Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Contact interaction treatment of the nucleon Faddeev equation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that a symmetry-preserving contact interaction makes the three-body Faddeev equation for the nucleon a closed algebraic system, yielding the nucleon mass and all charge and magnetisation distributions with their flavour sepa

desk verdict First SCI treatment of the full three-body nucleon Faddeev equation: algebraically clean, honestly caveated, and worth a serious referee—provided the ad hoc coupling used to fix mN gets a sensitivity check. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.02880 v2 pith:A2VVWHBI submitted 2026-02-02 hep-ph hep-latnucl-exnucl-th

Xin-Yu Bai , Ya Lu , Zhao-Qian Yao , Craig D. Roberts , Sebastian M. Schmidt This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-latnucl-exnucl-th
keywords FaddeevequationcontactinteractionnucleonformfactorsS3permutationsymmetryflavourseparationemergenthadronmassrainbow-laddertruncationPoincarécovariance
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 shows that a symmetry-preserving vector⊗vector contact interaction (SCI) makes the three-body Faddeev equation for the nucleon a purely algebraic problem: the solution amplitude is independent of relative quark momenta, and S3 permutation symmetry reduces it to just three independent coefficients. Solving this system yields the nucleon mass and all charge and magnetisation distributions, including flavour-separated form factors, without large-scale numerics. The point is not precision but a transparent baseline: comparing these algebraic results with realistic-interaction calculations reveals which nucleon observables are sensitive to the momentum-dependence of the strong interaction. The paper also identifies stable qualitative consequences of Poincaré covariance, such as a nonzero neutron charge form factor and a zero in the proton's electric-to-magnetic form-factor ratio.

What carries the argument

The central object is the symmetry-preserving vector⊗vector contact interaction (SCI), defined by G̃_μν = δ_μν 4πα_IR/m_G², which renders every Schwinger function momentum-independent. In the three-body Faddeev equation this makes the amplitude independent of relative quark momenta; S3 permutation symmetry then forces all 16 expansion coefficients down to three independent ones (f_01+, f_03+, f_04+). These coefficients are found by solving a small closed algebraic system, after which the photon+nucleon current is evaluated using a Ward-identity-preserving dressed vertex, again algebraically.

What would settle it

A direct numerical solution of the three-body Faddeev equation using a realistic momentum-dependent interaction and the same truncation scheme, at couplings that reproduce the nucleon mass without an ad hoc reduction, would show whether the 0.75 factor is mimicking a real physical effect. Alternatively, an experimental measurement of μ_p G_E^p/G_M^p near Q² ≈ 3 GeV², already within reach of polarisation-transfer experiments, would either find a zero close to the SCI's 3.25 GeV² or place it outside the SCI's domain of validity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working with the SCI, a δ-function-like quark+quark interaction with a dynamically generated gluon mass scale, the authors solve the rainbow-ladder three-body Faddeev equation exactly in algebraic form. The Faddeev amplitude is independent of relative momenta, and S3 symmetry fixes it by three numbers. With the same coupling used for mesons and diquark systems, the nucleon is overbound (m_N = 0.67 GeV); setting the Faddeev kernel coupling to 0.75α_IR reproduces m_N = 0.94 GeV. The resulting nucleon electromagnetic form factors and their flavour separation exhibit the qualitative features seen in realistic-interaction studies — notably a zero in μ_p G_E^p/G_M^p at Q² = 3.25 GeV² in this model

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative predictions rest on the replacement α_IR → 0.75α_IR in the three-body Faddeev kernel, justified only as reflecting, perhaps, the absence of spin-orbit repulsion; if that reduction is not legitimate, the form-factor curves and zero locations change even though the algebraic framework survives.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The algebraic solution provides a parameter-free benchmark, once α_IR is fixed by meson data, for testing and debugging high-performance numerical Faddeev calculations.
  • The existence of a zero in μ_p G_E^p/G_M^p is independent of the interaction used; only its location changes (3.25 GeV² here vs about 8.9 GeV² for a realistic interaction), so the zero is a stable prediction of Poincaré-covariant treatments.
  • G_E^n ≠ 0 is unavoidable in any covariant three-body treatment; the ratio μ_n G_E^n/G_M^n rises with Q², and there is a Q² domain where G_E^n exceeds G_E^p, starting at 1.6 GeV² in the SCI.
  • Axialvector-diquark-like correlations are essential: the MA and MS channels contribute with equal-strength Λ+ components, ruling out scalar-diquark-only models of the proton.
  • The SCI predicts no zero in the flavour-separated d-quark Dirac form factor F_1^d below about 10 GeV², in contrast to realistic-interaction results that find a zero near 5.7 GeV²; this marks a definite difference between hard and soft interactions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If a zero in the proton form-factor ratio is confirmed at the few-GeV² scale, it would validate the algebraic framework's qualitative content even though the SCI's stiff Q² dependence is not physical.
  • The same S3-reduction technique generalizes to other octet and decuplet baryons; the paper notes such a study is underway, and a reader can infer that the algebraic machinery would readily handle SU(3) breaking as a perturbation.
  • The ad hoc 0.75α_IR reduction is the only input with no first-principles justification; a direct calculation of spin-orbit repulsion in the three-body kernel, or a realistic-interaction analysis of the same overbinding, would test whether the reduced coupling is more than a fitting parameter.
  • The flavour-separated results suggest that the d-quark electric form factor in the proton, G_E^d/G_M^p, rises with Q² because F_1^d is positive and increasing while F_2^d is negative and decreasing; this mechanism can be checked against upcoming flavour-separation data.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a symmetry-preserving contact-interaction (SCI) treatment of the nucleon three-body Faddeev equation. Working in rainbow-ladder truncation with a vector×vector contact interaction, the authors derive a largely algebraic closed system for the nucleon amplitude, use S3 permutation symmetry to reduce the amplitude to three independent coefficients, and solve for the nucleon mass and Faddeev amplitudes. They then construct the photon–nucleon current and compute nucleon electromagnetic form factors, Sachs ratios, radii, magnetic moments, and flavour-separated distributions. Results are compared with a realistic-interaction three-body calculation and with data, with emphasis on qualitative features such as nonzero G_E^n and a zero in μ_p G_E^p/G_M^p. The quantitative nucleon mass is imposed by tuning α^N_IR = 0.75 α_IR in the Faddeev kernel, and this tuning is the main source of conditionality in the paper.

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, the paper provides a valuable algebraic benchmark for three-body Faddeev studies. The S3 reduction to three independent coefficients is elegant, the symmetry identities are checked against the numerical solution, and the comparison with a realistic-interaction calculation usefully exposes which qualitative features are robust (nonzero G_E^n, existence of a zero in the proton ratio) and which are interaction-sensitive (zero location). A particular strength is transparency: the SCI makes the three-body machinery tractable and the algebra is explicit enough for independent reproduction. However, because the nucleon mass is set by tuning α^N_IR, the quantitative predictions are not parameter-free in the same sense as the meson-sector SCI applications. The paper's utility therefore depends on demonstrating that the main conclusions are stable under reasonable variations of that coupling.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Table 1; §6] The reduction α^N_IR = 0.75 α_IR is introduced solely to recover m_N = 0.94 GeV and is justified only as 'reflecting, perhaps, the absence of spin-orbit repulsion'. Every quantitative result in Section 6 — including the form-factor curves, the zero in μ_p G_E^p/G_M^p at Q² = 3.25 GeV², and the flavour separation — is computed with this modified kernel. No independent estimate, derivation, or stability check is supplied. Since the paper itself notes that q(qq) SCI treatments require an increased coupling to avoid underbinding, the sign and magnitude of the correction are not robustly determined. Please add a sensitivity study over a plausible range of α^N_IR (e.g., 0.7–0.8 α_IR) and show how the zero location, G_E^n shape, and flavour-separated F_1^d behave. If these vary materially, the Section 6 claims should be reframed as conditional on this tuning.
  2. [§6, Table 3 and Figs. 4–8] Quantitative outputs are quoted without uncertainties or sensitivity to the model inputs. Table 3 gives magnetic moments and radii-squared to several significant figures, and §6.2 quotes a zero at Q² = 3.25 GeV² with no error bar. Because the SCI parameters (α_IR, m, Λ_uv, and now α^N_IR) are fixed by other observables, a simple propagation or a parameter-sensitivity table would be needed to support the apparent precision. As it stands, the statement that the SCI form factors are 'too stiff' is qualitative, and the specific zero locations may be overinterpreted.
  3. [§6.2] The claim that 'the existence of a zero in this ratio is independent of the quark + quark interaction' is supported only by the present SCI result and one realistic-interaction calculation (Ref. [19]) within the same RL/CSM framework. The broader phrasing overstates the evidence. Please qualify the claim, e.g., 'within the RL/CSM treatments considered here', unless additional independent calculations are cited.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§6.1] The sentence 'Q² ≤ 4 GeV² ≈ 5Λ_IR²' is numerically inconsistent: with Λ_IR = 0.24 GeV, 5Λ_IR² ≈ 0.29 GeV². Please correct the equivalence.
  2. [Table 1] The table layout is difficult to read in the preprint; column labels and values run together. A typeset table would clarify that α^N_IR = 0.75 α_IR and is not another combination of parameters.
  3. [§6.3, Eq. (45)] The notation Q²_{F_1^d−zero} is awkward and should be defined explicitly; similar for the zero at 3.25 GeV² in Fig. 6A, which could be marked on the plot.
  4. [§5, Eq. (42) and (44)] The flavour-separated form factors are stated to be at the hadron scale ζ_H; this is mentioned in the text but should be emphasised in the equations and figures for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: the SCI Faddeev derivation is self-contained; the α_IR^N adjustment is an explicit calibration to m_N, not a hidden re-use of the form-factor data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is transparent: SCI inputs (α_IR, m_G, Λ_IR, m, Λ_uv) are fixed to pion observables in Table 1; the dressed quark propagator and Bethe-Salpeter equations are solved; the 3-body Faddeev equation is reduced to a closed algebraic system (Eqs. (17), (22)-(24)); S3 symmetry leaves three independent amplitude coefficients (Eq. (29)); the photon current is defined in Eqs. (33)-(41); and form factors are computed from these solved amplitudes. At no point is a reported form factor, zero location, or flavour-separated distribution defined as equal to an input parameter by construction. The only kernel modification is α^N_IR = 0.75 α_IR, which Table 1 explicitly labels as 'tuned to deliver the measured nucleon mass, m_N = 0.94 GeV' and Section 4 justifies only parenthetically as 'reflecting, perhaps, the absence of spin-orbit repulsion'. This is a calibration of the bound-state scale to a single datum, not a hidden fit to the electromagnetic form factors that Section 6 reports; those outputs require solving the coupled equations and are not statistically forced by the one adjusted constant. The SCI framework does rest on the authors' prior work (e.g., Refs. [23,35]), but this is a normal model definition rather than a load-bearing circular citation. Comparisons with the authors' earlier realistic-interaction 3-body calculation (Ref. [19]) and data analysis (Ref. [96]) provide external context, not the derivation of the SCI results. The possible sensitivity of quantitative predictions to the ad hoc α_IR^N reduction is a robustness/model-validity concern, not a circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on the SCI model constants inherited from earlier work (α_IR, m_G, Λ_IR), the newly tuned α^N_IR, and the RL truncation. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The dressed quark propagator and diquark-like correlations are emergent in the formalism, not new entities. The key uncertainty is the ad hoc reduction of the 3-body coupling.

free parameters (6)
  • α^N_IR (three-body Faddeev kernel coupling) = 0.75 α_IR (i.e., 0.27 π if α_IR = 0.36 π)
    Newly introduced in Section 4/Table 1; reduced from the SCI value to reproduce m_N = 0.94 GeV; without it m_N = 0.67 GeV.
  • m (light current quark mass) = 0.007 GeV (Table 1)
    Set, together with Λ_uv, in prior SCI calibrations to reproduce m_π = 0.14 GeV and f_π = 0.10 GeV; inherited as input here.
  • Λ_uv (ultraviolet regulator) = as in Table 1
    UV cutoff is a dynamical scale of the SCI; its value is part of the model definition and inherited from prior fits to pion observables.
  • α_IR (quark+quark interaction strength) = 0.36 π
    Fixed SCI constant from Ref. [35] and the prior program; controls the gap, Bethe-Salpeter, and (before reduction) Faddeev equations; inherited input.
  • m_G (gluon mass scale) = 0.5 GeV
    Fixed SCI constant used to define the interaction in Eq. (2); inherited from the earlier SCI program.
  • Λ_IR (infrared regulator) = 0.24 GeV
    Confinement scale in the SCI; fixed input, said to be in fair agreement with proton electromagnetic radii.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rainbow-ladder truncation is a reliable, systematically improvable approximation for pion, kaon, and nucleon observables.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to justify selecting RL truncation for the 3-body equation and current; improvements can be absorbed into a modified quark+quark kernel.
  • domain assumption The nucleon can be described by a three-quark Faddeev equation built from dressed quark propagators and a contact quark+quark interaction.
    Defines the model in Sections 2.2-2.3; the contact interaction replaces momentum-dependent gluon exchange.
  • standard math Proper-time regularization with IR/UV cutoffs defines all divergent integrals and preserves Ward-Green-Takahashi identities.
    Appendix A.1/A.2 specifies the regularization; symmetry preservation is assumed to follow from this scheme.
  • domain assumption S3 permutation symmetry and isospin symmetry of the nucleon amplitude.
    Used in Section 3 to reduce expansion coefficients; isospin symmetry is assumed in the Fig. 1 caption and throughout.
  • standard math The momentum-sharing parameter in the Faddeev equation is arbitrary; observables are independent of it under symmetry-preserving regularization.
    Stated in Section 2.3 without proof; equal sharing is chosen for simplicity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Contact interaction treatment of the nucleon Faddeev equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A2VVWHBI

@misc{pith2026260202880,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Contact interaction treatment of the nucleon Faddeev equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A2VVWHBI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.02880}
}
read the original abstract

Working with a symmetry-preserving treatment of a vector*vector contact interaction (SCI), a largely algebraic three-body Faddeev equation treatment of the nucleon bound state problem is introduced and used to deliver results for all nucleon charge and magnetisation distributions and their flavour separation. A strength of the SCI treatment is that it provides for a transparent understanding of this three-body approach to developing predictions for baryon observables. Comparisons of SCI results with predictions obtained in realistic-interaction Faddeev equation studies reveal the sensitivities of a given observable to the pointwise behaviour of the quark-quark interaction and phenomena associated with the emergence of hadron mass.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Contact interaction treatment of {\pi} and {\rho} elastic and transition tensor form factors

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    A vector-vector contact interaction yields predictions for elastic and transition tensor form factors of π and ρ mesons, with the pion tensor charge near 0.36 and the ρ tensor charge roughly 80% of the proton value.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [19]

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

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Kievsky (editor), Ludwig Faddeev Memorial Issue, Few

    A. Kievsky (editor), Ludwig Faddeev Memorial Issue, Few. Body Syst. 60 (2019) 34 articles

    2019

  3. [2]

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

    1989

  4. [3]

    Reinhardt, Hadronization of Quark Flavor Dyna- mics, Phys

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

    1990

  5. [4]

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

    1990

  6. [5]

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

    2021

  7. [6]

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

    2023

  8. [7]

    Cheng, Y

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

    2023

Show all 109 references
  1. [8]

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

    2024

  2. [9]

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

    2024

  3. [10]

    Eichmann, C

    G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, J. Hoffer, Functional meth- ods for hadron spectroscopy – arXiv:2503.20718 [hep- ph], in: 16th Conference on Quark Confinement and the Hadron Spectrum, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Y. Yu, P. Cheng, H.-Y. Xing, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts, Distribution Functions ofΛandΣ 0 Baryons, Eur. Phys. J. A 61 (9) (2025) 208

    2025

  5. [12]

    Cheng, Z

    P. Cheng, Z. Q. Yao, D. Binosi, Y. Lu, C. D. Roberts, Quark + diquark description of nucleon elastic electro- magnetic form factors, Eur. Phys. J. A 61 (11) (2025) 255

    2025

  6. [13]

    Eichmann, R

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

    2010

  7. [14]

    Sanchis-Alepuz, G

    H. Sanchis-Alepuz, G. Eichmann, S. Villalba-Chavez, R. Alkofer, Delta and Omega masses in a three-quark covariant Faddeev approach, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 096003

    2011

  8. [15]

    Eichmann, Nucleon electromagnetic form factors from the covariant Faddeev equation, Phys

    G. Eichmann, Nucleon electromagnetic form factors from the covariant Faddeev equation, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 014014

    2011

  9. [16]

    Eichmann, C

    G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, Nucleon axial and pseu- doscalar form factors from the covariant Faddeev equa- tion, Eur. Phys. J. A 48 (2012) 9

    2012

  10. [17]

    S.-X. Qin, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, Poincar´ e- covariant analysis of heavy-quark baryons, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 114017

    2018

  11. [18]

    S.-X. Qin, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, Spectrum of light- and heavy-baryons, Few Body Syst. 60 (2019) 26

    2019

  12. [20]

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

    2025

  13. [21]

    Eichmann, H

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

    2016

  14. [22]

    Xu, Z.-Q

    Z.-N. Xu, Z.-Q. Yao, P. Cheng, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero, J. Segovia, Light-Front Trans- verse Nucleon Charge and Magnetisation Densities. arXiv:2511.13997 [hep-ph]

  15. [23]

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

    2010

  16. [24]

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

    2021

  17. [25]

    Binosi, Emergent Hadron Mass in Strong Dynamics, Few Body Syst

    D. Binosi, Emergent Hadron Mass in Strong Dynamics, Few Body Syst. 63 (2) (2022) 42

    2022

  18. [26]

    C. D. Roberts, Origin of the Proton Mass, EPJ Web Conf. 282 (2023) 01006

    2023

  19. [27]

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

    2024

  20. [28]

    M. N. Ferreira, J. Papavassiliou, Gauge Sector Dyna- mics in QCD, Particles 6 (1) (2023) 312–363

    2023

  21. [29]

    Achenbach, D

    P. Achenbach, D. S. Carman, R. W. Gothe, K. Joo, V. I. Mokeev, C. D. Roberts, Electroexcitation of Nu- cleon Resonances and the Emergence of Hadron Mass, Symmetry 17 (7) (2025) 1106

    2025

  22. [30]

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

    2011

  23. [31]

    C. Chen, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, S.-L. Wan, S. M. Schmidt, D. J. Wilson, Features and flaws of a con- tact interaction treatment of the kaon, Phys. Rev. C 87 (2013) 045207. 14

    2013

  24. [32]

    F. E. Serna, B. El-Bennich, G. Krein, Charmed mesons with a symmetry-preserving contact interaction, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 014013

    2017

  25. [33]

    Zhang, Z.-F

    J.-L. Zhang, Z.-F. Cui, J. Ping, C. D. Roberts, Contact interaction analysis of pion GTMDs, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (1) (2021) 6

    2021

  26. [34]

    Xing, Z.-N

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

    2022

  27. [35]

    Cheng, Z.-F

    D.-D. Cheng, Z.-F. Cui, M. Ding, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, Pion Boer–Mulders function using a contact interaction, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (1) (2025) 115

    2025

  28. [36]

    M. A. Sultan, Z. Xing, K. Raya, A. Bashir, L. Chang, Gravitational form factors of pseudoscalar mesons in a contact interaction, Phys. Rev. D 110 (5) (2024) 054034

    2024

  29. [37]

    Xing, W.-H

    H.-Y. Xing, W.-H. Bian, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, Kaon and pion fragmentation functions, Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (11) (2025) 1305

    2025

  30. [38]

    Guti´ errez-Guerrero, A

    L. Guti´ errez-Guerrero, A. Bashir, M. A. Bedolla, E. San- topinto, Masses of Light and Heavy Mesons and Bary- ons: A Unified Picture, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 114032

    2019

  31. [39]

    C. Chen, F. Gao, S.-X. Qin, Screening masses of positive- and negative-parity hadron ground states, in- cluding those with strangeness, Phys. Rev. D 112 (1) (2025) 014022

    2025

  32. [40]

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

    2012

  33. [41]

    Segovia, C

    J. Segovia, C. Chen, C. D. Roberts, S.-L. Wan, Insights into theγ ∗N→∆transition, Phys. Rev. C 88 (2013) 032201(R)

    2013

  34. [42]

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

    2015

  35. [43]

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

    2019

  36. [44]

    K. Raya, L. X. Guti´ errez-Guerrero, A. Bashir, L. Chang, Z. F. Cui, Y. Lu, C. D. Roberts, J. Segovia, Dynami- cal diquarks in theγ (∗)p→N(1535) 1 2 − transition, Eur. Phys. J. A 57 (9) (2021) 266

    2021

  37. [45]

    Cheng, F

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

    2022

  38. [46]

    H. J. Munczek, Dynamical chiral symmetry break- ing, Goldstone’s theorem and the consistency of the Schwinger-Dyson and Bethe-Salpeter Equations, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 4736–4740

    1995

  39. [47]

    Bender, C

    A. Bender, C. D. Roberts, L. von Smekal, Goldstone Theorem and Diquark Confinement Beyond Rainbow- Ladder Approximation, Phys. Lett. B 380 (1996) 7–12

    1996

  40. [48]

    C. S. Fischer, R. Williams, Probing the gluon self- interaction in light mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 122001

    2009

  41. [49]

    Chang, C

    L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, Sketching the Bethe-Salpeter kernel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 081601

    2009

  42. [50]

    Chang, I

    L. Chang, I. C. Cloet, J. J. Cobos-Martinez, C. D. Ro- berts, S. M. Schmidt, P. C. Tandy, Imaging dynamical chiral symmetry breaking: pion wave function on the light front, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 132001

    2013

  43. [51]

    Binosi, L

    D. Binosi, L. Chang, J. Papavassiliou, C. D. Roberts, Bridging a gap between continuum-QCD andab ini- tiopredictions of hadron observables, Phys. Lett. B 742 (2015) 183–188

    2015

  44. [52]

    Williams, C

    R. Williams, C. S. Fischer, W. Heupel, Light mesons in QCD and unquenching effects from the 3PI effective action, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 034026

    2016

  45. [53]

    Binosi, L

    D. Binosi, L. Chang, S.-X. Qin, J. Papavassiliou, C. D. Roberts, Symmetry preserving truncations of the gap and Bethe-Salpeter equations, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 096010

    2016

  46. [54]

    Binosi, L

    D. Binosi, L. Chang, J. Papavassiliou, S.-X. Qin, C. D. Roberts, Natural constraints on the gluon-quark vertex, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 031501(R)

    2017

  47. [55]

    Xu, Z.-Q

    Z.-N. Xu, Z.-Q. Yao, S.-X. Qin, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, Bethe-Salpeter kernel and properties of strange-quark mesons, Eur. Phys. J. A 59 (3) (2023) 39

    2023

  48. [56]

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

    2022

  49. [57]

    Chang, C

    L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, Regarding the distribution of glue in the pion, Chin. Phys. Lett. 38 (8) (2021) 081101

    2021

  50. [58]

    Lu, Y.-Z

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

    2024

  51. [59]

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

    2024

  52. [60]

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

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

    2025

  53. [61]

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

    2011

  54. [62]

    C. Chen, G. I. Krein, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, J. Segovia, Spectrum and structure of octet and decu- plet baryons and their positive-parity excitations, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 054009

    2019

  55. [63]

    Segovia, B

    J. Segovia, B. El-Bennich, E. Rojas, I. C. Cloet, C. D. Roberts, S.-S. Xu, H.-S. Zong, Completing the picture of the Roper resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (17) (2015) 171801

    2015

  56. [64]

    Maris, C

    P. Maris, C. D. Roberts,πandKmeson Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes, Phys. Rev. C 56 (1997) 3369–3383

    1997

  57. [65]

    S.-X. Qin, L. Chang, Y.-X. Liu, C. D. Roberts, D. J. Wilson, Interaction model for the gap equation, Phys. Rev. C 84 (2011) 042202(R)

    2011

  58. [66]

    Cui, J.-L

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

    2020

  59. [67]

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

    2024

  60. [68]

    Z.-F. Cui, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, Hadron and light nucleus radii from electron scattering, Chin. Phys. C 46 (12) (2022) 122001

    2022

  61. [69]

    Eichmann, R

    G. Eichmann, R. Alkofer, A. Krassnigg, D. Nicmorus, Covariant solution of the three-quark problem in quan- tum field theory: The Nucleon, EPJ Web Conf. 3 (2010) 03028

    2010

  62. [70]

    Y.-Z. Xu, D. Binosi, Z.-F. Cui, B.-L. Li, C. D. Roberts, S.-S. Xu, H.-S. Zong, Elastic electromagnetic form fac- tors of vector mesons, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 114038

    2019

  63. [71]

    Sachs, High-Energy Behavior of Nucleon Electromag- netic Form Factors, Phys

    R. Sachs, High-Energy Behavior of Nucleon Electromag- netic Form Factors, Phys. Rev. 126 (1962) 2256–2260

    1962

  64. [72]

    Yin, Y.-Z

    P.-L. Yin, Y.-Z. Xu, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Quintero, All-Orders Evolution of Par- 15 ton Distributions: Principle, Practice, and Predictions, Chin. Phys. Lett.Express40 (9) (2023) 091201

    2023

  65. [73]

    F. E. Close, A. W. Thomas, The Spin and Flavor De- pendence of Parton Distribution Functions, Phys. Lett. B 212 (1988) 227

    1988

  66. [74]

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

    2022

  67. [75]

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

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

    2024

  68. [76]

    Chang, Y.-X

    L. Chang, Y.-X. Liu, C. D. Roberts, Dressed-quark anomalous magnetic moments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 072001

    2011

  69. [77]

    J. J. Kelly, Simple parametrization of nucleon form fac- tors, Phys. Rev. C 70 (2004) 068202

    2004

  70. [78]

    Arrington, W

    J. Arrington, W. Melnitchouk, J. A. Tjon, Global anal- ysis of proton elastic form factor data with two-photon exchange corrections, Phys. Rev. C 76 (2007) 035205

    2007

  71. [79]

    Passchier, R

    I. Passchier, R. Alarcon, T. S. Bauer, et al., The Charge form-factor of the neutron from the reaction2H(⃗ e, e′n)p, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 4988–4991

    1999

  72. [80]

    Herberg, M

    C. Herberg, M. Ostrick, H. G. Andresen, et al., De- termination of the neutron electric form-factor in the D(e, e′n)preaction and the influence of nuclear bind- ing, Eur. Phys. J. A 5 (1999) 131–135

    1999

  73. [81]

    H. Zhu, A. Ahmidouch, H. Anklin, et al., A Measure- ment of the electric form-factor of the neutron through ⃗d(⃗ e, e′n)patQ 2 = 0.5 (GeV/c) 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 081801

    2001

  74. [82]

    Bermuth, P

    J. Bermuth, P. Merle, C. Carasco, et al., The Neutron charge form-factor and target analyzing powers from 3He(⃗ e, e′n) scattering, Phys. Lett. B 564 (2003) 199– 204

    2003

  75. [83]

    Warren, F

    G. Warren, F. R. Wesselmann, H. Zhu, et al., Measure- ment of the electric form-factor of the neutron atQ 2 = 0.5 and 1.0GeV 2/c2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 042301

    2004

  76. [84]

    Glazier, M

    D. Glazier, M. Seimetz, J. R. M. Annand, et al., Mea- surement of the electric form-factor of the neutron at Q2 = 0.3 (GeV/c)2 to 0.8 (GeV/c)2, Eur. Phys. J. A 24 (2005) 101–109

    2005

  77. [85]

    Plaster, A

    B. Plaster, A. m. Semenov, A. Aghalaryan, et al., Mea- surements of the neutron electric to magnetic form- factor ratioG n E/Gn M via the 2H(⃗ e, e′⃗ n)1H reaction to Q2 = 1.45 (GeV/c)2, Phys. Rev. C 73 (2006) 025205

    2006

  78. [86]

    E. Geis, M. Kohl, V. Ziskin, et al., The Charge Form Factor of the Neutron at Low Momentum Transfer from the 2 ⃗H(⃗ e, e′n)pReaction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 042501

    2008

  79. [87]

    Riordan, S

    S. Riordan, S. Abrahamyan, B. Craver, A. Kelleher, A. Kolarkar, et al., Measurements of the Electric Form Factor of the Neutron up toQ 2 = 3.4GeV 2 using the Reaction 3 ⃗He(⃗ e, e′n)pp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 262302

    2010

  80. [88]

    Lung, et al., Measurements of the electric and magnetic form-factors of the neutron fromQ 2 = 1.75 (GeV/c)2 to 4 (GeV/c)2, Phys

    A. Lung, et al., Measurements of the electric and magnetic form-factors of the neutron fromQ 2 = 1.75 (GeV/c)2 to 4 (GeV/c)2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 718–721

    1993

  81. [89]

    Anklin, et al., Precise measurements of the neutron magnetic form-factor, Phys

    H. Anklin, et al., Precise measurements of the neutron magnetic form-factor, Phys. Lett. B 428 (1998) 248–253

    1998

  82. [90]

    Kubon, H

    G. Kubon, H. Anklin, P. Bartsch, et al., Precise neutron magnetic form-factors, Phys. Lett. B 524 (2002) 26–32

    2002

  83. [91]

    Anderson, T

    B. Anderson, T. Auerbach, L. annd Averett, et al., Ex- traction of the Neutron Magnetic Form Factor from Quasi-elastic 3 ⃗He(⃗ e, e′) at Q 2 = 0.1 - 0.6 (GeV/c) 2, Phys. Rev. C 75 (2007) 034003

    2007

  84. [92]

    Lachniet, A

    J. Lachniet, A. Afanasev, H. Arenhovel, et al., A Precise Measurement of the Neutron Magnetic Form FactorGn M in the few-GeV 2 Region, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 192001

    2009

  85. [93]

    Chang, F

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

    2022

  86. [94]

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

    2022

  87. [95]

    M. K. Jones, et al.,G Ep /GMp ratio by polarization transfer in⃗ ep→e⃗ p, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 1398– 1402

    2000

  88. [96]

    Cheng, Z.-Q

    P. Cheng, Z.-Q. Yao, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts, Likeli- hood of a zero in the proton elastic electric form factor, Phys. Lett. B 862 (2025) 139323

    2025

  89. [97]

    Gayou, et al., Measurement of G(E(p))/G(M(p)) in ⃗ ep→e⃗ ptoQ2 = 5.6 GeV2, Phys

    O. Gayou, et al., Measurement of G(E(p))/G(M(p)) in ⃗ ep→e⃗ ptoQ2 = 5.6 GeV2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 092301

    2002

  90. [98]

    Punjabi, et al., Proton elastic form factor ratios to Q2 = 3.5 GeV2 by polarization transfer, Phys

    V. Punjabi, et al., Proton elastic form factor ratios to Q2 = 3.5 GeV2 by polarization transfer, Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 055202, [Erratum-ibid. C71, 069902 (2005)]

    2005

  91. [99]

    A. J. R. Puckett, et al., Recoil Polarization Measure- ments of the Proton Electromagnetic Form Factor Ratio toQ 2 = 8.5 GeV2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 242301

    2010

  92. [100]

    A. J. R. Puckett, et al., Polarization Transfer Observ- ables in Elastic Electron Proton Scattering atQ 2 =2.5, 5.2, 6.8, and 8.5 GeV 2, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 055203, [erratum: Phys. Rev. C98, 019907 (2018)]

    2017

  93. [101]

    Madey, A

    R. Madey, A. Y. Semenov, S. Taylor, et al., Mea- surements ofG n E/Gn M from the 2H(⃗ e, e′⃗ n) reaction to Q2 = 1.45 (GeV/c)2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 122002

    2003

  94. [102]

    Cates, C

    G. Cates, C. de Jager, S. Riordan, B. Wojtsekhowski, Flavor decomposition of the elastic nucleon electromag- netic form factors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 252003

    2011

  95. [103]

    Z.-Q. Yao, D. Binosi, C. D. Roberts, Onset of scaling violation in pion and kaon elastic electromagnetic form factors, Phys. Lett. B 855 (2024) 138823

    2024

  96. [104]

    Eichmann, D

    G. Eichmann, D. Nicmorus, Nucleon to Delta electro- magnetic transition in the Dyson-Schwinger approach, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 093004

    2012

  97. [105]

    Segovia, I

    J. Segovia, I. C. Cloet, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, Nucleon and∆elastic and transition form factors, Few Body Syst. 55 (2014) 1185–1222

    2014

  98. [106]

    Y. Lu, C. Chen, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, J. Segovia, H. S. Zong, Transition form factors:γ∗ +p→ ∆(1232),∆(1600), Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 034001

    2019

  99. [107]

    Sanchis-Alepuz, R

    H. Sanchis-Alepuz, R. Alkofer, C. S. Fischer, Electro- magnetic transition form factors of baryons in the space- like momentum region, Eur. Phys. J. A 54 (2018) 41

    2018

  100. [108]

    Z. Xing, L. Chang, Symmetry preserving contact in- teraction treatment of the kaon, Phys. Rev. D 107 (1) (2023) 014019

    2023

  101. [109]

    Ebert, T

    D. Ebert, T. Feldmann, H. Reinhardt, Extended NJL model for light and heavy mesons withoutq¯qthresholds, Phys. Lett. B 388 (1996) 154–160

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.