Sea quark-gluon effect on the magnetic octupole deformation of decuplet baryons

Alka Upadhyay; Preeti Bhall; Ritu Garg

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Sea quark-gluon effect on the magnetic octupole deformation of decuplet baryons

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 The paper predicts that all charged decuplet baryons carry nonzero magnetic octupole moments, with the sign fixed by baryon charge and the effect dominated by the spin-0 part of the quark sea.

desk verdict New sea-aware octupole algebra, but the headline numbers are C-fitted rather than predicted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02531 v2 pith:BUSTLLGE submitted 2025-06-03 hep-ph

Preeti Bhall , Ritu Garg , Alka Upadhyay This is my paper

classification hep-ph

keywords magneticoctupolemomentdecupletbaryonsseaquarksFockstatesdetailedbalancescalarSU(3)symmetrybreakinghadronelectromagneticstructure

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper predicts that $J^P = \frac{3}{2}^+$ decuplet baryons ($\Delta$, $\Sigma^*$, $\Xi^*$, $\Omega$) carry nonzero magnetic octupole moments, a higher-order electromagnetic property that has never been measured. Using a statistical model in which each baryon is a superposition of quark-gluon Fock states, the authors compute the octupole moment from valence and sea contributions. The sign of the moment tracks the baryon charge: positive for negatively charged members and negative for positively charged ones, with neutral members zero in the SU(3) symmetric limit. The spin-0 (scalar) part of the sea contributes more than 90 percent of the effect, and strangeness suppresses the magnitude through a factor $k(1-C_l)^{n-1}$. If the predictions hold, the magnetic current inside these baryons is not spherically symmetric, and future high-precision experiments could observe octupole deformation.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a statistical wavefunction built from quark-gluon Fock states, written as a superposition weighted by five statistical coefficients $a_0, b_1, b_8, d_1, d_8$ that encode the probabilities of sea configurations in spin, flavor, and color space. These coefficients are combined with the octupole operator $\hat{O}_B = C \sum_{i \neq j \neq k} e_k(3\sigma_{iz}\sigma_{jz} - \sigma_i \cdot \sigma_j)\sigma_k$, where $C$ is a constant fixed by $\chi^2$ minimization against existing theoretical predictions. The detailed-balance principle generates the Fock-state probabilities, a suppression factor $k(1 - C_l)^{n-1}$ reduces states with multiple strange quark pairs, and a mass-correction parameter $r = \mu_s/\mu_d$ accounts for valence strangeness. These ingredients together turn the octupole moment into a set of linear equations whose coefficients are known once the sea probabilities are computed.

What would settle it

A measurement of the magnetic octupole moment of $\Delta^{++}$ or $\Omega^-$ that found the opposite sign, or a magnitude an order of magnitude different from the predicted $\sim 0.01\ \mathrm{fm}^3$, would falsify the central claim. Concretely, high-statistics $\gamma p \to \pi^0 p \gamma'$ or $e^+e^- \to \Omega^- \bar{\Omega}^+$ data extracting the magnetic octupole form factor could settle the sign pattern.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the magnetic octupole moment operator $\hat{O}_B$ of the decuplet baryons has nonzero expectation values once the sea is included. The paper derives linear expressions in the statistical coefficients $a_0, b_1, b_8, d_1, d_8$ and obtains, with the fitted constant $C' = -0.0032\ \mathrm{fm}^3$, values such as $-0.0249\ \mathrm{fm}^3$ for $\Delta^{++}$ and $+0.0121\ \mathrm{fm}^3$ for $\Delta^-$. The sign pattern is charge-dependent: $\Delta^{++}, \Delta^+, \Sigma^{*+}$ are negative and $\Delta^-, \Sigma^{*-}, \Xi^{*-}, \Omega^-$ are positive, which the authors interpret as oblate versus prolate magnetic current distributions. The scalar (spin-0) sea alone reproduces nearly the full effect; vector and tensor sea contributions are tiny. Exclusion of the sea changes the results by more than 80 percent, so the paper treats the sea as the essential ingredient.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the overall scale $C$ can be fixed by fitting to earlier theoretical predictions of the octupole moment; if those benchmark values are inaccurate, every predicted magnitude shifts in proportion and the quoted numbers in $\mathrm{fm}^3$ inherit that error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Future measurements of the $\Omega^-$ or $\Delta^{++}$ magnetic octupole form factor would directly test the predicted sign pattern and magnitudes.
Scalar (spin-0) sea dominance suggests that the spin structure of the nonperturbative sea, not just its flavor content, controls higher multipole moments.
The inverse correlation with strangeness means octupole moments shrink as strange-quark content grows, an effect that could be checked by comparing $\Sigma^*$, $\Xi^*$, and $\Omega^-$.
If the charge-sign pattern is confirmed, the magnetic current distribution of positive and negative decuplet baryons has opposite geometrical deformation.
The SU(3) relations in Eqs. (12)-(17) provide pattern-level checks that future data or lattice calculations could verify.

Reading between the lines

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

Extension: the statistical coefficients fixed here could be applied to electromagnetic transition octupole moments, such as $\gamma N \to \Delta$, providing a parameter-free prediction of the same rank-3 observable.
Extension: the fitted constant $C$ absorbs the overall scale, so the model's falsifiable content is the relative pattern across the decuplet; a future measurement that confirms the pattern but shifts all magnitudes would not distinguish the framework.
Extension: if the scalar-sea dominance is real, it suggests that the spin-0 component of the nonperturbative sea should also dominate other high-rank moments, a testable pattern for lattice calculations.
Extension: measuring only the $\Omega^-$ octupole moment may be easier than for other members because of clean $e^+e^-$ production, and the paper's prediction for its sign and magnitude could be checked first.

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

Quick take: the paper contains a genuinely new calculation of magnetic octupole moments for the whole decuplet, with sea contributions cleanly separated into scalar, vector, and tensor components. The operator algebra in Eqs. 6-9 is the real product and is worth preserving. But the numerical 'predictions' are not derived. The global scale C is fixed by χ² fitting to the same theoretical results (GPM, QCD sum rules) that later appear in Table 4 as evidence of 'good consistency.' Since every octupole value in Table 2 is proportional to that single C, the agreement is circular. The relative pattern among baryons is still meaningful—it comes from the statistical coefficients—but the absolute magnitudes, including the claimed sign pattern for some members, inherit whatever the fitted benchmarks carry. No uncertainty is quoted for C or for the coefficients, which are imported from the group's earlier papers without re-derivation.

There are also internal contradictions a referee would need fixed: Table 4 gives Model C Δ+ as +0.0117 while Table 2 and Eq. 6b give -0.0130; and the conclusion states Σ*0 and Ξ*0 have positive MOM while Tables 2-3 list small negative values. Those are not fatal to the algebraic core, but they undermine the paper's internal consistency. What deserves credit: the octupole operator matrix elements for decuplet wavefunctions with sea are new, the SU(3) symmetry relations in Sec. 5 are a useful check, and the scalar-sea dominance is a concrete model prediction even if it depends on imported coefficients. The paper reads like an honest model exercise, not a puff piece. It just overclaims what the numbers are.

Recommendation: this is a specialized calculation that a hadron-structure referee should look at, but the authors need to substantially revise—either derive C within the model or present the results as C-scaled expressions rather than absolute fm³ values, fix the sign inconsistencies, and add uncertainties. As it stands I would not cite the numerical values.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes magnetic octupole moments (MOMs) of spin-3/2+ decuplet baryons in a statistical model of quark-gluon Fock states. The MOM operator is defined in Eq. (2), and the moments are expressed in Eqs. (6a)-(9) as linear combinations of a scale constant C, statistical coefficients (a0, b1, b8, d1, d8), and a mass-correction parameter r for strange quarks. The statistical coefficients are taken from earlier work (Refs. [44,45,58]), and C is fixed in Sec. 5 by a chi-square minimization against the theoretical predictions of Refs. [35] and [40]. The resulting values are presented in Tables 2-4, with the main claims being a charge-dependent sign pattern, dominance of the scalar (spin-0) sea, and 'good consistency' with existing theoretical predictions.

Significance. If the numerical results were genuine predictions, the charge-dependent sign pattern and the scalar-sea dominance would provide useful benchmarks for future measurements of decuplet magnetic octupole deformations, which are currently unconstrained experimentally. The paper also explicitly separates scalar, vector, and tensor sea contributions, which is a useful decomposition. However, the central numerical predictions are not derived in the paper: the scale constant C is fitted to the same theoretical predictions that are later used for validation, so the comparison in Table 4 is circular. The internal inconsistencies in the reported signs further weaken the reliability of the conclusions. No reproducible fitting details or uncertainty estimates for C are provided.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 5; Table 4] The constant C is determined 'through chi-square minimization... ensuring the best possible agreement with existing theoretical predictions' (Sec. 5), and the same predictions (GPM [40] and QCD sum rules [35]) are then listed in Table 4 as comparison targets to claim 'good consistency.' Since every octupole moment in Eqs. (6a)-(9) and Table 2 is proportional to C, the overall scale and, for the fitted members, the sign are not independent outputs of the model. This makes the validation circular; the table demonstrates that the fitting procedure reproduces the input values, not that the model predicts them.
[Sec. 6 (Conclusion) vs Tables 2-3] The conclusion states that Sigma*0 and Xi*0 have positive MOM, but Tables 2 and 3 list negative values for both particles (-0.0002 and -0.0012 in Model D; -0.0003 and -0.0013 in Model C). This directly contradicts the sign pattern claimed in both the abstract and the conclusion.
[Table 4, Delta+ row] In Table 4, Model C for Delta+ is listed as +0.0117, whereas Eq. (6b) and Tables 2-3 give -0.0130 for the same model. This is an internal inconsistency in the table that is specifically used to demonstrate agreement with other theoretical approaches.
[Sec. 6 (Conclusion)] The statement that 'this statistical framework requires no additional parameters' is not supported by the manuscript: C is obtained by chi-square minimization in Sec. 5, r is imported from Refs. [49,50], and the suppression factor in Sec. 4 contains an unspecified parameter k. The fitted status of C should be acknowledged explicitly, and the 'no additional parameters' claim should be removed or qualified.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (5)] There is a typographical error in Eq. (5): the term before d^2_8 has an extra plus sign ('+ +d^2_8').
[Table 2 caption] The caption uses C' = -0.0032, while the text and equations use C; the notation should be made consistent and the prime explained.
[Sec. 2, Eq. (2)] The constant C is introduced as 'a constant which characterize the matrix elements of color and orbital space,' but its physical origin and the reason it is the same for all decuplet members are not discussed. A brief derivation or reference would help.
[Sec. 6 (Conclusion)] The word 'cotupole' should be 'octupole' in the first sentence of the Conclusion.
[Table 4] The claim of 'good consistency' is quantitatively overstated: for example, the QCD sum-rule value for Delta++ is -0.006 +/- 0.002, which is far outside the stated uncertainties from the Model D value of -0.0249. The table should be discussed with appropriate error bars and a quantitative comparison.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Validation is circular: the scale constant C is chi2-fitted to the same theoretical predictions used for the Table 4 comparison, so the reported octupole magnitudes and signs are not independent predictions.

fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5 (Numerical analysis), Table 2 caption and Table 4; Sec. 6 (Conclusion)]
"The optimal value of C is obtained through χ2 minimization method, ensuring the best possible agreement with existing theoretical predictions. ... Since no experimental data currently exists for the MOM of spin-3/2+ decuplet baryons. Therefore, we compared our results with the available theoretical predictions presented in Table 4. The results show a good consistency in sign and magnitude with the Refs. [35, 40]. ... A key advantage of this statistical framework is that it requires no additional parameters."

The 'existing theoretical predictions' used in the chi2 fit are the same QCD sum-rule [35] and GPM [40] results that Table 4 presents as independent comparison targets. From Eqs. (6)-(9), every octupole moment is a fixed linear combination of the single constant C; Table 2 lists values such as Delta++ = 7.6492 C with C' = -0.0032. Minimizing C against [35,40] therefore fixes both the global magnitude scale and the overall sign of every entry. The resulting 'good consistency in sign and magnitude' in Table 4 is imposed by construction rather than tested, and the Conclusion's claim that the framework 'requires no additional parameters' conceals this fitting step. The only non-circular content is the C-independent relative pattern and the sea-component ratios.

full rationale

The paper's central numerical validation is partially circular. The constant C is chi2-fitted to 'existing theoretical predictions', and the same predictions (QCD sum rules [35] and GPM [40]) are then used as the comparison benchmarks in Table 4. Since all octupole moments in Tables 2-3 are proportional to this single fitted C, the magnitudes and the global sign pattern of the 'predictions' are inherited from the fit rather than independently derived. This matches the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern and warrants a score of 6. Not everything is circular: the scalar-sea dominance in Table 3, the SU(3) ordering in Eq. (18), and the with/without-sea comparison are ratios that cancel C and depend on the statistical coefficients imported from Refs. [44,45,58]. Those earlier same-group references are themselves tested against masses, magnetic moments, charge radii, and other observables, so they are not redefined by the octupole data; that is a normal dependency rather than a redefinition. Separately, the manuscript contains internal consistency errors that are not circularity: the Conclusion states that Sigma*0 and Xi*0 have positive MOM, while Tables 2-3 give negative values, and Table 4 lists a Model C Delta+ value of +0.0117 that contradicts Eq. (6b)/Table 2 (-0.0130). These errors reduce confidence in the presentation but do not alter the circularity verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numbers rest on a fitted global constant C, an imported mass-correction parameter r, an unspecified suppression strength k, and a cluster of domain assumptions about Fock-state probabilities and the spin-color decomposition of the sea.

free parameters (3)

C = -0.0032
Global octupole constant fit by chi-square minimization to existing theoretical predictions (Sec. 5); every quoted MOM value is proportional to C.
r = 0.850
Mass correction parameter for valence strangeness, taken from the authors' earlier work Refs. [49,50].
k = not specified
Suppression factor k(1-Cl)^(n-1) controls the probabilities of strange Fock states, but k is never assigned a value in this paper.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Baryons can be represented as ensembles of quark-gluon Fock states with probabilities governed by detailed balance.
Sec. 4; the entire framework rests on this statistical picture rather than on full QCD.
domain assumption The octupole moment operator of Eq. (2), with a global constant C, correctly describes the magnetic octupole moment.
Sec. 2; C absorbs color and orbital matrix elements and is later fitted to data.
domain assumption Statistical coefficients a0,b1,b8,d1,d8 from Refs. [44,45,58] apply unchanged to the octupole operator.
Secs. 3-4; Eqs. 5-9 import these coefficients without derivation in this paper.
ad hoc to paper The suppression factor k(1-Cl)^(n-1), with Cl-1 = 2Ms/(MB-2(l-1)Ms), correctly encodes SU(3) breaking in the sea.
Sec. 4; no independent derivation or experimental constraint is provided for this factor.
domain assumption A non-relativistic quark-model treatment at the 1 GeV^2 scale is sufficient for magnetic octupole moments.
Sec. 6; relativistic corrections are not estimated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sea quark-gluon effect on the magnetic octupole deformation of decuplet baryons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BUSTLLGE

@misc{pith2026250602531,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sea quark-gluon effect on the magnetic octupole deformation of decuplet baryons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BUSTLLGE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02531}
}

abstract

The magnetic octupole moment of $J^P= \frac{3}{2}^+$ decuplet baryons are discussed in the statistical framework, treating baryons as an ensembles of quark-gluon Fock states. The probabilities associated with multiple strange and non-strange Fock states depict the importance of sea in spin, flavor $\&$ color space, which are further merged into statistical parameters. The individual contribution of valence and sea (scalar, vector and tensor) to the magnetic octupole moment is calculated. The symmetry breaking in both sea and valence is experienced by a suppression factor $k(1-C_l)^{n-1}$ and a mass correction parameter 'r', respectively. The factor $k(1-C_l)^{n-1}$ systematically reduces the probabilities of Fock states containing multiple strange quark pairs. The octupole moment value is obtained -ve for $\Delta^{++}, \Delta^+, \Sigma^{*+}$ and +ve for $\Delta^{-}, \Sigma^{*-}, \Xi^{*-}, \Omega^-$ baryons with the domination of scalar (spin-0) sea. The computed results are compared with existing theoretical predictions, demonstrating good consistency. These predictions may serve as valuable inputs for future high-precision experiments and theoretical explorations in hadron structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02531 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

[35]

Aliev and K

T.M. Aliev and K. Azizi and M. Savcı, Physics Letters B 681, 3 (2009)

work page 2009
[40]

Buchmann, Few-Body Systems 59, 145 (2018)

A.J. Buchmann, Few-Body Systems 59, 145 (2018)

work page 2018
[1]

Panda, A. R. and Roy, K. C. and Sahoo, R. K., Phys. Rev. D 49, 9 (1994)

work page 1994
[2]

Barik and M

N. Barik and M. Das, Physics Letters B 120,4 (1983)

work page 1983
[3]

Zhang, Jun and Ma, Bo-Qiang, Phys. Rev. C 93, 6 (2016)

work page 2016
[4]

K¨ albermann and J.M

G. K¨ albermann and J.M. Eisenberg, Physics Letters B 247, 12 (1990)

work page 1990
[5]

Buchmann, Phenomenology of LargeNc QCD, pp

A.J. Buchmann, Phenomenology of LargeNc QCD, pp. 224–228 (2002)

work page 2002
[6]

Kaur, Amanpreet and Gupta, Pallavi and Upadhyay, Alka, PTEP 2017, 6 (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 59 references

[7]

X. Y. Liu, K. Khosonthongkee, A. Limphirat, Y. Yan, J. Phys. G 41, 055008 (2014)

2014
[8]

Singh, Harpreet and Kumar, Arvind and Dahiya, Harleen, Chinese Physics C 41, 9 (2017)

2017
[9]

Buchmann and E.M

A.J. Buchmann and E.M. Henly Phys. Rev. C 63, 015202 (2000)

2000
[10]

Batra and A

M. Batra and A. Upadhyay., Nuclear Physics A 922, pp. 126-139 (2013)

2013
[11]

Sharma, H

N. Sharma, H. Dahiya, Pramana 80, 237 (2013)

2013
[12]

Dahiya, Chinese Physics C 42, 093102 (2018)

H. Dahiya, Chinese Physics C 42, 093102 (2018)

2018
[13]

G., Huerta, R

Contreras, J. G., Huerta, R. and Quintero, L. R., Revista Mexicana de Fisica 50, 5 (2004)

2004
[14]

Petersen, P. C. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 8 (1986)

1986
[15]

and others, Phys

Navas, S. and others, Phys. Rev. D 110, 3 (2024)

2024
[16]

Blanpied, M

G. Blanpied, M. Blecher, A. Caracappa et al. (The LEGS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4337 (1997)

1997
[17]

Tiator, D

L. Tiator, D. Drechsel, S.S. Kamalov and S.N. Yang, Eur. Phys. J.A 17, 3 (2003)

2003
[18]

Sahoo, R. K. and Panda, A. R. and Nath, A., Phys. Rev. D. 52, 7 (1995)

1995
[19]

Buchmann, E.M

A.J. Buchmann, E.M. Henley, Phys. Rev. D 65, 073017 (2002)

2002
[20]

Kim, H.C

J.Y. Kim, H.C. Kim, G.S. Yang, M. Oka, Phys. Rev. D 103, 074025 (2021)

2021
[21]

Abada.A, Weigel H, Physics Letters B (1996)

R.H. Abada.A, Weigel H, Physics Letters B (1996)

1996
[22]

OH, Modern Physics Letters A 10, 1027 (1995)

Y. OH, Modern Physics Letters A 10, 1027 (1995)

1995
[23]

Butler, M.J

M.N. Butler, M.J. Savage, R.P. Springer, Phys. Rev. D 49, 3459 (1994)

1994
[24]

et al., Eur

Hacker, C., Wies, N., Gegelia, J. et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 28, 5-9 (2006)

2006
[25]

L´ opez Castro and A

G. L´ opez Castro and A. Mariano, Physics Letters B 517, 3 (2001)

2001
[26]

Kotulla et al., Phys

M. Kotulla et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 27 (2002)

2002
[27]

Ablikim et al

M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 107, 052003 (2023) 13

2023
[28]

Dobbs and A

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

2014
[29]

Aliev, M

T.M. Aliev, M. Savci, Phys. Rev. D 90, 116006 (2014)

2014
[30]

Krusche and S

B. Krusche and S. Schadmand, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 51, pp. 399-485 (2003)

2003
[31]

Punjabi et

V. Punjabi et. al (Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 71, 055202 (2005)

2005
[32]

L. Guo, D. P. Weygand, M. Battaglieri, R. De Vita, V. Kubarovsky, P. Stoler, M. J. Amaryan, P. Ambrozewicz, M. Anghinolfi et al. (CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 76, 025208 (2007)

2007
[33]

Goetz et al., Phys

J.T. Goetz et al., Phys. Rev. C 98, 062201 (2018)

2018
[34]

C.Z. Yuan, M. Larliner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 012003 (2021)

2021
[36]

Azizi, Eur

K. Azizi, Eur. Phys. J. C 61, 311–319 (2009)

2009
[37]

Ramalho and M.T

G. Ramalho and M.T. Pe˜ na and Franz Gross, Physics Letters B 678, 4 (2009)

2009
[38]

Ramalho, G., Phys. Rev. D 103, 074018 (2021)

2021
[39]

and Pe˜ na, M

Ramalho, G. and Pe˜ na, M. T., Phys. Rev. D 83, 054011 (2011)

2011
[41]

Buchmann, E.M

A.J. Buchmann, E.M. Henley, Eur. Phys. J.A 35, pp. 267-269 (2008)

2008
[42]

et al., Phys

Adam, J. et al., Phys. Rev. D 99, 051102 (2019)

2019
[43]

M.Goncharov et al., Phys. Rev. D 64, 112006 (2001)

2001
[44]

A. Kaur, A. Upadhyay, The European Physical Journal A 52, 332 (2016)

2016
[45]

A. Kaur, P. Gupta, A. Upadhyay, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2017, 063B02 (2017)

2017
[46]

Bhall, A

P. Bhall, A. Upadhyay, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2024, 053B04 (2024)

2024
[47]

Batra, A

M. Batra, A. Upadhyay, Nuclear Physics A 922, 126 (2014)

2014
[48]

Upadhyay, M

A. Upadhyay, M. Batra, The European Physical Journal A 49, 160 (2013)

2013
[49]

Bhall, M

P. Bhall, M. Batra, A. Upadhyay, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2023, 093B03 (2023)

2023
[50]

Bhall, P., Upadhyay, A., Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 238 (2025)

2025
[51]

M. K. Jones, K. A. Aniol, F. T. Baker, J. Berthot, P. Y. Bertin, W. Bertozzi, et al. (The Jefferson Lab Hall A Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1398 (2000)

2000
[52]

Bernstein, A. M. and Papanicolas, C. N., AIP Conf. Proc 904, 1 (2007) 14

2007
[53]

Pascalutsa and M

V. Pascalutsa and M. Vanderhaeghen and S. N. Yang, Physics Reports 437, 5 (2007)

2007
[54]

Donnelly, T William and Sick, Ingo, Reviews of modern physics 56, 3 (1984)

1984
[55]

X. Song, V. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2211 (1994)

1994
[56]

Zhang, W.Z

Y.J. Zhang, W.Z. Deng, B.Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 65, 114005 (2002)

2002
[57]

Zhang, B.Q

Y.J. Zhang, B.Q. Ma, L.M. Yang, International Journal of Modern Physics A 18, 1465 (2003)

2003
[58]

Singh, A

J.P. Singh, A. Upadhyay, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 30, 881 (2004)

2004
[59]

et al., Nature Communications 10, 1 (2019) 15

Butler, P.A., Gaffney, L.P., Spagnoletti, P. et al., Nature Communications 10, 1 (2019) 15

2019

Pith tools

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

[1] [35]

Aliev and K

T.M. Aliev and K. Azizi and M. Savcı, Physics Letters B 681, 3 (2009)

work page 2009

[2] [40]

Buchmann, Few-Body Systems 59, 145 (2018)

A.J. Buchmann, Few-Body Systems 59, 145 (2018)

work page 2018

[3] [1]

Panda, A. R. and Roy, K. C. and Sahoo, R. K., Phys. Rev. D 49, 9 (1994)

work page 1994

[4] [2]

Barik and M

N. Barik and M. Das, Physics Letters B 120,4 (1983)

work page 1983

[5] [3]

Zhang, Jun and Ma, Bo-Qiang, Phys. Rev. C 93, 6 (2016)

work page 2016

[6] [4]

K¨ albermann and J.M

G. K¨ albermann and J.M. Eisenberg, Physics Letters B 247, 12 (1990)

work page 1990

[7] [5]

Buchmann, Phenomenology of LargeNc QCD, pp

A.J. Buchmann, Phenomenology of LargeNc QCD, pp. 224–228 (2002)

work page 2002

[8] [6]

Kaur, Amanpreet and Gupta, Pallavi and Upadhyay, Alka, PTEP 2017, 6 (2017)

work page 2017