Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 78 references

First Results on Nucleon Resonance Electroexcitation Amplitudes from $ep \to e'\pi^+\pi^-p'$ Cross Sections at $W$ from $1.56-1.76$ GeV and $Q^2$ from $2.0-5.0$ GeV$^2$

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read First electroexcitation amplitudes of six nucleon resonances are extracted from pi+pi-p data, including a new N'(1720)3/2+ state.

desk verdict Fills a real kinematic gap and the N(1675)/N(1680) cross-channel consistency is solid, but the N'(1720) claim needs a fit without the state. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04997 v1 pith:FNXMAVYL submitted 2026-08-05 nucl-ex hep-phnucl-th

V.I.Mokeev , P.Achenbach , V.D.Burkert , D.S.Carman , R.W.Gothe , E.L.Isupov , K.Joo , K.Neupane
show 1 more author
Y.Wunderlich
This is my paper
classification nucl-exhep-phnucl-th PACS 13.40.-f14.20.Gk12.40.Nn
keywords nucleonresonanceelectrocouplingsthirdregionpi+pi-pelectroproductionJM23reactionmodelN'(1720)3/2+statedynamicalchiralsymmetrybreakingemergenceofhadronmasselectronscattering
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

Working from electron-scattering data on the reaction $ep\to e'\pi^+\pi^-p'$, the paper aims to establish the first values of the $\gamma_v p N^*$ electroexcitation amplitudes (electrocouplings) for the nucleon resonances $\Delta(1600)3/2^+$, $N(1675)5/2^-$, $N(1680)5/2^+$, $\Delta(1700)3/2^-$, $N(1720)3/2^+$, and the newer $N'(1720)3/2^+$ in the third resonance region, with $W$ from 1.56 to 1.76 GeV and $Q^2$ from 2.0 to 5.0 GeV$^2$. It reports that the extracted amplitudes for $N(1675)5/2^-$ and $N(1680)5/2^+$ agree with those from independent single-pion analyses, which is the paper's main cross-check that resonant strength is being isolated correctly. For $\Delta(1700)3/2^-$ and $N(1720)3/2^+$ these are the first electrocouplings available above $Q^2 = 2.0$ GeV$^2$, and the analysis finds clear contributions from the $N'(1720)3/2^+$ state. If the extraction is right, these amplitudes become empirical constraints on how nucleon excited states are built from dressed quarks and on how hadron mass emerges in strong QCD.

What carries the argument

The central object is the set of $\gamma_v p N^*$ electrocouplings $A_{1/2}$, $A_{3/2}$, and $S_{1/2}$, the photon-transition amplitudes that encode how virtual photons excite each nucleon resonance. The machinery that carries the extraction is the JM23 reaction model, a phenomenological description of $\gamma_v p \to \pi^+\pi^-p'$ built from $\pi^-\Delta^{++}$, $\pi^+\Delta^0$, $\rho p$, $\pi^+N(1520)$, and $\pi^+N(1680)$ subchannels plus direct two-pion mechanisms, with $s$-channel resonances described by a unitarized Breit-Wigner ansatz. Fits to nine one-fold differential cross sections in overlapping $W$ intervals allow the resonant amplitudes to be isolated and averaged, and the consistency of parameters across those intervals is the main internal check on the separation.

What would settle it

Refit the same nine one-fold differential cross sections with an alternative non-resonant parameterization, for example with different $t$-channel forms or additional contact-term degrees of freedom, and check whether the extracted $A_{1/2}$, $A_{3/2}$, and $S_{1/2}$ for $\Delta(1700)3/2^-$ and $N'(1720)3/2^+$ move outside the quoted uncertainties.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the JM23 reaction model, fitted to nine one-fold $\pi^+\pi^-p$ differential cross sections measured on a proton target, can separate resonant from non-resonant contributions in the third resonance region and thereby yield the $\gamma_v p N^*$ electrocouplings $A_{1/2}$, $A_{3/2}$, and $S_{1/2}$ for six resonances. The results for $N(1675)5/2^-$ and $N(1680)5/2^+$ are consistent with the amplitudes obtained independently from $\pi N$ electroproduction, and the model requires both the established $N(1720)3/2^+$ and a second, nearby $N'(1720)3/2^+$ state with distinct decay patterns to describe the data up to $Q^2 = 5.0$ GeV$^2$. The paper further argues that the resonance masses and hadronic decay widths extracted from the fits do not vary with $Q^2$, which it reads as evidence that these states are genuine $s$-channel excitations with an inner core of three dressed quarks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the JM23 model's non-resonant amplitudes, which are adjusted in the fits, describe the background well enough that the $s$-channel resonant strength is not absorbed into those background terms; if that fails, the extracted electrocouplings are not genuine resonance parameters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • First electrocouplings for $\Delta(1700)3/2^-$ and $N(1720)3/2^+$ become available for $Q^2 > 2$ GeV$^2$, where these resonances' dominant $\pi\pi N$ decays make this channel the primary probe.
  • The agreement between $\pi N$ and $\pi^+\pi^-p$ extractions for $N(1675)5/2^-$ and $N(1680)5/2^+$ supports using either channel independently for resonance parameters in the third resonance region.
  • The $N'(1720)3/2^+$ state, previously seen only below $Q^2 = 1.5$ GeV$^2$, is shown to persist up to $Q^2 = 5$ GeV$^2$ with $Q^2$-independent mass and widths, strengthening the case that it is a real baryon state.
  • The $Q^2$-independent masses and hadronic widths of the six resonances become empirical evidence that they are excited as $s$-channel states with a dressed-quark core, providing direct input for calculations of hadron mass emergence from strong QCD.
  • The measured $Q^2$ evolution of the electrocouplings, including the longitudinal dominance of $\Delta(1700)3/2^-$, offers a new testing ground for models of dynamical chiral symmetry breaking.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same fit strategy is carried into the 12-GeV energy regime, the $\pi^+\pi^-p$ channel could map electrocouplings for other 'missing' resonances over a wider $Q^2$ range, since the method does not rely on the $\pi N$ decay branch that makes such states hard to see in single-pion data.
  • The striking difference between the longitudinal-dominated $\Delta(1700)3/2^-$ excitation and the transverse-dominated $\Delta(1232)3/2^+$ excitation, if confirmed, would make chiral-partner pairs a sharper diagnostic of the mechanism behind hadron mass than the resonance spectrum alone.
  • A direct test would be to rerun the same fits with a completely different non-resonant model; if the extracted amplitudes move outside the quoted uncertainties, the model-dependence is larger than the paper's internal consistency checks suggest.
  • The near-coincidence of results across overlapping $W$ intervals hints that the dominant uncertainty budget is set by the non-resonant parameterization rather than by the data statistics, so future experiments should focus on kinematics that constrain the background.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes CLAS pi+pi-p electroproduction differential cross sections at W=1.56-1.76 GeV and Q2=2.0-5.0 GeV2 with the JM23 reaction model, extracting gamma_v p N* electrocouplings and hadronic decay parameters for Delta(1600)3/2+, N(1675)5/2-, N(1680)5/2+, Delta(1700)3/2-, N(1720)3/2+, and a new N'(1720)3/2+ state. The results for N(1675) and N(1680) are reported to be consistent with independent CLAS piN analyses, and the paper presents the first electrocouplings for Delta(1700) and N(1720) at Q2>2.0 GeV2. The main evidence for the new N'(1720) state is the good fit quality with Q2-independent masses and widths across the full Q2 range, together with differences in decay patterns and electrocouplings relative to the conventional N(1720).

Significance. If the extraction is reliable, the paper provides a substantial extension of the empirical knowledge of nucleon resonance electroexcitation into the third resonance region at high Q2, with genuinely useful constraints for continuum Schwinger methods, quark models, and future coupled-channel analyses. The cross-channel consistency for N(1675) and N(1680) between piN and pi+pi-p analyses is a real strength, as is the internal consistency across overlapping W intervals. The claimed observation of a new N'(1720)3/2+ state with a measured Q2 evolution would be an important result for the physics of 'missing' resonances. However, the significance is tempered by the strong model dependence of the extraction and by the absence of a direct test of whether the data actually require the new state.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV E and Table XV] The central claim that the new N'(1720)3/2+ state contributes to the pi+pi-p cross sections at Q2=2-5 GeV2 is not supported by a fit that excludes the state. All fits in Section III include N'(1720) in the resonance set (Table IV), and the selection criterion chi2/d.p.<1 in Table VII is applied only within this two-state model. To demonstrate that the data require the new state, the paper should report the chi2/d.p. and the resulting N(1720) parameters from a fit without N'(1720), and show whether the non-resonant amplitudes can compensate for its absence. Without such a test, the statement in Section IV E that the data 'conclusively demonstrated' contributions from both states is overstated.
  2. [Section III, Table VII] The description of the fit selection procedure is not sufficient to assess the statistical meaning of the extracted parameter uncertainties. The text says 'we selected the computed cross sections that were closest to the data and satisfied the condition chi2/d.p. < chi2_max/d.p.', but it does not state how the trial parameter sets are generated, how many fits enter the selection, or whether the selected set provides coverage of the parameter space. If only fits below an acceptance threshold are kept, the central values in Eqs. (3)-(5) and the RMS dispersions in Tables XI-XVIII may be biased and the uncertainties underestimated. Please specify the fitting algorithm, the number of trials, and the criteria used to define the 'closest' fits.
  3. [Section IV E] The argument that Q2-independent hadronic masses and widths for N'(1720) provide 'nearly model-independent evidence' for its existence is not decisive. The non-resonant amplitudes are renormalized independently in each (W,Q2) bin through the fitted magnitudes of contact terms, pi+N(1520), pi+N(1680), and direct-2pi mechanisms (Section III), so the fitted electrocouplings carry the Q2 dependence and a broad resonance-like enhancement near W~1.72 GeV could in principle be absorbed by these flexible backgrounds. A sharper test would be a fit with the non-resonant parameterization fixed from a global analysis or varied in a controlled way to see whether the N'(1720) amplitude remains required.
  4. [Section II B and Section IV E] There is an internal inconsistency in the treatment of N(1720)-N'(1720) mixing. Section II B states that transitions N(1720)3/2+ <-> N'(1720)3/2+ are incorporated into the JM23 model through the dressed resonance propagator, while Section IV E states that the distinct decay patterns of the two states 'prevents their mixing'. These statements cannot both be true. Please clarify which implementation is actually used, and quantify how the mixing transition affects the extracted electrocouplings of the two states.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] In the first sentence, 'electroexcitation amplitudes or the gamma_vpN* electrocouplings' should be 'electroexcitation amplitudes of the gamma_vpN* electrocouplings' or similar, since 'or' appears to be a typo.
  2. [Section IV B, Tables IX and X] The text appropriately cautions that the small uncertainties on the masses and widths of N(1675) and N(1680) should be interpreted with care because other decay modes were kept fixed; this caveat should also be stated in the conclusions where the Q2-independence of the widths is used as evidence of an s-channel origin.
  3. [Figures 3-5] The captions say that 'only the statistical uncertainties are shown, except for the particular data points ... dominated by systematic uncertainties', but the figures do not identify which points those are. Please add an explicit marker or explanation so the reader can distinguish the two classes of data points.
  4. [Conclusions and Outlook] Reference [75] appears to be a 1980 proceedings contribution on group-theoretical methods, not a work on lattice QCD, and does not seem to support the statement that progress is being made in lattice simulations of resonance physics. Please check and correct this citation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Extraction is largely self-contained, but the 'new N'(1720) observed' claim is partially circular because the state is inserted as a free fit input before being presented as a demonstrated output.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II B (Table IV), Sec. III, and Sec. IV E]
    "The JM23 model incorporates contributions from all well-established N* states listed in Table IV. ... Analysis of the CLAS data on the pi+ pi- p differential cross sections in the third resonance region [37], performed within the JM23 meson-baryon reaction model [15], conclusively demonstrated contributions from both the conventional N(1720)3/2+ [42] and the new N'(1720)3/2+ [38] resonances."

    N'(1720)3/2+ is included a priori in Table IV of the JM23 model with mass and width ranges taken from the authors' own Ref. [38]. The fits in Sec. III vary the electrocouplings of this state as a free parameter, and the chi2/d.p.<1 selection criterion (Table VII) is applied only within this two-state model. No fit without N'(1720) is reported, and the non-resonant amplitudes are renormalized independently in each (W,Q2) bin (contact terms, pi+N(1520), up to six direct-2pi parameters per Q2 bin). The conclusion that the new state's contributions are 'conclusively demonstrated' therefore restates the model choice to include it, rather than providing an independent test; a fitted amplitude for an assumed state is renamed as evidence for that state's existence.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is a normal fit-and-extract analysis: the JM23 model is adjusted to nine one-fold differential cross sections, and the electrocouplings are extracted from fitted resonant amplitudes. Fitted parameters are not circular merely because they are fitted. The N(1675)5/2- and N(1680)5/2+ results are checked against independent CLAS pi N analyses (Ref. [9]), and the Delta(1600)3/2+ comparison uses CSM predictions that predate these data, providing genuine external grounding. The single clear circularity concern is the N'(1720)3/2+ claim: the state is already present in the model and in the same group's prior analysis [38], and the paper offers no null-model fit or significance test against a model without it. This is a partial circularity in one highlighted sub-claim, not in the core extraction machinery, so the score is 4 rather than higher. The paper's argument that Q2-independent hadronic widths prove an s-channel origin is a model-discrimination argument, but without a no-N'(1720) alternative it does not resolve the circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The extraction relies on many fitted background parameters and on adopting a specific reaction model. The central output (electrocouplings) is also fit to data, so the ledger reflects the auxiliary parameters that the reader does not see but that the claim depends on. Fixed high-mass tails and model completeness are the largest unquantified costs.

free parameters (7)
  • Non-resonant contact-term amplitudes in pi-Delta++ and pi+Delta0 subchannels = one per Q2 bin, values not tabulated
    Fitted to the nine one-fold cross sections; the background normalization competes with resonant amplitudes.
  • Magnitudes of pi+N(1520) and pi+N(1680) subchannel amplitudes = per (W,Q2) bin
    Fitted independently to data; these subchannels contribute non-resonant background at W>1.6 GeV.
  • Direct 2pi production amplitude magnitudes = up to six per Q2 bin
    Fitted per Q2 bin; direct mechanisms can mimic or interfere with resonant pi Delta and rho p contributions.
  • W-independent multiplicative factors for non-resonant amplitudes = one per Q2 bin, mean about 1, sigma about 20%
    Varied between Q2 bins but kept fixed across W to preserve the W dependence from the initial adjustment.
  • Breit-Wigner masses and partial widths Gamma_piDelta, Gamma_rhop for resonances in 1.6-1.76 GeV = within PDG intervals, see Tables VIII-X, XIII, XV, XVII
    Varied in the fits; the resulting values are part of the extracted resonance parameters.
  • Electrocouplings of 1.9-2.0 GeV resonances (N(1900), Delta(1905), Delta(1920), Delta(1950)) = from quark models [43,44], tuned to 1.9<W<2.0 data, kept fixed
    These tails contribute in the third resonance region but are fixed, so their uncertainty is not propagated.
  • Electrocouplings of N(1440), N(1520), Delta(1600) = within ranges from Ref [15]
    Varied within previous uncertainties to account for tails below 1.6 GeV in the fitted W range.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Single-photon exchange approximation for the virtual photon cross sections
    Section II A: the differential cross sections are derived from electron scattering assuming single-photon exchange.
  • domain assumption Completeness of JM23 mechanisms: the amplitude is a superposition of pi-Delta++, pi+Delta0, rho p, pi+N(1520), pi+N(1680), and direct 2pi contributions
    Section II B; the reliability of the electrocoupling extraction depends on this set of mechanisms being complete.
  • ad hoc to paper Negligible contribution of N(1710)1/2+
    Section II B: the paper states no evidence for N(1710)1/2+; if it contributes, nearby resonance parameters could shift.
  • domain assumption Unitarized Breit-Wigner ansatz with specific resonance transition couplings represents resonant amplitudes
    Section II B and III; the unitarization ansatz from Refs [13,45,46] is adopted without a derivation in this paper.
  • domain assumption Interpolation of five-fold cross sections from d5tau to d5tau' and d5tau'' is accurate
    Section II A; angular distributions for pi+ and p' are obtained by interpolation, and errors here propagate into fitted cross sections.
  • domain assumption The one-fold differential cross sections from Ref [37] are correct
    All fits use these cross sections; the paper does not re-evaluate the data or the efficiency corrections.
  • domain assumption PDG masses, widths, and branching fractions for high-mass resonances (1.9-2.0 GeV) are accurate
    Section II B: hadronic decay parameters for these states are taken from PDG [42] and kept fixed.
  • domain assumption CSM calculations provide a valid QCD-connected framework for interpreting electrocouplings (EHM/DCSB)
    Section IV.D: the interpretive claims rely on the CSM approach and its connection between DCSB and EHM.
invented entities (1)
  • N'(1720)3/2+ baryon state independent evidence
    purpose: Needed to describe pi+pi- p cross sections in the third resonance region; a 'missing' resonance with JP=3/2+ close to N(1720)3/2+
    The state was proposed in previous photoproduction and electroproduction analyses [38,72] and is consistent with quark model predictions [44,73]; this paper reports high-Q2 electrocouplings but does not itself show a fit without the state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First Results on Nucleon Resonance Electroexcitation Amplitudes from $ep \to e'\pi^+\pi^-p'$ Cross Sections at $W$ from $1.56-1.76$ GeV and $Q^2$ from $2.0-5.0$ GeV$^2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNXMAVYL

@misc{pith2026260804997,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First Results on Nucleon Resonance Electroexcitation Amplitudes from $ep \to e'\pi^+\pi^-p'$ Cross Sections at $W$ from $1.56-1.76$ GeV and $Q^2$ from $2.0-5.0$ GeV$^2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNXMAVYL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04997}
}
abstract

The first results on the electroexcitation amplitudes or the $\gamma_vpN^*$ electrocouplings for nucleon resonances ($N^*$s) in the third resonance region are presented. They were obtained from $\pi^+\pi^-p$ electroproduction differential cross sections measured with the CLAS detector and analyzed using the Jefferson Lab-Moscow State University (JM) reaction model. The analysis covers the invariant mass range of the final-state hadrons $W$ from 1.56 to 1.76~GeV and virtual photon four-momentum squared $Q^2$ from 2.0 to 5.0~GeV$^2$. Consistent results on the electroexcitation amplitudes of the $N(1675)5/2^-$ and $N(1680)5/2^+$ obtained from independent analyses of both $\pi N$ and $\pi^+\pi^-p$ final states, demonstrate the capability of reaction models to extract the $\gamma_v p N^*$ electrocouplings for $N^*$s in the third resonance region. Also, for the first time, the electrocouplings of the $\Delta(1700)3/2^-$ and $N(1720)3/2^+$, which predominantly decay into $\pi\pi N$ final states, have become available for $Q^2 > 2.0$~GeV$^2$. Finally, contributions from a new $N'(1720)3/2^+$ baryon state to the $\pi^+\pi^-p$ differential cross sections have been observed for $Q^2 < 5.0$~GeV$^2$. The new results on resonance electrocouplings in the third resonance region offer new opportunities to explore various aspects of the strong QCD regime responsible for the generation of nucleon excited states, in particular, shedding light on the emergence of hadron mass in connection with dynamical chiral symmetry breaking.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04997 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Kinematic variables for the description of the reac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Representative examples of the description of the nine one-fold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Representative examples of the description of the nine one-fold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Representative examples of the description of the nine one-fold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Representative examples for the computed one-fold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Representative examples for the computed one-fold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Electrocouplings of the ∆(1600)3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Electrocouplings of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Electrocouplings of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Electrocouplings of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Electrocouplings of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Electrocouplings of the ∆(1700)3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Electrocouplings of the ∆(1700)3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Electrocouplings of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Electrocouplings of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Electrocouplings of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Electrocouplings of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_18.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V. D. Burkert, EPJ Web Conf.241, 01004 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    V. I. Mokeev and D. S. Carman, Few Body Syst.63, 59 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    S. J. Brodskyet al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. E29, 2030006 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    B. A. Meckinget al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A503, 513 (2003)

    2003

  5. [5]

    D. S. Carman, K. Joo, and V. I. Mokeev, Few Body Syst.61, 29 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    I. G. Aznauryan and V. D. Burkert, Prog. Part. Nucl. 24 Phys.67, 1 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    I. G. Aznauryan, Phys. Rev. C67, 015209 (2003)

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    I. G. Aznauryanet al.(CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C80, 055203 (2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Parket al.(CLAS Collaboration), Phys

    K. Parket al.(CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C91, 045203 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Tiator, D

    L. Tiator, D. Drechsel, S. S. Kamalov, and M. Vander- haeghen, Eur. Phys. J. ST198, 141 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Denizliet al.(CLAS Collaboration), Phys

    H. Denizliet al.(CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C76, 015204 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    V. I. Mokeev, V. D. Burkert, T.-S. H. Lee, L. Elouadrhiri, G. V. Fedotov, and B. S. Ishkhanov, Phys. Rev. C80, 045212 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    V. I. Mokeevet al.(CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 86, 035203 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    V. I. Mokeev, V. D. Burkert, D. S. Carman, L. Elouadrhiri, G. V. Fedotov, E. N. Golovatch, R. W. Gothe, K. Hicks, B. S. Ishkhanov, E. L. Isupov, and I. Skorodumina, Phys. Rev. C93, 025206 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    V. I. Mokeev, P. Achenbach, V. D. Burkert, D. S. Car- man, R. W. Gothe, A. N. Hiller Blin, E. L. Isupov, K. Joo, K. Neupane, and A. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. C108, 025204 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Y.-F. Wang, M. D¨ oring, J. Hergenrather, M. Mai, T. Mart, U.-G. Meißner, D. R¨ onchen, and R. Workman (J¨ ulich-Bonn-Washington), Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 101901 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Kamano, Few Body Syst.59, 24 (2018)

    H. Kamano, Few Body Syst.59, 24 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    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, and S. Zafeiropoulos, Chin. Phys. C44, 083102 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    A. N. Hiller Blinet al., Phys. Rev. C100, 035201 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    A. N. Hiller Blin, W. Melnitchouk, V. I. Mokeev, V. D. Burkert, V. V. Chesnokov, A. Pilloni, and A. P. Szczepa- niak, Phys. Rev. C104, 025201 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    A. N. Hiller Blin, V. I. Mokeev, and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. C107, 035202 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    V. D. Burkert and C. D. Roberts, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 011003 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Segovia, I

    J. Segovia, I. C. Clo¨ et, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Few Body Syst.55, 1185 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Segovia, B

    J. Segovia, B. El-Bennich, E. Rojas, I. C. Clo¨ et, C. D. Roberts, S.-S. Xu, and H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 171801 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    G. V. Fedotovet al.(CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C79, 015204 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Ripaniet al.(CLAS Collaboration), Phys

    M. Ripaniet al.(CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 022002 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    I. G. Aznauryan and V. D. Burkert, Phys. Rev. C92, 015203 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    I. G. Aznauryan and V. D. Burkert, Few Body Syst.59, 98 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Ramalho and M

    G. Ramalho and M. T. Pe˜ na, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 136, 104097 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Sirca, Acta Phys

    S. Sirca, Acta Phys. Polon. B57, 2 (2026)

    2026

  23. [31]

    I. T. Obukhovsky, A. Faessler, D. K. Fedorov, T. Gutsche, and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. D100, 094013 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    M. Ding, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Particles 6, 57 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    D. S. Carman, R. W. Gothe, V. I. Mokeev, and C. D. Roberts, Particles6, 416 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Achenbach, D

    P. Achenbach, D. S. Carman, R. W. Gothe, K. Joo, V. I. Mokeev, and C. D. Roberts, Symmetry17, 1106 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    I. G. Aznauryan, V. D. Burkert, G. V. Fedotov, B. S. Ishkhanov, and V. I. Mokeev, Phys. Rev. C72, 045201 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    E. L. Isupovet al.(CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 96, 025209 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Trivediet al., (2026), arXiv:2607.06793 [nucl-ex]

    A. Trivediet al., (2026), arXiv:2607.06793 [nucl-ex]

    2026 arXiv

  30. [38]

    V. I. Mokeevet al., Phys. Lett. B805, 135457 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Byckling and K

    E. Byckling and K. Kajantie,Particle Kinematics: (Chapters I-VI, X)(University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland, 1971)

    1971

  32. [40]

    Ripaniet al., Nucl

    M. Ripaniet al., Nucl. Phys. A672, 220 (2000)

    2000

  33. [41]

    Golovatchet al.(CLAS Collaboration), Phys

    E. Golovatchet al.(CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 788, 371 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Ronniger and B

    M. Ronniger and B. C. Metsch, Eur. Phys. J. A49, 8 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    M. M. Giannini and E. Santopinto, Chin. J. Phys.53, 020301 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    I. J. R. Aitchison, Nucl. Phys. A189, 417 (1972)

    1972

  38. [46]

    Kamano, B

    H. Kamano, B. Julia-Diaz, T. S. H. Lee, A. Matsuyama, and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. C79, 025206 (2009)

    2009

  39. [47]

    S¨ oding, Phys

    P. S¨ oding, Phys. Lett.19, 702 (1966)

    1966

  40. [48]

    D. G. Casselet al., Phys. Rev. D24, 2787 (1981)

    1981

  41. [49]

    I. J. R. Aitchison and J. J. Brehm, Phys. Rev. D17, 3072 (1978)

    1978

  42. [50]

    I. J. R. Aitchison and J. J. Brehm, Phys. Rev. D20, 1119 (1979)

    1979

  43. [51]

    L. Liu, C. Chen, Y. Lu, C. D. Roberts, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D105, 114047 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Y. Lu, C. Chen, Z.-F. Cui, C. D. Roberts, S. M. Schmidt, J. Segovia, and H. S. Zong, Phys. Rev. D100, 034001 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Cheng, L

    P. Cheng, L. Liu, Y. Lu, and C. D. Roberts, Acta Phys. Polon. B57, 2 (2026)

    2026

  46. [54]

    Hockley, C

    L. Hockley, C. Abell, D. Leinweber, and A. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D111, 076027 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    G. V. Fedotovet al.(CLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C98, 025203 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    A. J. G. Hey and J. Weyers, Phys. Lett. B48, 69 (1974)

    1974

  49. [57]

    Babcock and J

    J. Babcock and J. L. Rosner, Annals Phys.96, 191 (1976)

    1976

  50. [58]

    W. N. Cottingham and I. H. Dunbar, Z. Phys. C2, 41 (1979)

    1979

  51. [59]

    V. D. Burkert, R. De Vita, M. Battaglieri, M. Ripani, and V. Mokeev, Phys. Rev. C67, 035204 (2003)

    2003

  52. [60]

    I. G. Aznauryan and A. S. Bagdasaryan, Yad. Fiz.41, 249 (1985), [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.41, 158 (1985)]

    1985

  53. [61]

    Santopinto and M

    E. Santopinto and M. M. Giannini, Phys. Rev. C86, 065202 (2012)

    2012

  54. [62]

    Merten, U

    D. Merten, U. L¨ oring, B. Metsch, and H. Petry, Eur. Phys. J. A18, 193 (2003)

    2003

  55. [63]

    Julia-Diaz, T

    B. Julia-Diaz, T. S. H. Lee, A. Matsuyama, T. Sato, and L. C. Smith, Phys. Rev. C77, 045205 (2008)

    2008

  56. [64]

    Horn and C

    T. Horn and C. D. Roberts, J. Phys. G43, 073001 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    C. D. Roberts, Few Body Syst.58, 5 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    R. T. Cahill, C. D. Roberts, and J. Praschifka, Phys. Rev. D36, 2804 (1987)

    1987

  59. [67]

    M. Y. Barabanovet al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.116, 103835 (2021)

    2021

  60. [68]

    Cheng, Z

    P. Cheng, Z. Q. Yao, D. Binosi, Y. Lu, and C. D. Roberts, Eur. Phys. J. A61, 255 (2025)

    2025

  61. [69]

    Y. Lu, C. Chen, C. D. Roberts, J. Segovia, S.-S. Xu, and 25 H.-S. Zong, Phys. Rev. C96, 015208 (2017)

    2017

  62. [70]

    Albino, G

    L. Albino, G. Paredes-Torres, K. Raya, A. Bashir, and J. Segovia, Phys. Rev. D112, 054025 (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

    L. Liu, C. Chen, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D107, 014002 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    Kamano, S

    H. Kamano, S. X. Nakamura, T. S. H. Lee, and T. Sato, Phys. Rev. C88, 035209 (2013)

    2013

  65. [73]

    Santopinto and J

    E. Santopinto and J. Ferretti, Phys. Rev. C92, 025202 (2015)

    2015

  66. [74]

    V. E. Lyubovitskij and I. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D102, 094008 (2020)

    2020

  67. [75]

    Chen, in9th International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics(1980) pp

    J.-Q. Chen, in9th International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics(1980) pp. 468–472

    1980

  68. [76]

    Morningstar, Acta Phys

    C. Morningstar, Acta Phys. Polon. B57, 2 (2026)

    2026

  69. [77]

    Burkert, G

    V. Burkert, G. Eichmann, and E. Klempt, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.146, 104214 (2026)

    2026

  70. [78]

    Segovia, C

    J. Segovia, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Phys. Lett. B750, 100 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.