: Threshold to Very High Energy.Phys

Tang, L.; Yang, Y.X.; Cui, Z.F.; Roberts, C.D. J/ψ Photoproduction: Threshold to Very High Energy.Phys. Lett. B2024,856, 138904, [arXiv:hep-ph/2405.17675]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138904

2024 arXiv
[42]

Dynamical Model of J/ψ Photoproduction on the Nucleon.Phys

Sakinah, S.; Lee, T.S.H.; Choi, H.M. Dynamical Model of J/ψ Photoproduction on the Nucleon.Phys. Rev. C2024,109, 065204, [arXiv:nucl-th/2403.01958]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.109.065204. Symmetry2025,1, 1 32 of 37

arXiv
[43]

Nobel Lecture: Evading the Goldstone theorem.Rev

Higgs, P .W. Nobel Lecture: Evading the Goldstone theorem.Rev. Mod. Phys.2014,86, 851. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys. 86.851

2014 doi
[44]

Nobel Lecture: The BEH Mechanism and its Scalar Boson.Rev

Englert, F. Nobel Lecture: The BEH Mechanism and its Scalar Boson.Rev. Mod. Phys.2014,86, 843. https://doi.org/10.1103/ RevModPhys.86.843

2014
[45]

(ATLAS Collaboration)

Aad, G.; et al. (ATLAS Collaboration). Observation of a new Particle in the Search for the Standard Model Higgs Boson with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC.Phys. Lett. B2012,716, 1–29, [arXiv:hep-ex/1207.7214]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08. 020

arXiv
[46]

(CMS Collaboration)

Chatrchyan, S.; et al. (CMS Collaboration). Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC.Phys. Lett. B2012,716, 30–61, [arXiv:hep-ex/1207.7235]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021

2012 arXiv
[47]

(Particle Data Group)

Navas, S.; et al. (Particle Data Group). Review of Particle Physics.Phys. Rev. D2024,110, 030001. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.110.030001
[48]

Effective Charge from Lattice QCD.Chin

Cui, Z.F.; Zhang, J.L.; Binosi, D.; de Soto, F.; Mezrag, C.; Papavassiliou, J.; Roberts, C.D.; Rodríguez-Quintero, J.; Segovia, J.; Zafeiropoulos, S. Effective Charge from Lattice QCD.Chin. Phys. C2020,44, 083102
[49]

Gauge Invariance and Mass.Phys

Schwinger, J.S. Gauge Invariance and Mass.Phys. Rev.1962,125, 397–398. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.125.397

1962 doi
[50]

Gauge Invariance and Mass

Schwinger, J.S. Gauge Invariance and Mass. 2.Phys. Rev.1962,128, 2425–2429. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.128.2425

1962 doi
[51]

Dynamical Mass Generation in Continuum QCD.Phys

Cornwall, J.M. Dynamical Mass Generation in Continuum QCD.Phys. Rev. D1982,26, 1453. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 26.1453

doi
[52]

Baryons as Relativistic Three-Quark Bound States.Prog

Eichmann, G.; Sanchis-Alepuz, H.; Williams, R.; Alkofer, R.; Fischer, C.S. Baryons as Relativistic Three-Quark Bound States.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.2016,91, 1–100, [arXiv:hep-ph/1606.09602]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.07.001

2016 arXiv
[53]

Spectrum of Light- and Heavy-Baryons.Few Body Syst.2019,60, 26, [arXiv:nucl- th/1902.00026]

Qin, S.X.; Roberts, C.D.; Schmidt, S.M. Spectrum of Light- and Heavy-Baryons.Few Body Syst.2019,60, 26, [arXiv:nucl- th/1902.00026]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00601-019-1488-x

2019 arXiv
[54]

Nucleon Charge and Magnetisation Distributions: Flavour Separation and Zeroes – arXiv:2403.08088 [hep-ph].Fund

Yao, Z.Q.; Binosi, D.; Cui, Z.F.; Roberts, C.D. Nucleon Charge and Magnetisation Distributions: Flavour Separation and Zeroes – arXiv:2403.08088 [hep-ph].Fund. Res.2025, [arXiv:hep-ph/2403.08088]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fmre.2024.11.005

2025 arXiv
[55]

On Mass and Matter.AAPPS Bulletin2021,31, 6

Roberts, C.D. On Mass and Matter.AAPPS Bulletin2021,31, 6
[56]

Empirical Consequences of Emergent Mass.Symmetry2020,12, 1468, [arXiv:hep-ph/2009.04011]

Roberts, C.D. Empirical Consequences of Emergent Mass.Symmetry2020,12, 1468, [arXiv:hep-ph/2009.04011]. https: //doi.org/10.3390/sym12091468

2009 arXiv
[57]

Experimental Determination of the QCD Effective Chargeαg1 (Q).Particles2022, 5, 171

Deur, A.; Burkert, V .; Chen, J.P .; Korsch, W. Experimental Determination of the QCD Effective Chargeαg1 (Q).Particles2022, 5, 171
[58]

QCD Running Couplings and Effective Charges.Prog

Deur, A.; Brodsky, S.J.; Roberts, C.D. QCD Running Couplings and Effective Charges.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.2024,134, 104081, [arXiv:hep-ph/2303.00723]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104081

2024 arXiv
[59]

Process-Independent Strong Running Coupling

Binosi, D.; Mezrag, C.; Papavassiliou, J.; Roberts, C.D.; Rodriguez-Quintero, J. Process-Independent Strong Running Coupling. Phys. Rev. D2017,96, 054026, [arXiv:nucl-th/1612.04835]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.054026

arXiv
[60]

Generalized Pinch Technique and the Background Field Method in General Gauges.Nucl

Pilaftsis, A. Generalized Pinch Technique and the Background Field Method in General Gauges.Nucl. Phys. B1997,487, 467–491, [hep-ph/9607451]. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(96)00686-4

arXiv
[61]

Pinch Technique: Theory and Applications.Phys

Binosi, D.; Papavassiliou, J. Pinch Technique: Theory and Applications.Phys. Rept.2009,479, 1–152, [arXiv:hep-ph/0909.2536]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.05.001

2009 arXiv
[62]

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009402415

Cornwall, J.M.; Papavassiliou, J.; Binosi, D.The Pinch Technique and its Applications to Non-Abelian Gauge Theories; Cambridge University Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009402415

2011 doi
[63]

Introduction to the Background Field Method.Acta Phys

Abbott, L.F. Introduction to the Background Field Method.Acta Phys. Polon. B1982,13, 33
[64]

Quantum Electrodynamics at Small Distances.Phys

Gell-Mann, M.; Low, F.E. Quantum Electrodynamics at Small Distances.Phys. Rev.1954,95, 1300–1312. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRev.95.1300

1954
[65]

(RBC and UKQCD Collaborations)

Blum, T.; et al. (RBC and UKQCD Collaborations). Domain Wall QCD with Physical Quark Masses.Phys. Rev. D2016,93, 074505, [arXiv:hep-lat/1411.7017]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.074505

arXiv
[66]

Low Energy Constants of SU(2) Partially Quenched Chiral Perturbation Theory fromNf =2+1 Domain Wall QCD.Phys

Boyle, P .A.; et al. Low Energy Constants of SU(2) Partially Quenched Chiral Perturbation Theory fromNf =2+1 Domain Wall QCD.Phys. Rev. D2016,93, 054502, [arXiv:hep-lat/1511.01950]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.054502

arXiv
[67]

The Decay ConstantsfD and fDs in the Continuum Limit of Nf =2+1 Domain Wall Lattice QCD.JHEP2017,12, 008, [arXiv:hep-lat/1701.02644]

Boyle, P .A.; Del Debbio, L.; Jüttner, A.; Khamseh, A.; Sanfilippo, F.; Tsang, J.T. The Decay ConstantsfD and fDs in the Continuum Limit of Nf =2+1 Domain Wall Lattice QCD.JHEP2017,12, 008, [arXiv:hep-lat/1701.02644]. https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP1 2(2017)008

2017 arXiv
[68]

Locating the Gribov Horizon.Phys

Gao, F.; Qin, S.X.; Roberts, C.D.; Rodriguez-Quintero, J. Locating the Gribov Horizon.Phys. Rev. D2018,97, 034010, [arXiv:hep- ph/1706.04681]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.034010

arXiv
[69]

Kaon and Pion Parton Distributions.Eur

Cui, Z.F.; Ding, M.; Gao, F.; Raya, K.; Binosi, D.; Chang, L.; Roberts, C.D.; Rodríguez-Quintero, J.; Schmidt, S.M. Kaon and Pion Parton Distributions.Eur. Phys. J. C2020,80, 1064. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08578-4

doi
[70]

Nucleon Gravitational Form Factors, 2025, [arXiv:hep-ph/2409.15547]

Yao, Z.Q.; Xu, Y.Z.; Binosi, D.; Cui, Z.F.; Ding, M.; Raya, K.; Roberts, C.D.; Rodríguez-Quintero, J.; Schmidt, S.M. Nucleon Gravitational Form Factors, 2025, [arXiv:hep-ph/2409.15547]

2025 arXiv
[71]

Kaon Distribution Functions from Empirical Information.Phys

Xu, Z.N.; Binosi, D.; Chen, C.; Raya, K.; Roberts, C.D.; Rodríguez-Quintero, J. Kaon Distribution Functions from Empirical Information.Phys. Lett. B2025,865, 139451, [arXiv:hep-ph/2411.15376]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139451

arXiv
[72]

Applications of the Chiral U(6)×U( 6) Algebra of Current Densities.Phys

Bjorken, J.D. Applications of the Chiral U(6)×U( 6) Algebra of Current Densities.Phys. Rev.1966,148, 1467–1478. https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.148.1467. Symmetry2025,1, 1 33 of 37

1966 doi
[73]

Inelastic Scattering of Polarized Leptons from Polarized Nucleons.Phys

Bjorken, J.D. Inelastic Scattering of Polarized Leptons from Polarized Nucleons.Phys. Rev. D1970,1, 1376–1379. https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.1.1376

doi
[74]

Perturbative QCD theory (includes our knowledge of αs)

Dokshitzer, Y.L. Perturbative QCD theory (includes our knowledge of αs). In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on High-Energy Physics, 7 1998, pp. 305–324, [hep-ph/9812252]

1998 arXiv
[75]

Natural Constraints on the Gluon-Quark Vertex.Phys

Binosi, D.; Chang, L.; Papavassiliou, J.; Qin, S.X.; Roberts, C.D. Natural Constraints on the Gluon-Quark Vertex.Phys. Rev. D 2017,95, 031501, [arXiv:nucl-th/1609.02568]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.031501

2017 arXiv
[76]

Unquenched Quark Propagator in Landau Gauge.Phys

Bowman, P .O.; Heller, U.M.; Leinweber, D.B.; Parappilly, M.B.; Williams, A.G.; Zhang, J. Unquenched Quark Propagator in Landau Gauge.Phys. Rev. D2005,71, 054507, [hep-lat/0501019]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.71.054507

arXiv
[77]

Overlap Quark Propagator Near the Physical Pion Mass.Phys

Virgili, A.; Kamleh, W.; Leinweber, D.B. Overlap Quark Propagator Near the Physical Pion Mass.Phys. Lett. B2023,840, 137865, [arXiv:hep-lat/2209.14864]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137865

2023 arXiv
[78]

Insight into Emergence of Hadron Mass fromN∗ Electroexcitation Amplitudes.Nuovo Cim

Mokeev, V .I.; Carman, D.S. Insight into Emergence of Hadron Mass fromN∗ Electroexcitation Amplitudes.Nuovo Cim. C2024, 47, 216, [arXiv:nucl-ex/2401.04788]. https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2024-24216-7

arXiv
[79]

Transition Form Factors and Helicity Amplitudes for Electroexcitation of Negative and Positive Parity Nucleon Resonances in a Light-Front Quark Model.Phys

Obukhovsky, I.T.; Faessler, A.; Fedorov, D.K.; Gutsche, T.; Lyubovitskij, V .E. Transition Form Factors and Helicity Amplitudes for Electroexcitation of Negative and Positive Parity Nucleon Resonances in a Light-Front Quark Model.Phys. Rev. D2019, 100, 094013
[80]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Smith, L.C. (CLAS Collaboration). Exploring the γ* p →∆ (1232) Transition at Low Q2 Using CLAS.AIP Conf. Proc.2007, 904, 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2734307

2007 doi
[81]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Egiyan, H.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Single π+ Electroproduction on the Proton in the First and Second Resonance Regions at 0.25 GeV2 <Q 2 < 0.65 GeV2 Using CLAS.Phys. Rev. C2006,73, 025204, [nucl-ex/0601007]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC. 73.025204

arXiv
[82]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Park, K.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Cross Sections and Beam Asymmetries for ⃗ep→enπ + in the Nucleon Resonance Region for 1.7 <Q 2 < 4.5 GeV2.Phys. Rev. C2008,77, 015208, [arXiv:nucl-ex/0709.1946]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.77.015208

1946 arXiv
[83]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Joo, K.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Measurement of the Polarized Structure Function σLT′ for p(⃗e, e′π+)n in the ∆(1232) Resonance Region.Phys. Rev. C2004,70, 042201, [nucl-ex/0407013]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.70.042201

arXiv
[84]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Park, K.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Measurements of ep→e ′π+n at W= 1.6 – 2.0 GeV and Extraction of Nucleon Resonance Electrocouplings at CLAS.Phys. Rev. C2015,91, 045203, [arXiv:nucl-ex/1412.0274]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.91.04520 3

arXiv
[85]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Joo, K.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Q2 Dependence of Quadrupole Strength in the γ∗ p→∆ +(1232)→pπ 0 Transition.Phys. Rev. Lett.2002,88, 122001, [hep-ex/0110007]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.122001

2002 arXiv
[86]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Joo, K.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Measurement of the Polarized Structure Function σLT′ for p(⃗e, e′ p)π0 in the ∆(1232) Resonance Region.Phys. Rev. C2003,68, 032201, [nucl-ex/0301012]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.68.032201

arXiv
[87]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Biselli, A.S.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). First Measurement of Target and Double Spin Asymmetries for ⃗e⃗p→epπ 0 in the Nucleon Resonance Region Above the ∆(1232).Phys. Rev. C2008,78, 045204, [arXiv:nucl-ex/0804.3079]. https://doi.org/10.110 3/PhysRevC.78.045204

arXiv
[88]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Markov, N.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Exclusive π0p Electroproduction off Protons in the Resonance Region at Photon Virtualities 0.4 GeV2 ≤Q 2 ≤1 GeV2.Phys. Rev. C2020,101, 015208, [arXiv:nucl-ex/1907.11974]. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevC.101.015208

1907
[89]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Isupov, E.L.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Polarized Structure Function σLT′ from π0p Electroproduction Data in the Resonance Region at 0.4 GeV2< Q2 < 1.0 GeV2.Phys. Rev. C2022,105, L022201, [arXiv:nucl-ex/2112.07732]. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevC.105.L022201

arXiv
[90]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Denizli, H.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Q2 Dependence of the S11(1535) Photocoupling and Evidence for a P-wave Resonance in ηelectroproduction.Phys. Rev. C2007,76, 015204, [arXiv:nucl-ex/0704.2546]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.76.015204

arXiv
[91]

Neutral Pion Electroproduction in the Resonance Region at High Q2.Phys

Villano, A.N.; et al. Neutral Pion Electroproduction in the Resonance Region at High Q2.Phys. Rev. C2009,80, 035203, [arXiv:nucl-ex/0906.2839]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.80.035203

arXiv
[92]

Electroproduction of the∆(1232) Resonance at High Momentum Transfer.Phys

Frolov, V .V .; et al. Electroproduction of the∆(1232) Resonance at High Momentum Transfer.Phys. Rev. Lett.1999,82, 45–48, [hep-ex/9808024]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.45

1999 arXiv
[93]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Ambrozewicz, P .; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Separated Structure Functions for the Exclusive Electroproduction ofK+Λ and K+Σ0 Final States.Phys. Rev. C2007,75, 045203, [hep-ex/0611036]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.75.045203

arXiv
[94]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Carman, D.S.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Separated Structure Functions for Exclusive K+Λ and K+Σ0 Electroproduction at 5.5 GeV with CLAS.Phys. Rev. C2013,87, 025204, [arXiv:nucl-ex/1212.1336]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.87.025204

arXiv
[95]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Nasseripour, R.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Polarized Structure Function σLT′ for p(⃗e, e′K+)Λ in the Nucleon Resonance Region. Phys. Rev. C2008,77, 065208, [arXiv:nucl-ex/0801.4711]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.77.065208

arXiv
[96]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Gabrielyan, M.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Induced Polarization of Λ(1116) in Kaon Electroproduction.Phys. Rev. C2014, 90, 035202, [arXiv:nucl-ex/1406.4046]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.90.035202

arXiv
[97]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Carman, D.S.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Beam-Recoil Transferred Polarization in K+Y Electroproduction in the Nucleon Resonance Region with CLAS12.Phys. Rev. C2022,105, 065201, [arXiv:nucl-ex/2202.03398]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC. 105.065201

arXiv
[98]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Fedotov, G.V .; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Electroproduction of pπ+π− off Protons at 0.2 <Q 2 < 0.6 GeV2 and 1.3 < W < 1.57 GeV with CLAS.Phys. Rev. C2009,79, 015204, [arXiv:nucl-ex/0809.1562]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.79.015204. Symmetry2025,1, 1 34 of 37

arXiv
[99]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Ripani, M.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Measurement of ep→e ′ pπ+π− and Baryon Resonance Analysis.Phys. Rev. Lett.2003, 91, 022002, [hep-ex/0210054]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.022002

2003 arXiv
[100]

Fedotov, G.V .; et al. (CLAS). Measurements of the γv p→p ′π+π− cross section with the CLAS detector for 0.4 GeV 2 <Q 2 < 1.0 GeV 2 and 1.3 GeV <W< 1.825 GeV.Phys. Rev. C2018,98, 025203, [arXiv:nucl-ex/1804.05136]. https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.98.025203

arXiv
[101]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Isupov, E.L.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Measurements of ep→e ′π+π− p′ Cross Sections with CLAS at 1.40 GeV <W< 2.0 GeV and 2.0 GeV 2 <Q 2 < 5.0 GeV2.Phys. Rev. C2017,96, 025209, [arXiv:nucl-ex/1705.01901]. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevC.96.025209

arXiv
[102]

Measurement of New Observables from the π+π− p Electroproduction Off the Proton.Few-Body Syst.2019,60, 5

Trivedi, A. Measurement of New Observables from the π+π− p Electroproduction Off the Proton.Few-Body Syst.2019,60, 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00601-018-1471-y

2019 doi
[103]

https://clasweb.jlab.org/physicsdb/

CLAS Physics Database. https://clasweb.jlab.org/physicsdb/
[104]

CLAS Database for Studies of the Structure of Hadrons in Electromagnetic Processes.Phys

Chesnokov, V .V .; Golubenko, A.A.; Ishkhanov, B.S.; Mokeev, V .I. CLAS Database for Studies of the Structure of Hadrons in Electromagnetic Processes.Phys. Part. Nucl.2022,53, 184–190. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063779622020241

2022 doi
[105]

https://gwdac.phys.gwu.edu/

Data Analysis Center, Institute for Nuclear Studies, George Washington University. https://gwdac.phys.gwu.edu/
[106]

The MAID Legacy and Future.Few Body Syst.2018,59, 21, [arXiv:nucl-th/1801.04777]

Tiator, L. The MAID Legacy and Future.Few Body Syst.2018,59, 21, [arXiv:nucl-th/1801.04777]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00601 -018-1343-5

2018 arXiv
[107]

Electromagnetic Excitation of Nucleon Resonances.Eur

Tiator, L.; Drechsel, D.; Kamalov, S.S.; Vanderhaeghen, M. Electromagnetic Excitation of Nucleon Resonances.Eur. Phys. J. ST 2011,198, 141–170, [arXiv:nucl-th/1109.6745]. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2011-01488-9

2011 arXiv
[108]

Multipole Amplitudes of Pion Photoproduction on Nucleons up to 2 GeV within Dispersion Relations and Unitary Isobar Model.Phys

Aznauryan, I.G. Multipole Amplitudes of Pion Photoproduction on Nucleons up to 2 GeV within Dispersion Relations and Unitary Isobar Model.Phys. Rev. C2003,67, 015209, [nucl-th/0206033]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.67.015209

arXiv
[109]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Aznauryan, I.G.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Electroexcitation of Nucleon Resonances from CLAS Data on Single Pion Electroproduction.Phys. Rev. C2009,80, 055203, [arXiv:nucl-ex/0909.2349]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.80.055203

arXiv
[110]

Resonance Contributions to η Photoproduction on Protons Found Using Dispersion Relations and an Isobar Model.Phys

Aznauryan, I.G. Resonance Contributions to η Photoproduction on Protons Found Using Dispersion Relations and an Isobar Model.Phys. Rev. C2003,68, 065204, [nucl-th/0306079]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.68.065204

arXiv
[111]

Photoproduction and Electroproduction of eta Mesons.Z

Knochlein, G.; Drechsel, D.; Tiator, L. Photoproduction and Electroproduction of eta Mesons.Z. Phys. A1995,352, 327–343, [nucl-th/9506029]. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01289506

arXiv
[112]

Model Analysis of thepπ+π− Electropro- duction Reaction on the Proton.Phys

Mokeev, V .I.; Burkert, V .D.; Lee, T.S.H.; Elouadrhiri, L.; Fedotov, G.V .; Ishkhanov, B.S. Model Analysis of thepπ+π− Electropro- duction Reaction on the Proton.Phys. Rev. C2009,80, 045212, [arXiv:hep-ph/0809.4158]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.80 .045212

arXiv
[113]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Mokeev, V .I.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Experimental Study of theP11(1440) and D13(1520) resonances from CLAS data on ep→e ′π+π− p′.Phys. Rev. C2012,86, 035203, [arXiv:nucl-ex/1205.3948]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.86.035203

arXiv
[114]

New Results from the Studies of theN(1440)1/2+, N(1520)3/2−, and ∆(1620)1/2− Resonances in Exclusive ep→e ′ p′π+π− Electroproduction with the CLAS Detector.Phys

Mokeev, V .I.; et al. New Results from the Studies of theN(1440)1/2+, N(1520)3/2−, and ∆(1620)1/2− Resonances in Exclusive ep→e ′ p′π+π− Electroproduction with the CLAS Detector.Phys. Rev. C2016,93, 025206, [arXiv:nucl-ex/1509.05460]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.93.025206

arXiv
[115]

(Jülich–Bonn–Washington Collaboration)

Wang, Y.F.; Döring, M.; Hergenrather, J.; Mai, M.; Mart, T.; Meißner, U.G.; Rönchen, D.; Workman, R. (Jülich–Bonn–Washington Collaboration). Global Data-Driven Determination of Baryon Transition Form Factors.Phys. Rev. Lett.2024,133, 101901, [arXiv:nucl-th/2404.17444]. https:/...

2024 arXiv
[116]

(Jülich–Bonn–Washington Collaboration)

Mai, M.; Döring, M.; Granados, C.; Haberzettl, H.; Hergenrather, J.; Meißner, U.G.; Rönchen, D.; Strakovsky, I.; Workman, R. (Jülich–Bonn–Washington Collaboration). Coupled-Channels Analysis of Pion and η Electroproduction within the Jülich–Bonn– Washington Model.Phys. Rev. C2...

arXiv
[117]

Electromagnetic N∗ Transition Form Factors in the ANL-Osaka Dynamical Coupled-Channels Approach.Few Body Syst.2018,59, 24

Kamano, H. Electromagnetic N∗ Transition Form Factors in the ANL-Osaka Dynamical Coupled-Channels Approach.Few Body Syst.2018,59, 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00601-018-1345-3

2018 doi
[118]

Nucleon Resonance Contributions to Unpolarised Inclusive Electron Scattering.Phys

Hiller Blin, A.N.; et al. Nucleon Resonance Contributions to Unpolarised Inclusive Electron Scattering.Phys. Rev. C2019, 100, 035201, [arXiv:hep-ph/1904.08016]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.100.035201

1904 arXiv
[119]

Evidence for theN′(1720)3/2+ Nucleon Resonance from Combined Studies of CLAS π+π− p Photo- and Electroproduction Data.Phys

Mokeev, V .I.; et al. Evidence for theN′(1720)3/2+ Nucleon Resonance from Combined Studies of CLAS π+π− p Photo- and Electroproduction Data.Phys. Lett. B2020,805, 135457, [arXiv:nucl-ex/2004.13531]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135 457

2004 arXiv
[120]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Dugger, M.; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). π+ Photoproduction on the Proton for Photon Energies from 0.725 to 2.875 GeV.Phys. Rev. C2009,79, 065206, [arXiv:hep-ex/0903.1110]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.79.065206

arXiv
[121]

NSTAR2024 — 14th International Workshop on the Physics of Excited Nucleons, June 17–21, 2024, York, UK, https://indico.jlab.org/event/729/contributions/14426

Mokeev, V .I.N∗ Structure and the Emergence of Hadron Mass, 2024. NSTAR2024 — 14th International Workshop on the Physics of Excited Nucleons, June 17–21, 2024, York, UK, https://indico.jlab.org/event/729/contributions/14426

2024
[122]

Explanation and Prediction of Observables Using Continuum Strong QCD.Prog

Cloët, I.C.; Roberts, C.D. Explanation and Prediction of Observables Using Continuum Strong QCD.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.2014, 77, 1–69, [arXiv:nucl-th/1310.2651]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2014.02.001

2014 arXiv
[123]

Nucleon and ∆ Elastic and Transition Form Factors.Few Body Syst.2014, 55, 1185–1222, [arXiv:nucl-th/1408.2919]

Segovia, J.; Cloët, I.C.; Roberts, C.D.; Schmidt, S.M. Nucleon and ∆ Elastic and Transition Form Factors.Few Body Syst.2014, 55, 1185–1222, [arXiv:nucl-th/1408.2919]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00601-014-0907-2

2014 arXiv
[124]

Completing the Picture of the Roper Resonance

Segovia, J.; El-Bennich, B.; Rojas, E.; Cloët, I.C.; Roberts, C.D.; Xu, S.S.; Zong, H.S. Completing the Picture of the Roper Resonance. Phys. Rev. Lett.2015,115, 171801, [arXiv:nucl-th/1504.04386]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.171801

2015 arXiv
[125]

Diquark Correlations in Hadron Physics: Origin, Impact and Evidence.Prog

Barabanov, M.Y.; et al. Diquark Correlations in Hadron Physics: Origin, Impact and Evidence.Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.2021, 116, 103835, [arXiv:hep-ph/2008.07630]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2020.103835. Symmetry2025,1, 1 35 of 37

2021 arXiv
[126]

Electroexcitation of Nucleon Resonances in a Light-Front Relativistic Quark Model.Few Body Syst

Aznauryan, I.G.; Burkert, V .D. Electroexcitation of Nucleon Resonances in a Light-Front Relativistic Quark Model.Few Body Syst. 2018,59, 98, [arXiv:hep-ph/1805.10785]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00601-018-1415-6

2018 arXiv
[127]

Electromagnetic Meson Production in the Nucleon Resonance Region.Int

Burkert, V .D.; Lee, T.S.H. Electromagnetic Meson Production in the Nucleon Resonance Region.Int. J. Mod. Phys. E2004, 13, 1035–1112, [nucl-ex/0407020]. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218301304002545

arXiv
[128]

Extraction of Electromagnetic Transition Form Factors for Nucleon Resonances within a Dynamical Coupled-Channels Model.Phys

Suzuki, N.; Sato, T.; Lee, T.S.H. Extraction of Electromagnetic Transition Form Factors for Nucleon Resonances within a Dynamical Coupled-Channels Model.Phys. Rev. C2010,82, 045206, [arXiv:nucl-th/1006.2196]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.82.04520 6

arXiv
[129]

Measurement of the γNN ∗ Form Factor.Phys

Ash, W.W.; Berkelman, K.; Lichtenstein, C.A.; Ramanauskas, A.; Siemann, R.H. Measurement of the γNN ∗ Form Factor.Phys. Lett. B1967,24, 165–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(67)90513-8

doi
[130]

Elastic and Transition Form Factors of the ∆(1232).Few Body Syst.2014,55, 1–33, [arXiv:nucl-th/1308.5225]

Segovia, J.; Chen, C.; Cloët, I.C.; Roberts, C.D.; Schmidt, S.M.; Wan, S. Elastic and Transition Form Factors of the ∆(1232).Few Body Syst.2014,55, 1–33, [arXiv:nucl-th/1308.5225]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00601-013-0734-x

2014 arXiv
[131]

Nucleon and Roper Electromagnetic Elastic and Transition Form Factors.Phys

Wilson, D.J.; Cloët, I.C.; Chang, L.; Roberts, C.D. Nucleon and Roper Electromagnetic Elastic and Transition Form Factors.Phys. Rev. C2012,85, 025205, [arXiv:nucl-th/1112.2212]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.025205

arXiv
[132]

Dynamical Chiral Symmetry Breaking, Goldstone’s Theorem and the Consistency of the Schwinger-Dyson and Bethe-Salpeter Equations.Phys

Munczek, H.J. Dynamical Chiral Symmetry Breaking, Goldstone’s Theorem and the Consistency of the Schwinger-Dyson and Bethe-Salpeter Equations.Phys. Rev. D1995,52, 4736–4740, [hep-th/9411239]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.52.4736

arXiv
[133]

Goldstone Theorem and Diquark Confinement Beyond Rainbow Ladder Approximation

Bender, A.; Roberts, C.D.; Von Smekal, L. Goldstone Theorem and Diquark Confinement Beyond Rainbow Ladder Approximation. Phys. Lett. B1996,380, 7–12, [nucl-th/9602012]. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(96)00372-3

arXiv
[134]

Pion Form Factor from a Contact Interaction.Phys

Gutiérrez-Guerrero, L.X.; Bashir, A.; Cloët, I.C.; Roberts, C.D. Pion Form Factor from a Contact Interaction.Phys. Rev. C2010, 81, 065202, [arXiv:nucl-th/1002.1968]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.81.065202

1968 arXiv
[135]

Features and Flaws of a Contact Interaction Treatment of the Kaon.Phys

Chen, C.; Chang, L.; Roberts, C.D.; Schmidt, S.M.; Wan, S.; Wilson, D.J. Features and Flaws of a Contact Interaction Treatment of the Kaon.Phys. Rev. C2013,87, 045207, [arXiv:nucl-th/1212.2212]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.87.045207

arXiv
[136]

Aznauryan, I.G.; Burkert, V .D. Configuration Mixings and Light-Front Relativistic Quark Model Predictions for the Electroexcita- tion of the∆(1232) 3 2 +,N(1440) 1 2 +, and∆(1600) 3 2 +, 2016, [arXiv:hep-ph/1603.06692]

2016 arXiv
[137]

Nucleon Electromagnetic Form Factors and Electroexcitation of Low Lying Nucleon Resonances in a Light-Front Relativistic Quark Model.Phys

Aznauryan, I.G.; Burkert, V .D. Nucleon Electromagnetic Form Factors and Electroexcitation of Low Lying Nucleon Resonances in a Light-Front Relativistic Quark Model.Phys. Rev. C2012,85, 055202, [arXiv:hep-ph/1201.5759]. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevC.85.055202

arXiv
[138]

Onset of Scaling Violation in Pion and Kaon Elastic Electromagnetic Form Factors.Phys

Yao, Z.Q.; Binosi, D.; Roberts, C.D. Onset of Scaling Violation in Pion and Kaon Elastic Electromagnetic Form Factors.Phys. Lett. B2024,855, 138823, [arXiv:hep-ph/2405.04681]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138823

2024 arXiv
[139]

Transition Form Factors: γ∗ +p→∆( 1232), ∆(1600).Phys

Lu, Y.; Chen, C.; Cui, Z.F.; Roberts, C.D.; Schmidt, S.M.; Segovia, J.; Zong, H.S. Transition Form Factors: γ∗ +p→∆( 1232), ∆(1600).Phys. Rev. D2019,100, 034001, [arXiv:nucl-th/1904.03205]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.034001

1904 arXiv
[140]

A Phenomenological Description of π−∆++ Photoproduction and Electroproduction in the Nucleon Resonance Region.Nucl

Ripani, M.; et al. A Phenomenological Description of π−∆++ Photoproduction and Electroproduction in the Nucleon Resonance Region.Nucl. Phys. A2000,672, 220–248, [hep-ph/0001265]. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9474(99)00853-2

arXiv
[142]

Electroexcitation of the ∆(1232) 3 2 + and ∆(1600) 3 2 + in a Light-Front Relativistic Quark Model

Aznauryan, I.G.; Burkert, V .D. Electroexcitation of the ∆(1232) 3 2 + and ∆(1600) 3 2 + in a Light-Front Relativistic Quark Model. Phys. Rev. C2015,92, 035211, [arXiv:hep-ph/1506.03183]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.92.035211

arXiv
[143]

The Hypercentral Constituent Quark Model and its Application to Baryon Properties.Chin

Giannini, M.M.; Santopinto, E. The Hypercentral Constituent Quark Model and its Application to Baryon Properties.Chin. J. Phys.2015,53, 020301, [arXiv:nucl-th/1501.03722]. https://doi.org/10.6122/CJP .20150120

2015 arXiv
[144]

Understanding the Nature of Baryon Resonances.Nuovo Cim

Leinweber, D.B.; Abell, C.D.; Hockley, L.C.; Kamleh, W.; Liu, Z.W.; Stokes, F.M.; Thomas, A.W.; Wu, J.J. Understanding the Nature of Baryon Resonances.Nuovo Cim. C2024,47, 146, [arXiv:hep-lat/2401.04901]. https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2024-24146-4

arXiv
[145]

Sketching Pion and Proton Mass Distributions.Phys

Wang, X.; Xing, Z.; Chang, L.; Ding, M.; Raya, K.; Roberts, C.D. Sketching Pion and Proton Mass Distributions.Phys. Lett. B2025, 862, 139280, [arXiv:hep-ph/2410.13068]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139280

2025 arXiv
[146]

Proton and Pion Distribution Functions in Counterpoint.Phys

Lu, Y.; Chang, L.; Raya, K.; Roberts, C.D.; Rodríguez-Quintero, J. Proton and Pion Distribution Functions in Counterpoint.Phys. Lett. B2022,830, 137130, [arXiv:hep-ph/2203.00753]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137130

2022 arXiv
[147]

Wave Functions of (I , JP) = (1 2 , 3 2 ∓) Baryons.Phys

Liu, L.; Chen, C.; Roberts, C.D. Wave Functions of (I , JP) = (1 2 , 3 2 ∓) Baryons.Phys. Rev. D2023,107, 014002, [arXiv:hep- ph/2208.12353]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.014002

arXiv
[148]

(CLAS Collaboration)

Klimenko, V .; et al. (CLAS Collaboration). Inclusive Electron Scattering in the Resonance Region off a Hydrogen Target with CLAS12, 2025, [arXiv:hep-ex/2501.14996]

2025
[149]

NSTAR2024 — 14th International Workshop on the Physics of Excited Nucleons, June 17–21, 2024, York, UK, https://indico.jlab.org/event/729/contributions/14420

Achenbach, P .N∗ Physics with CLAS12 at Jefferson Lab, 2024. NSTAR2024 — 14th International Workshop on the Physics of Excited Nucleons, June 17–21, 2024, York, UK, https://indico.jlab.org/event/729/contributions/14420

2024
[150]

Resonant Contributions to Inclusive Nucleon Structure Functions from Exclusive Meson Electroproduction Data.Phys

Blin, A.N.H.; Melnitchouk, W.; Mokeev, V .I.; Burkert, V .D.; Chesnokov, V .V .; Pilloni, A.; Szczepaniak, A.P . Resonant Contributions to Inclusive Nucleon Structure Functions from Exclusive Meson Electroproduction Data.Phys. Rev. C2021,104, 025201, [arXiv:hep-ph/2105.05834]....

arXiv
[151]

Nucleon Resonance Studies from ExclusiveKY Electroproduction, 2024

Carman, D.S. Nucleon Resonance Studies from ExclusiveKY Electroproduction, 2024. NSTAR2024 — 14th International Workshop on the Physics of Excited Nucleons, June 17–21, 2024, York, UK, https://indico.jlab.org/event/729/contributions/14425

2024
[152]

Dynamical Coupled-Channel Model of Meson Production Reactions in the Nucleon Resonance Region.Phys

Matsuyama, A.; Sato, T.; Lee, T.S.H. Dynamical Coupled-Channel Model of Meson Production Reactions in the Nucleon Resonance Region.Phys. Rept.2007,439, 193–253, [nucl-th/0608051]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2006.12.003

2007 arXiv
[153]

Probing Bound Three-Quark Excitations from Low to High Photon Virtualities, 2024

Gothe, R.W. Probing Bound Three-Quark Excitations from Low to High Photon Virtualities, 2024. NSTAR2024 — 14th International Workshop on the Physics of Excited Nucleons, June 17–21, 2024, York, UK, https://indico.jlab.org/event/729/contributions/14892. Symmetry2025,1, 1 36 of 37

2024
[154]

Chiral Symmetry and the U(1) Problem.Phys

Christos, G.A. Chiral Symmetry and the U(1) Problem.Phys. Rept.1984,116, 251–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(84)9 0025-5

1984 doi
[155]

γ∗γ→η , η′ Transition Form Factors.Phys

Ding, M.; Raya, K.; Bashir, A.; Binosi, D.; Chang, L.; Chen, M.; Roberts, C.D. γ∗γ→η , η′ Transition Form Factors.Phys. Rev. D 2019,99, 014014, [arXiv:nucl-th/1810.12313]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.014014

2019 arXiv
[156]

Ward–Green–Takahashi Identities and the Axial-Vector Vertex.Phys

Qin, S.X.; Roberts, C.D.; Schmidt, S.M. Ward–Green–Takahashi Identities and the Axial-Vector Vertex.Phys. Lett. B2014, 733, 202–208, [arXiv:nucl-th/1402.1176]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.04.041

2014 arXiv
[157]

Symmetry Preserving Truncations of the Gap and Bethe–Salpeter Equations.Phys

Binosi, D.; Chang, L.; Papavassiliou, J.; Qin, S.X.; Roberts, C.D. Symmetry Preserving Truncations of the Gap and Bethe–Salpeter Equations.Phys. Rev. D2016,93, 096010, [arXiv:nucl-th/1601.05441]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.096010

arXiv
[158]

Sigma Terms of Light-Quark Hadrons.Few Body Syst.2006, 38, 31–51, [nucl-th/0510075]

Flambaum, V .V .; Holl, A.; Jaikumar, P .; Roberts, C.D.; Wright, S.V . Sigma Terms of Light-Quark Hadrons.Few Body Syst.2006, 38, 31–51, [nucl-th/0510075]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00601-005-0123-1

2006 arXiv
[159]

Extracting the σ-Term from Low-Energy Pion–Nucleon Scattering.J

Ruiz de Elvira, J.; Hoferichter, M.; Kubis, B.; Meißner, U.G. Extracting the σ-Term from Low-Energy Pion–Nucleon Scattering.J. Phys. G2018,45, 024001, [arXiv:hep-ph/1706.01465]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/aa9422

arXiv
[160]

(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group)

Aoki, S.; et al. (Flavour Lattice Averaging Group). FLAG Review 2019.Eur. Phys. J. C2020,80, 113, [arXiv:hep-lat/1902.08191]. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7354-7

2019 arXiv
[161]

Essence of the Vacuum Quark Condensate.Phys

Brodsky, S.J.; Roberts, C.D.; Shrock, R.; Tandy, P .C. Essence of the Vacuum Quark Condensate.Phys. Rev. C2010,82, 022201, [arXiv:nucl-th/1005.4610]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.82.022201

arXiv
[162]

Expanding the Concept of in-Hadron Condensates.Phys

Chang, L.; Roberts, C.D.; Tandy, P .C. Expanding the Concept of in-Hadron Condensates.Phys. Rev. C2012,85, 012201, [arXiv:nucl-th/1109.2903]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.012201

arXiv
[163]

Confinement Contains Condensates.Phys

Brodsky, S.J.; Roberts, C.D.; Shrock, R.; Tandy, P .C. Confinement Contains Condensates.Phys. Rev. C2012,85, 065202, [arXiv:nucl-th/1202.2376]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.065202

arXiv
[164]

Quasiparticles and Gauge Invariance in the Theory of Superconductivity.Phys

Nambu, Y. Quasiparticles and Gauge Invariance in the Theory of Superconductivity.Phys. Rev.1960,117, 648–663. https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.117.648

1960 doi
[165]

Field Theories with Superconductor Solutions.Nuovo Cim.1961,19, 154–164

Goldstone, J. Field Theories with Superconductor Solutions.Nuovo Cim.1961,19, 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02812722

1961 doi
[166]

Behavior of Current Divergences under SU(3) × SU(3).Phys

Gell-Mann, M.; Oakes, R.J.; Renner, B. Behavior of Current Divergences under SU(3) × SU(3).Phys. Rev.1968,175, 2195–2199. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.175.2195

1968 doi
[167]

Developing Predictions for Pion Fragmentation Functions.Eur

Xing, H.Y.; Yao, Z.Q.; Li, B.L.; Binosi, D.; Cui, Z.F.; Roberts, C.D. Developing Predictions for Pion Fragmentation Functions.Eur. Phys. J. C2024,84, 82, [arXiv:hep-ph/2311.01613]. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12403-7

arXiv
[168]

Kaon and Pion Fragmentation Functions, 2025, [arXiv:hep-ph/2504.08142]

Xing, H.Y.; Bian, W.H.; Cui, Z.F.; Roberts, C.D. Kaon and Pion Fragmentation Functions, 2025, [arXiv:hep-ph/2504.08142]

2025
[169]

(NA7 Collaboration)

Amendolia, S.R.; et al. (NA7 Collaboration). A Measurement of the Space-Like Pion Electromagnetic Form-Factor.Nucl. Phys. B 1986,277, 168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(86)90437-2

1986 doi
[170]

Scaling Study of the Pion Electroproduction Cross Sections and the Pion Form Factor.Phys

Horn, T.; et al. Scaling Study of the Pion Electroproduction Cross Sections and the Pion Form Factor.Phys. Rev. C2008,78, 058201, [arXiv:nucl-ex/0707.1794]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.78.058201

arXiv
[171]

(Jefferson Lab Fπ Collaboration)

Huber, G.M.; et al. (Jefferson Lab Fπ Collaboration). Charged Pion Form-Factor Between Q2 = 0.60 GeV2 and 2.45 GeV 2. II. Determination of, and results for, the Pion Form-Factor.Phys. Rev. C2008,78, 045203, [arXiv:nucl-ex/0809.3052]. https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.78.045203

arXiv
[172]

Direct Measurement of the Negative Kaon Form Factor.Phys

Dally, E.B.; et al. Direct Measurement of the Negative Kaon Form Factor.Phys. Rev. Lett.1980,45, 232–235. https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.45.232

1980 doi
[173]

A Measurement of the Kaon Charge Radius.Phys

Amendolia, S.R.; et al. A Measurement of the Kaon Charge Radius.Phys. Lett. B1986,178, 435–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/03 70-2693(86)91407-3

doi
[174]

Separated Kaon Electroproduction Cross Section and the Kaon Form Factor from 6 GeV JLab Data.Phys

Carmignotto, M.; et al. Separated Kaon Electroproduction Cross Section and the Kaon Form Factor from 6 GeV JLab Data.Phys. Rev. C2018,97, 025204, [arXiv:nucl-ex/1801.01536]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.97.025204

arXiv
[175]

Pion Charge Radius from Pion+Electron Elastic Scattering Data.Phys

Cui, Z.F.; Binosi, D.; Roberts, C.D.; Schmidt, S.M. Pion Charge Radius from Pion+Electron Elastic Scattering Data.Phys. Lett. B 2021,822, 136631, [arXiv:hep-ph/2108.04948]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136631

2021 arXiv
[176]

Pion and Kaon Electromagnetic and Gravitational Form Factors.Eur

Xu, Y.Z.; Ding, M.; Raya, K.; Roberts, C.D.; Rodríguez-Quintero, J.; Schmidt, S.M. Pion and Kaon Electromagnetic and Gravitational Form Factors.Eur. Phys. J. C2024,84, 191, [arXiv:hep-ph/2311.14832]. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-1 2518-x

arXiv
[177]

Physics Opportunities with the 12 GeV Upgrade at Jefferson Lab.Eur

Dudek, J.; et al. Physics Opportunities with the 12 GeV Upgrade at Jefferson Lab.Eur. Phys. J. A2012,48, 187, [arXiv:hep- ex/1208.1244]. https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2012-12187-1

arXiv
[178]

Pion and Kaon Structure at the Electron–Ion Collider.Eur

Aguilar, A.C.; et al. Pion and Kaon Structure at the Electron–Ion Collider.Eur. Phys. J. A2019,55, 190, [arXiv:nucl-ex/1907.08218]. https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2019-12885-0

1907 arXiv
[179]

Revealing the Structure of Light Pseudoscalar Mesons at the Electron–Ion Collider.J

Arrington, J.; et al. Revealing the Structure of Light Pseudoscalar Mesons at the Electron–Ion Collider.J. Phys. G2021,48, 075106, [arXiv:nucl-ex/2102.11788]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/abf5c3

arXiv
[180]

Measurement of the Pion Form Factor to High Q2, Approved Jefferson Lab 12 GeV Experiment E12-06-

Huber, G.M.; et al. Measurement of the Pion Form Factor to High Q2, Approved Jefferson Lab 12 GeV Experiment E12-06-
[181]

https://misportal.jlab.org/mis/physics/experiments/searchProposals.cfm?paramHall=C&paramExperimentEnergy=12 GeV&paramExperimentStatusList=A,G, 2006

2006
[182]

Scaling Study of the L-T Separated Pion Electroproduction Cross Section at 11 GeV , Approved Jefferson Lab 12 GeV Experiment E12-07-105

Horn, T.; et al. Scaling Study of the L-T Separated Pion Electroproduction Cross Section at 11 GeV , Approved Jefferson Lab 12 GeV Experiment E12-07-105. https://misportal.jlab.org/mis/physics/experiments/searchProposals.cfm?paramHall=C& paramExperimentEnergy=12GeV&paramExperi...

2007
[183]

Nucleon Elastic Form Factors at Accessible Large Spacelike Momenta.Phys

Cui, Z.F.; Chen, C.; Binosi, D.; de Soto, F.; Roberts, C.D.; Rodríguez-Quintero, J.; Schmidt, S.M.; Segovia, J. Nucleon Elastic Form Factors at Accessible Large Spacelike Momenta.Phys. Rev. D2020,102, 014043, [arXiv:hep-ph/2003.11655]. https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.014043

2003 arXiv
[184]

(Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration)

Jones, M.K.; et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration). GEp /GMp Ratio by Polarization Transfer in⃗ep→e ⃗p.Phys. Rev. Lett.2000, 84, 1398–1402, [nucl-ex/9910005]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1398

2000 arXiv
[185]

(Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration)

Gayou, O.; et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration). Measurement of GEp /GMp in ⃗ep→e ⃗p to Q2 = 5.6 GeV2.Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002,88, 092301, [nucl-ex/0111010]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.092301

2002 arXiv
[186]

(Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration)

Punjabi, V .; et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration). Proton Elastic Form-Factor Ratios to Q2 = 3.5 GeV2 by Polarization Transfer.Phys. Rev. C2005,71, 055202, [nucl-ex/0501018]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 71, 069902 (2005)], https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevC.71.055202

2005 arXiv
[187]

(Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration)

Puckett, A.J.R.; et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration). Final Analysis of Proton Form Factor Ratio Data at Q2 = 4.0, 4.8 and 5.6 GeV2.Phys. Rev. C2012,85, 045203, [arXiv:nucl-ex/1102.5737]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.85.045203

arXiv
[188]

Recoil Polarization Measurements of the Proton Electromagnetic Form Factor Ratio to Q2 = 8.5 GeV2.Phys

Puckett, A.J.R.; et al. Recoil Polarization Measurements of the Proton Electromagnetic Form Factor Ratio to Q2 = 8.5 GeV2.Phys. Rev. Lett.2010,104, 242301, [arXiv:nucl-ex/1005.3419]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.242301

2010 arXiv
[189]

The Super-Bigbite Spectrometer for Jefferson Lab Hall A

de Jager, C.W.; et al. The Super-Bigbite Spectrometer for Jefferson Lab Hall A. https://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/SBS/GEp- V/GEp_Website.html#sbs, 2010

2010
[190]

Form Factors and Two-Photon Exchange in High-Energy Elastic Electron–Proton Scattering.Phys

Christy, M.E.; et al. Form Factors and Two-Photon Exchange in High-Energy Elastic Electron–Proton Scattering.Phys. Rev. Lett. 2022,128, 102002, [arXiv:nucl-ex/2103.01842]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.102002

2022 arXiv
[191]

Revealing Dressed-Quarks via the Proton’s Charge Distribution.Phys

Cloët, I.C.; Roberts, C.D.; Thomas, A.W. Revealing Dressed-Quarks via the Proton’s Charge Distribution.Phys. Rev. Lett.2013, 111, 101803, [arXiv:nucl-th/1304.0855]. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.101803

2013 arXiv
[192]

Likelihood of a Zero in the Proton Elastic Electric Form Factor, 2024, [arXiv:hep- ph/2412.10598]

Cheng, P .; Yao, Z.Q.; Binosi, D.; Roberts, C.D. Likelihood of a Zero in the Proton Elastic Electric Form Factor, 2024, [arXiv:hep- ph/2412.10598]. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au...

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Leader, E.; Predazzi, E.An Introduction to Gauge Theories and Modern Particle Physics. Vol. 2: CP Violation, QCD and Hard Processes; Cambridge University Press, 1996

1996

[2] [2]

Weinberg, S.The Quantum Theory of Fields. Vol. 2: Modern Applications; Cambridge University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.101 7/CBO9781139644174

2013

[3] [3]

Current Algebra: Quarks and what else?eConf1972,C720906V2, 135–165, [hep-ph/0208010]

Fritzsch, H.; Gell-Mann, M. Current Algebra: Quarks and what else?eConf1972,C720906V2, 135–165, [hep-ph/0208010]

arXiv

[4] [4]

Three Lectures on Hadron Physics.J

Roberts, C.D. Three Lectures on Hadron Physics.J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2016,706, 022003, [arXiv:nucl-th/1509.02925]. https: //doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/706/2/022003

arXiv 2016

[5] [5]

The Pion: An Enigma within the Standard Model.J

Horn, T.; Roberts, C.D. The Pion: An Enigma within the Standard Model.J. Phys. G2016,43, 073001, [arXiv:nucl-th/1602.04016]. https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/43/7/073001

arXiv

[6] [6]

Insights into the Emergence of Mass from Studies of Pion and Kaon Structure

Roberts, C.D.; Richards, D.G.; Horn, T.; Chang, L. Insights into the Emergence of Mass from Studies of Pion and Kaon Structure. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.2021,120, 103883, [arXiv:hep-ph/2102.01765]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2021.103883

arXiv 2021

[7] [7]

Emergent Hadron Mass in Strong Dynamics.Few Body Syst.2022,63, 42, [arXiv:hep-ph/2203.00942]

Binosi, D. Emergent Hadron Mass in Strong Dynamics.Few Body Syst.2022,63, 42, [arXiv:hep-ph/2203.00942]. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s00601-022-01740-6

arXiv 2022

[8] [8]

Emergence of Hadron Mass and Structure.Particles2023,6, 57–120, [arXiv:hep- ph/2211.07763]

Ding, M.; Roberts, C.D.; Schmidt, S.M. Emergence of Hadron Mass and Structure.Particles2023,6, 57–120, [arXiv:hep- ph/2211.07763]. https://doi.org/10.3390/particles6010004

arXiv