2021
DOI: 10.1103/physrevd.104.094014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Axial-vector nucleon-to-delta transition form factors using the complex-mass renormalization scheme

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 76 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There have already been many theoretical works on the axial-vector transition form factors for the nucleon to the ∆ excitation: for example, the relativistic quark model (RQM) [36][37][38] , the isobar model (IM) [39], the nonrelativistic quark model (NRQM) [40,41], the linear σ model (LSM) and the cloudy bag model (CBM) [42], the chiral constituent quark model (χCQM) [43], baryon chiral perturbation theory [44][45][46][47], the Barbero-Lopez-Mariano model (BLM) [48,49], the ∆-pole dominance model [50], the light-cone QCD sum rule (LCSR) [51] and the nonlinear σ model (NLSM) [52]. The ∆ → N axial-vector transition form factor has often been parametrized either by the dipole-type form factor or by Adler's parametrization [20].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There have already been many theoretical works on the axial-vector transition form factors for the nucleon to the ∆ excitation: for example, the relativistic quark model (RQM) [36][37][38] , the isobar model (IM) [39], the nonrelativistic quark model (NRQM) [40,41], the linear σ model (LSM) and the cloudy bag model (CBM) [42], the chiral constituent quark model (χCQM) [43], baryon chiral perturbation theory [44][45][46][47], the Barbero-Lopez-Mariano model (BLM) [48,49], the ∆-pole dominance model [50], the light-cone QCD sum rule (LCSR) [51] and the nonlinear σ model (NLSM) [52]. The ∆ → N axial-vector transition form factor has often been parametrized either by the dipole-type form factor or by Adler's parametrization [20].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One can easily understand this difference, since the results for C A,∆ + →p 5 from the lattice TABLE III. Numerical results for the axial transition radius in comparison with those from various approaches: baryon chiral perturbation theory(BCPT) [44,47],the chiral constituent quark model (χCQM) [43], nonrelativistic quark potential model [41] with two different methods (Isgur-Karl and D-mixing), and lattice QCD [34]. (0) in comparison with those from the general framework of a chiral soliton model(χSM) [18].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%