Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 157 references

Bethe-Heitler-dominated exclusive photon data favor a small proton charge radius, consistent with PRad and muonic hydrogen.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 18:49 UTC pith:RB3LSXR7

load-bearing objection Solid incremental extension of their BH-extraction method: once CLAS 2018 is cut or dropped, EP data consistently give a small rE compatible with PRad/muonic H; the residual-DVCS bias risk is real but not fatal. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.04481 v1 pith:RB3LSXR7 submitted 2026-07-05 hep-ph hep-ex

Implications of exclusive photon leptoproduction measurements for the proton charge-radius puzzle

The MMGPDs Collaboration , Muhammad Goharipour , Anoushiravan Moradi , K. Azizi This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords proton charge radiuselectromagnetic form factorsBethe-Heitler processexclusive photon leptoproductionproton radius puzzleDirac and Pauli form factorsSachs form factors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper shows that high-precision exclusive photon leptoproduction cross sections, when restricted to kinematics where the Bethe-Heitler process dominates, can be used to extract the proton’s electromagnetic form factors and radii without relying on elastic electron-proton scattering. After excluding or cutting the low-|t| CLAS 2018 points that clash with the rest of the data, the remaining measurements yield stable form-factor fits. In every such analysis the extracted charge radius is smaller than the Particle Data Group average and most elastic-scattering determinations, yet agrees within uncertainties with the PRad result and muonic-hydrogen spectroscopy; the magnetic radius stays compatible with the world average. The work therefore supplies an independent, complementary route to the same small-radius solution of the long-standing proton charge-radius puzzle.

Core claim

When exclusive photon leptoproduction data are restricted to Bethe-Heitler-dominated kinematics and the discrepant CLAS 2018 points are removed or cut at low |t|, the extracted proton charge radius is systematically smaller than the PDG and most elastic-scattering values, yet consistent with PRad and muonic hydrogen, while the magnetic radius matches the world average.

What carries the argument

The kinematic filter that retains only data points with |σ_EP − σ_BH|/σ_EP ≤ 5 percent, thereby isolating the precisely calculable Bethe-Heitler amplitude that depends directly on the Dirac and Pauli form factors F1(t) and F2(t).

Load-bearing premise

The five-percent cut on residual non-Bethe-Heitler contributions is assumed to leave the slopes of the form factors at zero momentum transfer unbiased.

What would settle it

A new exclusive-photon data set at still lower |t|, analyzed with the same Bethe-Heitler filter, that returns a charge radius clearly larger than the PRad/muonic-hydrogen window would falsify the claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends a prior analysis of proton electromagnetic form factors extracted from exclusive photon leptoproduction (EP) cross sections in Bethe–Heitler (BH)–dominated kinematics. Using CLAS and Hall A data (Table I), a Gepard-based purity cut Δσ/σ ≤ 5% (Eq. (1)), and dipole or P-pole parametrizations of F1 and F2 (Eqs. (7)–(8)), the authors perform simultaneous χ² fits under several treatments of the CLAS 2018 set. They report that full inclusion of CLAS 2018 yields poor χ²/d.o.f. and unrealistic radii, while exclusion or low-|t| cuts produce stable fits with GE(t) systematically above the YAHL18 elastic-scattering parametrization. From the analytic slopes of the Sachs form factors at t = 0 (Eq. (6)), they extract a proton charge radius smaller than the PDG/CODATA averages yet consistent with PRad and muonic hydrogen, while the magnetic radius remains compatible with the world average. The central claim is that BH-dominated EP measurements constitute an independent probe that favors the small-radius solution of the proton charge-radius puzzle.

Significance. If the residual DVCS/interference bias after the purity cut is under control and the data-selection choices are robust, the work supplies a genuinely complementary determination of the proton radii that does not rely on elastic e–p scattering. The multi-scenario consistency of the small rE (dipole, P-pole, fixed-F2 Kelly) and the transparent documentation of the CLAS 2018 tension are strengths. The approach is falsifiable by future low-|t| EP data and by combined EP + elastic analyses, both of which the authors themselves flag as natural next steps. The result therefore has clear relevance to the ongoing proton-radius discussion, provided the purity and selection systematics are quantified more carefully.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. II and Eq. (1): the central claim that the extracted rE is free of significant DVCS/interference bias rests on the assertion that the Gepard-based cut Δσ/σ ≤ 5% (plus an extra uncorrelated 5% systematic) renders residual contributions negligible for the slope dGE/dt at t = 0. The paper inherits the cut from Ref. [66] and notes that 1–5% thresholds gave consistent FFs there, but never quantifies the residual coherent, t-dependent bias on that slope for the enlarged data set (especially the low-|t| Hall A and retained CLAS points). Because a few-percent residual that varies with t can shift rE by an amount comparable to the PDG–PRad difference without spoiling χ²/d.o.f. near unity, a dedicated sensitivity study (e.g., varying the cut, injecting controlled DVCS residuals, or comparing pure-BH versus full-EP fits) is required before the small-radius conclusion can be regarded as robust.
  2. Sec. IV, Tables II–III and Fig. 1: the decision to exclude the full CLAS 2018 set or to impose post-hoc |t| cuts (0.265 and 0.343 GeV²) is driven by the observation that its inclusion produces χ²/d.o.f. = 2.26 and radii far from established values. While the tension is clearly documented, the retained sample is thereby selected for compatibility with the remaining data and with the purity assumption. The paper should either (i) provide an independent experimental or theoretical justification for discarding the low-|t| CLAS 2018 points, or (ii) present a global fit that retains all data with an explicit, data-driven tension parameter (or inflated systematics) so that the small-rE result is not conditioned on the post-hoc cut.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 2–4: the ratio plots to YAHL18 are useful, but absolute GE(t) and GM(t) curves (or a supplementary table of values at a few t points) would allow direct numerical comparison with other parametrizations.
  2. Table I caption and text: the statement that the total number of points is 1249 is immediately qualified by the remark that CLAS 2018 is reduced by cuts; a clearer accounting of Npts for each scenario would avoid confusion.
  3. Sec. III: the relation between the free parameters aE, aM (or PE, PM) and the radii via Eq. (6) is standard, but an explicit formula for rE and rM in terms of the dipole/P-pole parameters would help the reader verify the numerical results in Figs. 5–6.
  4. Typographical: “resalable values” (Sec. IV) should be “reasonable values”; “studding” (Sec. V) should be “studying”; “he extracted” (Sec. V) should be “the extracted”.
  5. References: the open database of Burkert et al. [70] is essential for reproducibility; a brief statement of any additional cuts or rebinning applied beyond the published tables would be helpful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Ordinary phenomenological fit of free FF parameters to BH-selected EP data; radii are analytic slopes of the fitted forms, not predictions forced by construction or by load-bearing self-citation.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. II (Data Selection), Eq. (1) and surrounding text]
    "To identify the kinematic regions in which the BH approximation provides a reliable description of the data, we employ the same selection procedure developed in Ref. [66]. For each experimental data point, the relative difference between the pure BH prediction and the full EP cross section is evaluated using the Gepard framework [71–74], Δσ/σ = |σ_EP − σ_BH|/σ_EP. Only those measurements satisfying Δσ/σ ≤ 5% are considered in the present analysis."

    The purity cut that defines the data sample (and therefore the extracted slopes) is taken wholesale from the authors' own prior paper rather than re-derived or independently validated for the enlarged data set. This is a mild self-citation dependency, but it is not load-bearing for the numerical claim: the cut does not force rE to equal any particular external value, and the subsequent comparison to PRad/PDG remains an independent empirical statement.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is a standard χ^{2} fit: free parameters of dipole or P-pole ansätze for F1(t) and F2(t) (Eqs. 7–8) are adjusted to selected EP cross sections under the BH-dominance approximation, after which rE and rM are obtained from the analytic derivatives of the resulting Sachs FFs at t=0 (Eq. 6). This is ordinary phenomenology; the radii are not identities of the inputs. The kinematic cut Δσ/σ ≤ 5% and the overall framework are inherited from the authors' prior work [66], but that citation is not used as a uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives, nor does it force the numerical value of rE. The central claim (small rE consistent with PRad/muonic hydrogen) is an empirical comparison of the fitted slopes against external benchmarks (PDG, YAHL18, PRad, spectroscopy) that are independent of the present fit. Exclusion or |t| cuts on CLAS 2018 are data-driven responses to observed tension (χ^{2}/Npts ≈ 3.3), not circular redefinitions. No step reduces by construction to an input identity. Score 1 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation of the selection procedure; the derivation itself remains self-contained against external data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on (i) the validity of the BH-dominance selection, (ii) the functional forms chosen for F1 and F2, and (iii) the free parameters of those forms that are fitted to the selected cross sections. No new dynamical entities are postulated; the work is phenomenological extraction within standard QED + hadronic form-factor language.

free parameters (4)
  • aE (dipole or P-pole scale for F1) = 0.85–1.19 GeV² depending on scenario (Table III, IV)
    Free fit parameter controlling the t-dependence of the Dirac form factor; its value directly sets the slope of GE at t=0 and therefore rE.
  • aM (dipole or P-pole scale for F2) = 0.24–0.66 GeV² depending on scenario
    Free fit parameter for the Pauli form factor; limited sensitivity but still adjusted in most scenarios and affects rM.
  • PE, PM (P-pole exponents) = PE ≈ 1.37–1.45, PM ≈ 1.84–2.10
    Additional free exponents when the more flexible P-pole form is used; correlated with the scale parameters and enlarge the uncertainty budget.
  • 5% BH-purity cut and extra 5% uncorrelated systematic = Δσ/σ ≤ 5% + 5% sys
    Analysis choices that define which data points enter the fit and how their uncertainties are inflated; not fitted but chosen by hand and load-bearing for the low-|t| slope.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption In the selected kinematic bins the pure Bethe-Heitler cross section approximates the measured EP cross section to better than 5%, so residual DVCS and interference can be neglected for form-factor extraction.
    Stated in Sec. II and inherited from the authors’ prior work; the entire analysis stands or falls on this purity claim.
  • domain assumption The Dirac and Pauli form factors admit simple dipole or P-pole parametrizations over the covered |t| range (0.1–0.9 GeV²).
    Eqs. (7)–(8); standard phenomenological choice but not derived from QCD.
  • standard math Sachs radii are given by the derivatives of GE and GM at t=0 (Eq. 6).
    Textbook definition used without modification.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 25111 in / 3071 out tokens · 32058 ms · 2026-07-11T18:49:43.098199+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In the present study, we extend our previous analysis of the proton electromagnetic form factors (FFs) extracted from exclusive photon leptoproduction (EP) measurements in kinematic regions where the Bethe-Heitler (BH) process dominates the cross section by including all currently available high-precision EP data from the CLAS and Hall~A Collaborations. Using the same phenomenological framework, we investigate the consistency among the different data sets, determine the proton electromagnetic FFs within several fitting scenarios, and extract the corresponding charge and magnetic radii. A significant tension is observed between the CLAS 2018 measurements and the remaining EP data. We show that excluding this data set, or restricting its kinematic coverage by imposing suitable low-$|t|$ cuts, leads to stable fits with good quality and consistent FFs. For all analyses, the extracted proton charge radius is smaller than the Particle Data Group average and most determinations based on elastic electron-proton scattering. However, the results are consistent, within uncertainties, with the PRad measurement and muonic hydrogen spectroscopy. In contrast, the magnetic radius is found to be compatible with the current world average. These results demonstrate that BH-dominated EP measurements provide an independent and complementary approach to determine the electromagnetic structure of the proton and offer additional support for the small-radius solution of the proton charge-radius puzzle.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04481 by Anoushiravan Moradi, K. Azizi, Muhammad Goharipour, The MMGPDs Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison of the Sachs electric and magnetic FFs, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of the Sachs electric and magnetic form factors, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the Sachs electric and magnetic form factors, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of the proton charge radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of the proton magnetic radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

157 extracted references · 133 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Diehl and P

    M. Diehl and P. Kroll, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2397 (2013), arXiv:1302.4604 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    Hashamipour, M

    H. Hashamipour, M. Goharipour, K. Azizi, and S. V. Goloskokov, Phys. Rev. D 107, 096005 (2023), arXiv:2211.09522 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Ramalho and M

    G. Ramalho and M. T. Pe˜ na, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 136, 104097 (2024), arXiv:2306.13900 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    S. F. Pate, V. Papavassiliou, J. P. Schaub, D. P. Trujillo, M. V. Ivanov, M. B. Barbaro, and C. Giusti, Phys. Rev. D 109, 093001 (2024), arXiv:2402.10854 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Z.-Q. Yao, D. Binosi, Z.-F. Cu, and C. D. Roberts, Fund. Res. 6, 1416 (2026), arXiv:2403.08088 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    J. Wang, D. Fu, and Y. Dong, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1254 (2025), arXiv:2410.14953 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    R. J. Hern´ andez-Pinto, L. X. Guti´ errez-Guerrero, M. A. Bedolla, and A. Bashir, Phys. Rev. D 110, 114015 (2024), arXiv:2410.23813 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Cheng, Z.-Q

    P. Cheng, Z.-Q. Yao, D. Binosi, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Lett. B 862, 139323 (2025), arXiv:2412.10598 [hep-ph]. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Lin, H.-W

    Y.-H. Lin, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, (2024), arXiv:2412.12885 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    K. S. Kuzmin, N. M. Levashko, and M. I. Krivoruchenko, Phys. Rev. D 111, 013004 (2025), arXiv:2412.13150 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Cheng, Z

    P. Cheng, Z. Q. Yao, D. Binosi, Y. Lu, and C. D. Roberts, Eur. Phys. J. A 61, 255 (2025), arXiv:2507.13484 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Alexandrou, S

    C. Alexandrou, S. Bacchio, G. Koutsou, B. Prasad, and G. Spanoudes, Phys. Rev. D113, 114524 (2026), arXiv:2507.20910 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    J.-X. Yu, S. Cheng, J.-J. Han, H.-n. Li, and F.-S. Yu, Eur. Phys. J. C 86, 300 (2026), arXiv:2511.12589 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Williams, J

    T. Williams, J. Rittenhouse West, D. W. Higinbotham, and F. Benmokhtar, (2025), arXiv:2511.12007 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Arbabifar, N

    F. Arbabifar, N. Morshedian, and S. Atashbar Tehrani, (2026), arXiv:2605.14083 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    H.-J. Lee, Y. Choi, and H.-C. Kim, (2026), arXiv:2605.25900 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Pohl et al

    R. Pohl et al. , Nature 466, 213 (2010)

    2010

  18. [18]

    I. T. Lorenz, H. W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meissner, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 151 (2012), arXiv:1205.6628 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  19. [19]

    R. Pohl, R. Gilman, G. A. Miller, and K. Pachucki, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 175 (2013), arXiv:1301.0905 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  20. [20]

    C. E. Carlson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 82, 59 (2015), arXiv:1502.05314 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    J.-P. Karr, D. Marchand, and E. Voutier, Nature Rev. Phys. 2, 601 (2020)

    2020

  22. [22]

    Goharipour, F

    M. Goharipour, F. Irani, M. H. Amiri, H. Fatehi, B. Falahi, A. Moradi, and K. Azizi (MMGPDs), Nucl. Phys. B 1017, 116962 (2025), arXiv:2503.08847 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    J. J. Kelly, Phys. Rev. C 70, 068202 (2004)

    2004

  24. [24]

    I. A. Qattan et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 142301 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  25. [25]

    C. F. Perdrisat, V. Punjabi, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 59, 694 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0612014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  26. [26]

    C. B. Crawford et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 052301 (2007), arXiv:nucl-ex/0609007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  27. [27]

    Arrington, W

    J. Arrington, W. Melnitchouk, and J. A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. C 76, 035205 (2007), arXiv:0707.1861 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  28. [28]

    J. C. Bernauer et al. (A1), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 242001 (2010), arXiv:1007.5076 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  29. [29]

    J. C. Bernauer et al. (A1), Phys. Rev. C 90, 015206 (2014), arXiv:1307.6227 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  30. [30]

    Zhan et al

    X. Zhan et al. , Phys. Lett. B 705, 59 (2011), arXiv:1102.0318 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  31. [31]

    Mihoviloviˇ cet al

    M. Mihoviloviˇ cet al. , Phys. Lett. B 771, 194 (2017), arXiv:1612.06707 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    Z. Ye, J. Arrington, R. J. Hill, and G. Lee, Phys. Lett. B 777, 8 (2018), arXiv:1707.09063 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Xiong et al

    W. Xiong et al. , Nature 575, 147 (2019)

    2019

  34. [34]

    Lin, H.-W

    Y.-H. Lin, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Eur. Phys. J. A 57, 255 (2021), arXiv:2106.06357 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    M. E. Christy et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 102002 (2022), arXiv:2103.01842 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    I. A. Qattan et al. , Phys. Rev. C 112, 035205 (2025), arXiv:2411.05201 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    S. Xu, C. Mondal, J. Lan, X. Zhao, Y. Li, and J. P. Vary (BLFQ), Phys. Rev. D 104, 094036 (2021), arXiv:2108.03909 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    S. Park, R. Gupta, B. Yoon, S. Mondal, T. Bhattacharya, Y.-C. Jang, B. Jo´ o, and F. Winter (Nucleon Matrix Elements (NME)), Phys. Rev. D 105, 054505 (2022), arXiv:2103.05599 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Goharipour, F

    M. Goharipour, F. Irani, H. Hashamipour, and K. Azizi (MMGPDs), Phys. Lett. B 864, 139423 (2025), arXiv:2408.01783 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Ji, Phys

    X.-D. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 55, 7114 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9609381

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  41. [41]

    J. C. Collins and A. Freund, Phys. Rev. D 59, 074009 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9801262

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  42. [42]

    Goeke, M

    K. Goeke, M. V. Polyakov, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 47, 401 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0106012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  43. [43]

    A. V. Belitsky, D. Mueller, and A. Kirchner, Nucl. Phys. B 629, 323 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0112108

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  44. [44]

    A. V. Belitsky and D. Mueller, Phys. Rev. D 82, 074010 (2010), arXiv:1005.5209 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  45. [45]

    Kriesten and S

    B. Kriesten and S. Liuti, Phys. Rev. D 105, 016015 (2022), arXiv:2004.08890 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rev. D 56, 5524 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9704207

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  47. [47]

    Diehl, Phys

    M. Diehl, Phys. Rept. 388, 41 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0307382

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  48. [48]

    X. Ji, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 54, 413 (2004). 16

    2004

  49. [49]

    A. V. Belitsky and A. V. Radyushkin, Phys. Rept. 418, 1 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  50. [50]

    Boffi and B

    S. Boffi and B. Pasquini, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 30, 387 (2007), arXiv:0711.2625 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  51. [51]

    Guidal, H

    M. Guidal, H. Moutarde, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Rept. Prog. Phys. 76, 066202 (2013), arXiv:1303.6600 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  52. [52]

    Diehl, Eur

    M. Diehl, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 149 (2016), arXiv:1512.01328 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    Kumericki, S

    K. Kumericki, S. Liuti, and H. Moutarde, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 157 (2016), arXiv:1602.02763 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  54. [54]

    Mezrag, Few Body Syst

    C. Mezrag, Few Body Syst. 63, 62 (2022), arXiv:2207.13584 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    G. Xie, W. Kou, Q. Fu, Z. Ye, and X. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 900 (2023), arXiv:2306.02357 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Y. Guo, X. Ji, M. G. Santiago, K. Shiells, and J. Yang, JHEP 05, 150 (2023), arXiv:2302.07279 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Lorc´ e, A

    C. Lorc´ e, A. Metz, B. Pasquini, and P. Schweitzer (2025) arXiv:2507.12664 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Bo¨ eret al

    M. Bo¨ eret al. , (2025), arXiv:2512.15064 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Burkardt, Int

    M. Burkardt, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 18, 173 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0207047

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  60. [60]

    S. Kaur, S. Xu, C. Mondal, X. Zhao, and J. P. Vary (BLFQ), Phys. Rev. D 109, 014015 (2024), arXiv:2307.09869 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Cichy, M

    K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, P. Sznajder, and J. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 110, 114025 (2024), arXiv:2409.17955 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    M. V. Polyakov and P. Schweitzer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1830025 (2018), arXiv:1805.06596 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  63. [63]

    V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri, and F. X. Girod, Nature 557, 396 (2018)

    2018

  64. [64]

    Goharipour, H

    M. Goharipour, H. Hashamipour, H. Fatehi, F. Irani, K. Azizi, and S. V. Goloskokov (MMGPDs), Phys. Rev. D 112, 014016 (2025), arXiv:2501.16257 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Mart´ ınez-Fern´ andez, D

    V. Mart´ ınez-Fern´ andez, D. Binosi, C. Mezrag, and Z.-Q. Yao, Phys. Rev. D 113, 094003 (2026), arXiv:2509.06669 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    Moradi, M

    A. Moradi, M. Goharipour, H. Fatehi, and K. Azizi (MMGPDs), Phys. Rev. D 113, 054034 (2026), arXiv:2512.06554 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    D. Q. Adams et al. , (2024), arXiv:2410.23469 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Kriesten, S

    B. Kriesten, S. Liuti, L. Calero-Diaz, D. Keller, A. Meyer, G. R. Goldstein, and J. Osvaldo Gonzalez-Hernandez, Phys. Rev. D 101, 054021 (2020), arXiv:1903.05742 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  69. [69]

    H. S. Jo et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 212003 (2015), arXiv:1504.02009 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  70. [70]

    V. D. Burkert, A. Camsonne, P. Chatagnon, K. Cichy, M. Constantinou, H. Dutrieux, I. M. Higuera-Angulo, C. Mezrag, D. Richards, and P. Sznajder, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 838 (2025), arXiv:2503.18152 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Kumericki, D

    K. Kumericki, D. Mueller, K. Passek-Kumericki, and A. Schafer, Phys. Lett. B 648, 186 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0605237

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  72. [72]

    Kumericki, D

    K. Kumericki, D. Mueller, and K. Passek-Kumericki, Nucl. Phys. B 794, 244 (2008), arXiv:hep-ph/0703179

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  73. [73]

    Kumeriˇ cki and D

    K. Kumeriˇ cki and D. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B841, 1 (2010), arXiv:0904.0458 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  74. [74]

    ˇCui´ c, G

    M. ˇCui´ c, G. Duplanˇ ci´ c, K. Kumeriˇ cki, and K. Passek-K., JHEP12, 192 (2023), [Erratum: JHEP 02, 225 (2024)], arXiv:2310.13837 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  75. [75]

    Hirlinger Saylor et al

    N. Hirlinger Saylor et al. (CLAS), Phys. Rev. C 98, 045203 (2018), arXiv:1810.02110 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  76. [76]

    Defurne et al

    M. Defurne et al. (Jefferson Lab Hall A), Phys. Rev. C 92, 055202 (2015), arXiv:1504.05453 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  77. [77]

    Defurne et al

    M. Defurne et al. , Nature Commun. 8, 1408 (2017), arXiv:1703.09442 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [78]

    Benali et al

    M. Benali et al. , Nature Phys. 16, 191 (2020), arXiv:2109.02076 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  79. [79]

    James and M

    F. James and M. Roos, Comput. Phys. Commun. 10, 343 (1975)

    1975

  80. [80]

    Dembinski and P

    H. Dembinski and P. O. et al., (2020), 10.5281/zenodo.3949207

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.3949207 2020

Showing first 80 references.