pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.02464 · v1 · submitted 2025-06-03 · ✦ hep-ph

Chiral-odd generalized parton distributions for the low-lying octet baryons

Navpreet Kaur , Harleen Dahiya This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 11:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords chiral-odd GPDsoctet baryonsdiquark spectator modeltransversity distributionstensor chargesprotonhyperons
0
0 comments X

The pith

Chiral-odd generalized parton distributions for octet baryons display quark-flavor dependent transversity in the diquark spectator model.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper calculates the chiral-odd generalized parton distributions for the low-lying octet baryons proton, sigma-plus and xi-zero. It employs the diquark spectator model together with light-cone wave functions to solve the quark-quark correlator for the tensor current. This setup lets the authors examine transversely polarized quark dynamics and obtain transversity distributions in the forward limit. Moments of the distributions, tensor charges and anomalous tensor magnetic moments are extracted for each constituent quark flavor, with proton results compared to lattice data and other models.

Core claim

Within the diquark spectator model the quark-quark correlator for the tensor current is solved using light-cone wave functions to obtain the chiral-odd GPDs for p, Σ+ and Ξ0. The forward limit yields the transversity distributions of every constituent quark flavor, while the lowest moment of H_T and the combination of E_T and tilde H_T are computed along with the associated tensor charges and anomalous tensor magnetic moments.

What carries the argument

Diquark spectator model with light-cone wave functions that solves the quark-quark correlator for the tensor current to capture transversely polarized quark dynamics.

If this is right

  • Transversity distributions are obtained for every constituent quark flavor inside p, Σ+ and Ξ0.
  • Lowest moment of H_T and the E_T plus tilde H_T combination are evaluated for each baryon.
  • Tensor charges and anomalous tensor magnetic moments are extracted for all quark flavors and compared across the three baryons.
  • Proton results are shown to be consistent with existing lattice and model calculations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The flavor-dependent patterns could be tested by measuring hyperon production asymmetries in polarized beams.
  • Extending the same light-cone wave functions to higher moments of the GPDs would generate additional predictions for baryon tomography.
  • Similar calculations for other octet members or decuplet states would map out a systematic flavor dependence across the baryon spectrum.

Load-bearing premise

The diquark spectator model with light-cone wave functions provides an accurate description of transversely polarized quark dynamics and chiral-odd GPDs in the low-lying octet baryons.

What would settle it

A lattice QCD or experimental determination of the down-quark transversity distribution or tensor charge in the xi-zero that deviates markedly from the model's numerical prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02464 by Harleen Dahiya, Navpreet Kaur.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: (Color online) Chiral odd GPDs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: (Color online) Comparison of transversity distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: (Color online) Chiral odd GPDs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online) Chiral odd GPDs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) Comparison of normalized tensor form factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (Color online) Comparison of normalized anomalous tensor magnetic form factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (Color online) Comparison of tensor form factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We have studied the chiral-odd generalized parton distributions (GPDs) for the octet baryons within the framework of diquark spectator model, emphasizing the difference arising from different quark flavors of $p$, $\Sigma^+$ and $\Xi^o$. The quark-quark correlator for the tensor current has been solved to investigate the transversely polarized quark dynamics using light-cone wave functions. In the forward limit, transversity distributions of all the constituent quark flavors of $p$, $\Sigma^+$, and $\Xi^o$ have been studied. Additionally, the lowest moment of GPD $H_T$ and the combination of GPDs $E_T$ and $\tilde{H}_T$ have also been investigated. Our results are comparable with other available model predictions and lattice data for the case of $p$. Furthermore, we have presented a comparative analysis of tensor charges and anomalous tensor magnetic moments for all the constituent quark flavors of the considered baryons, comparing them with available data obtained from different approaches.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies chiral-odd generalized parton distributions (GPDs) for the low-lying octet baryons p, Σ⁺, and Ξ⁰ in the diquark spectator model with light-cone wave functions. It solves the quark-quark correlator for the tensor current to examine transversely polarized quark dynamics, presents transversity distributions in the forward limit for all constituent quark flavors, computes the lowest moment of H_T and the combination of E_T and H̃_T, and reports tensor charges and anomalous tensor magnetic moments. Proton results are stated to be comparable to lattice data and other models, with a comparative flavor analysis across the three baryons.

Significance. If the model framework is reliable, the work supplies flavor-dependent predictions for chiral-odd GPD moments and tensor charges in hyperons, quantities that remain sparsely explored beyond the nucleon. The proton comparisons provide a modest anchor, and the explicit treatment of different quark flavors could inform future lattice studies or phenomenological analyses of SU(3) breaking in baryon structure.

major comments (2)
  1. [Formalism and numerical inputs] The diquark spectator model parameters (masses, wave-function normalizations) are fixed from nucleon observables and then applied without additional constraints or quantified SU(3)-breaking terms to the strange diquark sector of Σ⁺ and Ξ⁰. This choice directly determines the reported differences in strange-quark tensor charges and moments, yet the manuscript provides no systematic variation or error estimate for these extrapolations.
  2. [Results and discussion] The claim that proton results are 'comparable' with lattice data and other models is asserted in the abstract and results section, but no quantitative table of moments, error bands, or discussion of how model uncertainties propagate into the agreement is supplied. This weakens the evidential support for extending the same framework to hyperons.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Model setup] Clarify the precise functional form and parameter values of the light-cone wave functions used for each baryon; a short table or appendix entry would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Throughout] Ensure uniform notation for the GPD combinations (E_T + H̃_T) between text, equations, and any figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and helpful suggestions. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the major comments and indicate the revisions we will make to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The diquark spectator model parameters (masses, wave-function normalizations) are fixed from nucleon observables and then applied without additional constraints or quantified SU(3)-breaking terms to the strange diquark sector of Σ⁺ and Ξ⁰. This choice directly determines the reported differences in strange-quark tensor charges and moments, yet the manuscript provides no systematic variation or error estimate for these extrapolations.

    Authors: The diquark spectator model is a phenomenological framework where parameters are typically fixed using well-known nucleon data to ensure consistency across the baryon octet. For the hyperons, SU(3) breaking enters through the use of distinct constituent quark and diquark masses appropriate to the strange sector. We acknowledge that the manuscript would be strengthened by an explicit sensitivity study. In the revised version we will add a dedicated paragraph describing the parameter determination and perform a limited variation of the diquark masses within physically reasonable ranges, reporting the resulting spread in the strange-quark tensor charges and moments. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The claim that proton results are 'comparable' with lattice data and other models is asserted in the abstract and results section, but no quantitative table of moments, error bands, or discussion of how model uncertainties propagate into the agreement is supplied. This weakens the evidential support for extending the same framework to hyperons.

    Authors: We accept that a direct quantitative comparison is missing. In the revised manuscript we will insert a table that lists our proton values for the lowest moments of H_T and E_T + H̃_T together with the tensor charges, alongside the corresponding lattice QCD results and other model predictions, with references. A short accompanying paragraph will discuss the level of agreement and its implications for the reliability of the hyperon predictions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; model extension validated externally for proton

full rationale

The derivation applies the diquark spectator model with light-cone wave functions to chiral-odd GPDs and tensor charges for the octet baryons. Proton results are stated to be comparable to lattice data and other models, supplying external benchmarks. Extension to Σ+ and Ξ0 introduces flavor-dependent differences using the same parametrization without evidence that reported quantities for hyperons reduce by construction to proton-tuned inputs. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations are identifiable from the abstract and description. The chain remains self-contained with independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the diquark spectator model and its light-cone wave functions, which introduce model-specific parameters typically fitted to data and domain assumptions about quark-diquark dynamics.

free parameters (1)
  • diquark spectator model parameters
    Parameters in such models are adjusted to reproduce baryon masses, form factors or other observables before computing GPDs.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The diquark spectator model with light-cone wave functions accurately captures transversely polarized quark dynamics via the tensor current correlator.
    Invoked when solving the quark-quark correlator to obtain chiral-odd GPDs for the octet baryons.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5705 in / 1362 out tokens · 62002 ms · 2026-05-19T11:42:00.347081+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Artru and M

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

    work page 1990

  2. [2]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, A. Kotzinian, F. Murgia, A. Prokudin and C. Turk, Phys. Rev. D 75, 054032 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Anselmino, V

    M. Anselmino, V. Barone, A. Drago and N. N. Nikolaev, Phys. Lett. B 594, 97-104 (2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    A. V. Efremov, K. Goeke and P. Schweitzer, Eur. Phys. J. C 35, 207-210 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Pasquini, M

    B. Pasquini, M. Pincetti and S. Boffi, Phys. Rev. D 76, 034020 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Pire and L

    B. Pire and L. Szymanowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 072002 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    D. Y. Ivanov, B. Pire, L. Szymanowski and O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Lett. B 550, 65-76 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    Enberg, B

    R. Enberg, B. Pire and L. Szymanowski, Eur. Phys. J. C 47, 87-94 (2006)

    work page 2006

  9. [9]

    Diehl, Eur

    M. Diehl, Eur. Phys. J. C 19, 485-492 (2001)

    work page 2001

  10. [10]

    Anselmino, M

    M. Anselmino, M. Boglione, U. D’Alesio, S. Melis, F. Murgia and A. Prokudin, Phys. Rev. D 87, 094019 (2013)

    work page 2013

  11. [11]

    Airapetian et al

    A. Airapetian et al. [HERMES], Phys. Lett. B 693, 11-16 (2010)

    work page 2010

  12. [12]

    Adolph et al

    C. Adolph et al. [COMPASS], Phys. Lett. B 717, 376-382 (2012)

    work page 2012

  13. [13]

    Martin [COMPASS], Phys

    A. Martin [COMPASS], Phys. Part. Nucl. 45, 141-145 (2014)

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    Aaltonen et al

    T. Aaltonen et al. [CDF], Phys. Rev. D 86, 032011 (2012)

    work page 2012

  15. [15]

    Bacchetta, A

    A. Bacchetta, A. Courtoy and M. Radici, JHEP 03, 119 (2013)

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    Airapetian et al

    A. Airapetian et al. [HERMES], JHEP 06, 017 (2008)

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    Adolph et al

    C. Adolph et al. [COMPASS], Phys. Lett. B 713, 10-16 (2012). 21

    work page 2012

  18. [18]

    Vossen et al

    A. Vossen et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 072004 (2011)

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    Z. B. Kang, A. Prokudin, P. Sun and F. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 93, 014009 (2016)

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    H. W. Lin, W. Melnitchouk, A. Prokudin, N. Sato and H. Shows, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 152502 (2018)

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    J. W. Chen, S. D. Cohen, X. Ji, H. W. Lin and J. H. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 911, 246-273 (2016)

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Schmidt and J

    I. Schmidt and J. Soffer, Phys. Lett. B 407, 331-334 (1997)

    work page 1997

  23. [23]

    Yamanaka, T

    N. Yamanaka, T. M. Doi, S. Imai and H. Suganuma, Phys. Rev. D 88, 074036 (2013)

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    Pitschmann, C

    M. Pitschmann, C. Y. Seng, C. D. Roberts and S. M. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 91, 074004 (2015)

    work page 2015

  25. [25]

    Pasquini, M

    B. Pasquini, M. Pincetti and S. Boffi, Phys. Rev. D 72, 094029 (2005)

    work page 2005

  26. [26]

    Gockeler et al

    M. Gockeler et al. [QCDSF and UKQCD], Phys. Lett. B 627, 113-123 (2005)

    work page 2005

  27. [27]

    T. Maji, C. Mondal and D. Chakrabarti, Phys. Rev. D 96, 013006 (2017)

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    Kaur et al

    S. Kaur et al. [BLFQ], Phys. Rev. D 109, 014015 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Tezgin, B

    K. Tezgin, B. Maynard and P. Schweitzer, Phys. Rev. D 110, 5 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Ledwig, A

    T. Ledwig, A. Silva and H. C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 82, 034022 (2010)

    work page 2010

  31. [31]

    kucukarslan, U

    A. kucukarslan, U. Ozdem and A. Ozpineci, Phys. Rev. D 94, 094010 (2016)

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

    P. E. Shanahan, A. W. Thomas, R. D. Young, J. M. Zanotti, R. Horsley, Y. Nakamura, D. Pleiter, P. E. L. Rakow, G. Schierholz and H. St¨ uben, Phys. Rev. D 90, 034502 (2014)

    work page 2014

  33. [33]

    P. E. Shanahan et al. [CSSM and QCDSF/UKQCD], Phys. Rev. D 89, 074511 (2014)

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    Ramalho, M

    G. Ramalho, M. T. Pe˜ na, K. Tsushima and M. K. Cheoun, Phys. Lett. B858, 139060 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Ramalho, M

    G. Ramalho, M. T. Pe˜ na and K. Tsushima, Phys. Rev. D 101, 014014 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Kaur and H

    N. Kaur and H. Dahiya, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 42 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Kaur and H

    N. Kaur and H. Dahiya, Eur. Phys. J. A 61, 91 (2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    C. Han, W. Wang, J. Zeng and J. L. Zhang, JHEP 07, 019 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Dahiya and M

    H. Dahiya and M. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D 67, 114015 (2003)

    work page 2003

  40. [40]

    Dahiya and M

    H. Dahiya and M. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D 66, 051501 (2002)

    work page 2002

  41. [41]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. [BaBar], Phys. Rev. D 76, 092006 (2007)

    work page 2007

  42. [42]

    Dobbs, A

    S. Dobbs, A. Tomaradze, T. Xiao, K. K. Seth and G. Bonvicini, Phys. Lett. B 739, 90-94 (2014)

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    Gong et al

    G. Gong et al. [Belle], Phys. Rev. D 107, 072008 (2023). 22

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. D 109, 034029 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. D 107, 072005 (2023)

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Lett. B 831, 137187 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    Singh et al

    B. Singh et al. [PANDA], Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 325 (2016)

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    Feliciello and T

    A. Feliciello and T. Nagae, Rept. Prog. Phys. 78, 096301 (2015)

    work page 2015

  49. [49]

    P. Wang, S. Lawley, D. B. Leinweber, A. W. Thomas and A. G. Williams, Phys. Rev. C 72, 045801 (2005)

    work page 2005

  50. [50]

    Singh, S

    D. Singh, S. Puhan, N. Kaur, M. Kaur, A. Kumar, S. Dutt and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D 111, 054001 (2025)

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    Ramalho, K

    G. Ramalho, K. Tsushima and M. K. Cheoun, Symmetry 17, 681 (2025)

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    Ramalho, K

    G. Ramalho, K. Tsushima and M. K. Cheoun, Phys. Rev. D 111, 013002 (2025)

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 392-399 (1949)

    work page 1949

  54. [54]

    S. J. Brodsky, D. S. Hwang, B. Q. Ma and I. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. B 593, 311-335 (2001)

    work page 2001

  55. [55]

    Bacchetta, F

    A. Bacchetta, F. Conti and M. Radici, Phys. Rev. D 78, 074010 (2008)

    work page 2008

  56. [56]

    Jakob, P

    R. Jakob, P. J. Mulders and J. Rodrigues, Nucl. Phys. A 626, 937-965 (1997)

    work page 1997

  57. [57]

    Bacchetta, A

    A. Bacchetta, A. Schaefer and J. J. Yang, Phys. Lett. B 578, 109-118 (2004)

    work page 2004

  58. [58]

    L. P. Gamberg, G. R. Goldstein and M. Schlegel, Phys. Rev. D 77, 094016 (2008)

    work page 2008

  59. [59]

    S. J. Brodsky, M. Diehl and D. S. Hwang, Nucl. Phys. B 596, 99-124 (2001)

    work page 2001

  60. [60]

    G. R. Goldstein, J. O. Gonzalez Hernandez and S. Liuti, Phys. Rev. D 91, 114013 (2015)

    work page 2015

  61. [61]

    D. B. Lichtenberg, L. J. Tassie and P. J. Keleman, Phys. Rev. 167, 1535-1542 (1968) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.167.1535

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.167.1535 1968

  62. [62]

    Zhang and B

    J. Zhang and B. Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 93, 065209 (2016)

    work page 2016

  63. [63]

    Dahiya and A

    H. Dahiya and A. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D 77, 045032 (2008)

    work page 2008

  64. [64]

    Kumar and H

    N. Kumar and H. Dahiya, Phys. Rev. D 91, 114031 (2015)

    work page 2015

  65. [65]

    G¨ ockeleret al

    M. G¨ ockeleret al. [QCDSF and UKQCD], Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 222001 (2007)

    work page 2007

  66. [66]

    Ledwig and H

    T. Ledwig and H. C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 85, 034041 (2012)

    work page 2012

  67. [67]

    Gutsche, M

    T. Gutsche, M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, S. Kovalenko and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D 94, 114030 (2016)

    work page 2016

  68. [68]

    H. C. Kim, M. V. Polyakov and K. Goeke, Phys. Lett. B 387, 577-581 (1996)

    work page 1996

  69. [69]

    S. L. Adler, E. W. Colglazier, Jr., J. B. Healy, I. Karliner, J. Lieberman, Y. J. Ng and H. S. Tsao, Phys. Rev. D 11, 3309 (1975). 23

    work page 1975

  70. [70]

    S. Aoki, M. Doui, T. Hatsuda and Y. Kuramashi, Phys. Rev. D 56, 433-436 (1997)

    work page 1997

  71. [71]

    Abdel-Rehim, C

    A. Abdel-Rehim, C. Alexandrou, M. Constantinou, P. Dimopoulos, R. Frezzotti, K. Had- jiyiannakou, K. Jansen, C. Kallidonis, B. Kostrzewa and G. Koutsou, et al. Phys. Rev. D 92, 114513 (2015) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 93, 039904 (2016)]

    work page 2015

  72. [72]

    Radici, A

    M. Radici, A. Courtoy, A. Bacchetta and M. Guagnelli, JHEP 05, 123 (2015)

    work page 2015

  73. [73]

    G. R. Goldstein, J. O. Gonzalez Hernandez and S. Liuti, [arXiv:1401.0438 [hep-ph]]. 24

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv