Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Nuclear Dependence of Beam Normal Single Spin Asymmetry in Elastic Scattering from Nuclei

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Measuring the beam normal spin asymmetry for eleven nuclei at one Q² would test whether lead's 21σ anomaly is a nuclear-charge scaling effect or new physics.

desk verdict A feasible, genuinely new Z-scan proposal with a clear physics goal, but the physics case has arithmetic errors and the high-Z targets carry an unaddressed inelastic contamination that limits the proposed measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10267 v1 pith:PZ6FBYJ6 submitted 2024-11-15 nucl-ex

Ciprian Gal , Chandan Ghosh , Sanghwa Park , Devi Adhikari , David Armstrong , Rakitha Beminiwattha , Alexandre Camsonne , Shashini Chandrasena
show 19 more authors
Mark Dalton Abhay Deshpande Dave Gaskell Douglas Higinbotham Charles J. Horowitz Paul King Krishna Kumar Tyler Kutz Juliette Mammei Dustin McNulty Robert Michaels Caryn Palatchi Anil Panta Kent Paschke Mark Pitt Arindam Sen Neven Simicevic Lasitha Weliyanga Steven P. Wells
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-ex
keywords beamnormalsinglespinasymmetrytwo-photonexchangeelasticelectronscatteringnuclearZ-dependencePREXanomalyradiativecorrectionsSMEFTdipoleoperatorsJeffersonLabHallC
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

This proposal aims to measure the beam normal single spin asymmetry in elastic electron scattering for eleven nuclei spanning Z = 6 to Z = 90, all at the same Q² = 0.0092 GeV², with a statistical precision of 0.5 ppm per target. The motivation is the PREX puzzle: the measured asymmetry of 208Pb is consistent with zero and differs from the carbon and calcium results at the same beam energy by 21 standard deviations, while two-photon-exchange calculations predict a nearly Z-independent value of about −6 ppm. A Z-scan from calcium to thorium at fixed Q² is the decisive test: it can show whether the asymmetry turns on as a Z²-scaled radiative correction, whether a beyond-Standard-Model dipole contribution coherently suppresses it, or whether the lead result is an isolated anomaly. No data currently exist for Z ≥ 20 in this kinematic region, so the experiment would supply the first systematic nuclear-dependence dataset for this observable.

What carries the argument

The central object is A_n, the beam normal single spin asymmetry, defined by the azimuthal modulation A(φ) = A_n P_n cos φ of elastically scattered electrons from a transversely polarized beam. It is generated by the interference of the one-photon exchange amplitude with the imaginary part of the two-photon exchange amplitude, so it is absent at Born level and isolates higher-order contributions. The measurement strategy relies on two ingredients: the Koshchii et al. TPE calculation, which predicts A_n ≈ −6 ppm with negligible Z dependence at Q² = 0.0092 GeV², and the empirical Z²-scaling ansatz extracted from the existing JLab and Mainz data. The SHMS spectrometer at 5.5° with integrating Cherenkov detectors, the same instrumentation lineage as PREX-2 and CREX, delivers the 0.5 ppm statistical and 0.2 ppm systematic precision needed to distinguish the competing predictions.

What would settle it

Measure A_n for 90Zr and 124Sn at Q² = 0.0092 GeV² with 0.5 ppm precision: the Z²-scaling hypothesis predicts a clear departure from the flat TPE baseline (several ppm for Z ≥ 40), so results at the TPE value of about −6 ppm for both nuclei would falsify the scaling and BSM-suppression explanations and confine the anomaly to 208Pb.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that existing measurements of the beam normal single spin asymmetry A_n are incompatible with the assumption that two-photon exchange alone governs the observable. For the Z ≤ 20 nuclei at 0.95 GeV, A_n is around −6 ppm and agrees with the TPE calculation, but 208Pb sits at 0.4 ± 0.2 ppm, a 21σ departure from the light-nucleus average and from the prediction. The proposal asserts that measuring A_n for ten additional nuclei between carbon and thorium at one fixed Q² will resolve this discrepancy by revealing whether the asymmetry follows a smooth Z²-scaling law of the form A_n ≈ A_0(Q)(1 − C Z²α), appears only for the heaviest nuclei, or remains flat as TPE predicts. The authors state that no current theory accommodates a change in A_n at 1 GeV, so this dataset would discriminate among the radiative-correction, BSM-dipole, and 'lead-only anomaly' explanations.

Load-bearing premise

The entire motivation assumes that the 208Pb anomaly is a genuine physics effect and that the Koshchii et al. two-photon-exchange calculation is an accurate baseline (about −6 ppm) for all nuclei at Q² = 0.0092 GeV²; if either fails, the experiment would still run but could not resolve the advertised puzzle.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the measured asymmetries follow the Z²-scaling curve, the 208Pb result becomes part of a predictable nuclear-charge trend, and the radiative-correction mechanism proposed in the PREX-2/CREX paper would be validated as a missing ingredient in TPE calculations.
  • If the heavy nuclei (Z ≥ 40) land near the flat TPE prediction of about −6 ppm while lead alone deviates, the PREX lead result would be isolated as a nuclear-structure or experimental artifact specific to 208Pb.
  • If the deviation grows coherently as Z² and matches the BSM dipole estimate, the experiment would place new constraints on TeV-scale anomalous dipole moments of the electron, far beyond existing low-energy limits.
  • The elastic-peak position scans for carbon, tin, gold, and lead would provide the first measurement of inelastic contributions to A_n for heavy nuclei, informing all future TPE-based interpretations.
  • A successful measurement establishes a new observable for studying nuclear response in the quasi-elastic and inelastic regime, since the same dataset can be analyzed to extract separate elastic and inelastic asymmetries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proposed Z-scan at a single Q² cannot by itself separate a radiative correction from a BSM dipole if both scale as Z²; a companion measurement at a second, higher Q² would be needed to break that degeneracy, a step the proposal does not request.
  • The isotonic chain near Z ≈ 60 (140Ce, 142Nd, 144Sm, all with N = 82) provides a built-in control that separates Z-dependence from neutron-number or nuclear-structure effects, an opportunity the paper notes but does not develop into a quantitative test.
  • If the flat-TPE scenario is confirmed, the same measurement would indirectly validate the optical-theorem approach to doubly-virtual Compton scattering, strengthening confidence in TPE calculations used to extract weak charges and radii from parity-violating experiments.
  • The 0.2 ppm systematic budget rests on demonstrating that inelastic contributions are small; the secondary-detector cross-checks proposed here are only as good as the Monte Carlo description of the focal-plane distribution, and a dedicated measurement of inelastic A_n for one heavy nucleus would make the correction model-independent.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a proposal to measure the beam-normal single-spin asymmetry A_n in elastic electron scattering from 11 nuclear targets (^12C through ^232Th) at Q^2 = 0.0092 GeV^2 and E_beam = 1 GeV, using the SHMS in Hall C. The stated goal is to test the 'PREX puzzle': the large discrepancy between the measured A_n for ^208Pb and theoretical two-photon-exchange predictions, and to search for a possible Z^2-scaled missing contribution. The authors request 8.6 PAC days and project a statistical precision of 0.5 ppm per target with a total systematic budget of 0.2 ppm. The proposal includes SIMC-based rate estimates, a systematic error budget, and a strategy of focal-plane position scans to control inelastic backgrounds.

Significance. If realized, the measurement would provide the first systematic A_n data for intermediate-Z nuclei at forward angles, with a precision sufficient to discriminate among TPE-only predictions, a Z^2-scaled radiative correction, and a speculative BSM dipole contribution. The experimental plan builds on well-established PREX-2/CREX techniques and provides detailed rate and systematic estimates. The projected statistical reach and the explicit systematic budget are strengths. However, the physics motivation contains numerical inconsistencies in the Z^2 parametrization and in the BSM magnitude estimate, and the inelastic-background control for the heaviest deformed nuclei needs further justification.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, §4, Table 6] The SHMS momentum resolution (dP/P = 2×10^-3, i.e., about 2 MeV at 1 GeV) cannot resolve the first excited states of ^182W (0.10 MeV), ^197Au (0.08 MeV), and ^232Th (0.05 MeV) from the elastic peak, since these energy differences are two orders of magnitude below the resolution. The proposed position scans are planned only for ^12C, ^124Sn, ^197Au, and ^208Pb (Table 4), and even for ^197Au the scan cannot separate the 77-keV state. The 'Inelastic contributions' line in Table 5 (130 ppb, 2.2%) therefore does not apply to W, Au, and Th as written, because it assumes an acceptance separation that the momentum resolution does not provide. Footnote 3 states that no inelastic-state asymmetry predictions exist. Because W (Z=74), Au (Z=79), and Th (Z=90) provide the crucial high-Z coverage beyond Z=62 (together with the anomalous Pb point), an unquantified inelastic admixture at the percent level could shift the measured A_n by tens of ppm and either mimic or mask the hypothesized Z^2 trend. The proposal should either quantify the inelastic fractions and their A_n contributions for these deformed nuclei, or demonstrate a separation method (e.g., detecting the recoiling nucleus or exploiting the different angular distributions), or restrict the physics claims to targets with resolvable first excited states.
  2. [§5, Eq. (5); §2.3] The empirical parametrization used for the red curve in Fig. 8 is numerically inconsistent with the data it is meant to describe. In §2.3 the form is written as A_n = A_0(Q^2)(1 - C (Zα)^2), while §5 writes A_n ≈ A_0(Q)(1 - C Z^2 α) with C ≈ 0.2. Using either interpretation, C ≈ 0.2 does not reproduce the ^208Pb point. For Pb, Z^2 α ≈ 49, so 1 - 0.2 × 49 = -8.8, giving A_n ≈ -53 ppm for A_0 ≈ 6 ppm; with (Zα)^2 ≈ 0.358, the reduction factor is 0.928, giving ≈5.6 ppm. Neither value is close to the measured 0.4 ± 0.2 ppm. A constant C ≈ 0.02 (in the Z^2 α form) would be needed to suppress Pb to the observed level. The notation should be made consistent and the plotted curve should be refit and shown against the existing data.
  3. [§2.3.2] The claimed BSM contribution of 'a few ppm' for lead appears inconsistent with the preceding numerical estimates. Starting from ~1000 ppm at Q^2 = 900 GeV^2 and scaling linearly with Q^2 gives ~0.01 ppm at Q^2 = 0.009 GeV^2; multiplying by the stated coherence factor Z^2 = 6274 yields ~63 ppm, not 'a few ppm.' If the intended scaling is different (e.g., the asymmetry scales as Z rather than Z^2), the text should state this explicitly. As written, the statement that the BSM contribution 'could be sufficient to completely cancel out' the 6 ppm TPE asymmetry is not supported by the quoted arithmetic.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.3 and §5] The notation for the Z-scaling form is inconsistent: §2.3 writes (Zα)^2 while §5 writes Z^2 α; unify the two expressions and define the meaning of α in the parametrization.
  2. [Table 2] The quoted '21σ' difference appears to be closer to 23σ given the stated uncertainties (6.6 ppm divided by the quadrature sum √(0.2^2+0.2^2) ≈ 0.28 ppm gives ≈23); either recompute or cite the original PRL value.
  3. [References] References [14] and [19] are the same PRL paper (Adhikari et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 142501, 2022) and are listed twice; merge them.
  4. [Footnote 3] The admission that no inelastic-state asymmetry predictions exist is an important limitation; consider adding a short paragraph in §4 describing how inelastic contributions will be bounded even without dedicated predictions.
  5. [§2.3.2] The statement that the proponents 'are in close touch with BSM phenomenologists' is not a scientific argument; provide a reference to the ongoing work or remove the sentence.
  6. [§3.2] The description of the 60:40 and 40:60 focal-plane scans would benefit from an explicit definition of the coordinate used for the separation and a figure showing how the elastic and inelastic events are distributed at the sub-MeV scale relative to the 2 MeV resolution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper's hypotheses and projections are empirical fits or independent theoretical calculations used to motivate fresh measurements, and no claimed prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

This paper is an experimental proposal, not a derivation, and its central physics premise is not circular. The PREX puzzle rests on two independent inputs: a published experimental result from the PREX/CREX collaborations ([14]=[19]) and the TPE calculation of Koshchii et al. [6], a theory paper not authored by the proposal's proponents. The proposed experiment would acquire new data over a range of Z, so the central claim is testable rather than forced by definition. The only fitted curve in the paper is Eq. (5), where C ≈ 0.2 is explicitly described as 'an empirical constant that was determined based on the existing data from Jefferson Lab and Mainz.' This is presented as an empirical hypothesis to be tested, not as a first-principles prediction, and the proposal explicitly says the data 'could show the turn-on of a process' and would test the hypothesized Z^2 scaling. The BSM estimate in Sec. 2.3.2 is also explicitly qualified: 'While this argument still requires further theoretical study.' The inelastic-contamination concern for W, Au, and Th is an experimental systematic/correctness risk, not circularity; the paper itself acknowledges that inelastic-asymmetry predictions were not available and proposes focal-plane scans and a secondary detector to address the issue. No load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain or to a parameter renamed as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central proposal depends on standard TPE formalism, on the reliability of the [6] baseline calculation, and on the assumed (Zα)² functional form for unknown missing contributions. The only fitted free parameter is C in eq (5). The BSM estimate also relies on two unverified domain assumptions (scalar nucleus coupling and Q² scaling from a private communication). No new entities are introduced by this paper.

free parameters (1)
  • C (Z² scaling constant) = 0.2 (as printed); ~0.02 implied by the data
    Appears in eq (5) A_n ≈ A0(1-C·Z²α), described as an empirical constant determined from JLab and Mainz data (§5). The printed value is inconsistent with reproducing A_n(208Pb)≈+0.4 ppm from A0≈-6 ppm, which requires C≈0.02.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math TPE amplitude and optical theorem relation for A_n (eq. 2)
    Standard QED result from refs [1-5], used throughout §2.1 to define the observable.
  • domain assumption Koshchii et al. [6] calculation is a reliable TPE baseline at the proposal kinematics
    Used as the A0(Q) prediction in Figs 5 and 8 and as the 'no nuclear dependence' benchmark; if wrong, the anomaly is not isolated.
  • ad hoc to paper Missing contributions scale as (Zα)² with a single fitted constant C
    Postulated in §2.3 for both hypotheses and used in eq (5) for projections; not derived from theory.
  • domain assumption Nucleus treated as a scalar with coupling iVµ = ieZ F(q²) Pµ in the BSM estimate
    Borrowed from axion-production refs [22-24] in §2.3.2 to argue for Z² enhancement.
  • domain assumption Dipole operator contribution to A_n scales with Q²
    Relied upon to rescale the EIC-era estimate by five orders of magnitude; supporting source is a private communication [21].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nuclear Dependence of Beam Normal Single Spin Asymmetry in Elastic Scattering from Nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PZ6FBYJ6

@misc{pith2026241110267,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nuclear Dependence of Beam Normal Single Spin Asymmetry in Elastic Scattering from Nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PZ6FBYJ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10267}
}
abstract

We propose to measure the beam normal single spin asymmetry in elastic scattering of transversely polarized electron from target nuclei with 12 $\leq Z \leq$ 90 at Q$^2$ = 0.0092 GeV$^2$ to study its nuclear dependence. While the theoretical calculations based on two-photon exchange suggest no nuclear dependence at this kinematics, the results of 208Pb from Jefferson Lab show a striking disagreement from both theoretical predictions and light nuclei measurements. The proposed measurements will provide new data for intermediate to heavy nuclei where no data exists for $Z \geq$ 20 in the kinematics of previous high-energy experiments. It will allow one to investigate the missing contributions that are not accounted in the current theoretical models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10267 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An measurements from Mainz (figure 3 of [17]). Shaded bands indicate the theoretical uncertainty on the An calculation. 2.3 Verifiable hypotheses We discuss two hypotheses below that may explain the observed nuclear dependence of An. Both of the hypotheses assume a Z 2 scaling of the asymmetry (An = A0(Q2 )(1−C ·(Zα) 2 )) and would be tested by the data collected with this experiment. The full set of measurements we… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An measurements from PREX, PREX-2 and CREX [19]. The solid lines show theoretical calcu￾lations from [6] at 0.95 GeV and 2.18 GeV, while the shaded region indicates the theoretical uncertainties associated with each calculation. to a complete cancellation by the time it reaches lead (Z = 82). Of crucial importance is that there are no theories that account for a change in the An at 1 GeV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/fu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustrations of (a) two-photon exchange process and (b) the process with radiative corrections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Right panel of figure 2 in [20] showing the contribution of dipole operators to the transverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Form factor square and An [25] for 1 GeV as a function of the scattered angle for the different targets proposed in this experiment. The red dashed line indicates the proposed angle for this experiment. be set to 5.5 deg which is the smallest value at which it can be p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: CAD of detector system used in the PREX-2 and CREX experiments. The detectors in this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulated results for a 3% radiation length gold target with the SHMS. Panel a: Distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the projected An results with 0.5 ppm uncertainty for selected targets together with the existing data from [15, 19] and theoretical predictions. As shown in the figure, the theoretical calculations based on two-photon exchange suggest no dependence of the asymme…

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. Beam-Normal Single-Spin Asymmetry in $^{208}$Pb at low energy: discrepancy resolved or new kinematic puzzle?

    nucl-ex 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new measurement at 570 MeV finds A_n = (-9.1 ± 2.1 ± 0.7) ppm for elastic electron scattering off 208Pb, a nonzero value that conflicts with the vanishing asymmetry seen at higher energy and points to unexplained ki...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    De Rujula, J

    A. De Rujula, J. M. Kaplan, and E. De Rafael. Elastic scattering of electrons from polarized protons and inelastic electron scattering experiments. Nucl. Phys. B, 35:365–389, 1971

    work page 1971

  2. [2]

    Afanasev and N.P

    Andrei V. Afanasev and N.P. Merenkov. Collinear photon exchange in the beam normal polarization asymmetry of elastic electron-proton scattering. Phys.Lett., B599:48, 2004

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Gorchtein, Pierre A

    M. Gorchtein, Pierre A. M. Guichon, and M. Vanderhaeghen. Beam normal spin asymmetry in elastic lepton-nucleon scattering. Nucl. Phys. A, 741:234–248, 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Beam normal spin asymmetry in the quasi-RCS approximation

    Mikhail Gorchtein. Beam normal spin asymmetry in the quasi-RCS approximation. Phys. Rev. C, 73:055201, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Doubly virtual Compton scattering and the beam normal spin asymmetry

    Mikhail Gorchtein. Doubly virtual Compton scattering and the beam normal spin asymmetry. Phys. Rev. C, 73:035213, 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Beam-normal single-spin asymmetry in elastic scattering of electrons from a spin-0 nucleus

    Oleksandr Koshchii, Mikhail Gorchtein, Xavier Roca-Maza, and Hubert Spiesberger. Beam-normal single-spin asymmetry in elastic scattering of electrons from a spin-0 nucleus. Phys. Rev. C, 103(6):064316, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Wells et al

    S.P. Wells et al. Measurement of the vector analyzing power in elastic electron proton scattering as a probe of double photon exchange amplitudes. Phys.Rev., C63:064001, 2001

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    Armstrong et al

    David S. Armstrong et al. Transverse Beam Spin Asymmetries in Forward-Angle Elastic Electron-Proton Scattering. Phys.Rev.Lett., 99:092301, 2007

    work page 2007

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Androic et al

    D. Androic et al. Transverse Beam Spin Asymmetries at Backward Angles in Elastic Electron-Proton and Quasi-elastic Electron-Deuteron Scattering. Phys.Rev.Lett., 107:022501, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    F.E. Maas, K. Aulenbacher, S. Baunack, L. Capozza, J. Diefenbach, et al. Measurement of the transverse beam spin asymmetry in elastic electron proton scattering and the inelastic contribution to the imaginary part of the two-photon exchange amplitude. Phys.Rev.Lett., 94:082001, 2005

    2005

  3. [11]

    Gou et al

    B. Gou et al. Study of Two-Photon Exchange via the Beam Transverse Single Spin Asymmetry in Electron-Proton Elastic Scattering at Forward Angles over a Wide Energy Range. Phys. Rev. Lett., 124(12):122003, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Balaguer R ´ ıos et al

    D. Balaguer R ´ ıos et al. New Measurements of the Beam Normal Spin Asymmetries at Large Backward Angles with Hydrogen and Deuterium Targets. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119(1):012501, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Androi´ c et al

    D. Androi´ c et al. Precision Measurement of the Beam-Normal Single-Spin Asymmetry in Forward-Angle Elastic Electron-Proton Scattering. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125(11):112502, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Adhikari et al

    D. Adhikari et al. New Measurements of the Beam-Normal Single Spin Asymmetry in Elastic Electron Scattering over a Range of Spin-0 Nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett., 128(14):142501, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Abrahamyan et al

    S. Abrahamyan et al. New Measurements of the Transverse Beam Asymmetry for Elastic Electron Scattering from Selected Nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett., 109:192501, 2012

    2012

  8. [16]

    Esser et al

    A. Esser et al. First Measurement of the Q2 Dependence of the Beam-Normal Single Spin Asymmetry for Elastic Scattering off Carbon. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121(2):022503, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Esser et al

    A. Esser et al. Beam-normal single spin asymmetry in elastic electron scattering off 28Si and 90Zr. Phys. Lett. B, 808:135664, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Measurement of the beam-normal single-spin asymmetry for elastic electron scattering from 12C and 27Al

    D Androi´ c et al. Measurement of the beam-normal single-spin asymmetry for elastic electron scattering from 12C and 27Al. Phys. Rev. C, 104:014606, Jul 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Adhikari and et al

    D. Adhikari and et al. New measurements of the beam-normal single spin asymmetry in elastic electron scattering over a range of spin-0 nuclei. Phys. Rev. Lett., 128:142501, Apr 2022. 16

    2022

  12. [20]

    Transverse spin asym- metries at the EIC as a probe of anomalous electric and magnetic dipole moments

    Radja Boughezal, Daniel de Florian, Frank Petriello, and Werner Vogelsang. Transverse spin asym- metries at the EIC as a probe of anomalous electric and magnetic dipole moments. Phys. Rev. D, 107(7):075028, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    private communication

    Frank Petriello and Werner Vogelsang. private communication

  14. [22]

    Yu-Sheng Liu and Gerald A. Miller. Validity of the Weizs¨ acker-Williams approximation and the analysis of beam dump experiments: Production of an axion, a dark photon, or a new axial-vector boson. Phys. Rev. D, 96(1):016004, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Hooman Davoudiasl, Roman Marcarelli, and Ethan T. Neil. Lepton-flavor-violating ALPs at the Electron-Ion Collider: a golden opportunity. JHEP, 02:071, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Hooman Davoudiasl, Roman Marcarelli, and Ethan T. Neil. Displaced signals of hidden vectors at the Electron-Ion Collider. Phys. Rev. D, 108(7):075017, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    private communication

    Misha Gorchtein. private communication

  18. [26]

    PhD thesis, Syracuse University, 2012

    Ahmed Zafar. PhD thesis, Syracuse University, 2012

    2012

  19. [27]

    https://hallaweb.jlab.org/parity/prex/qsq/Q2 PREX.pdf

    N Liyanage et al. https://hallaweb.jlab.org/parity/prex/qsq/Q2 PREX.pdf

  20. [28]

    Ahmed et al

    Z. Ahmed et al. New precision limit on the strange vector form factors of the proton. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108:102001, Mar 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    S. Wood. Jefferson lab hall c standard equipment manual. Internal Note, 2023. 17

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.