Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Diffractive Two-Photon Exchange and Beam Normal-Spin Asymmetries for Elastic Electron Scattering on Nuclei

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the mismatch between the diffraction zeros of the nuclear Compton amplitude and the nuclear charge form factor makes the beam-normal spin asymmetry oscillate with momentum transfer, explaining the measured near-zero po

desk verdict Genuinely new diffractive-TPE mechanism for the PREX puzzle, but the Pb result is fit with R rather than predicted; worth refereeing, not yet a resolution. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20242 v1 pith:E27VD47P submitted 2026-07-22 nucl-th hep-ph

Volodymyr Tereshchuk , Andrei Afanasev This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-ph PACS 25.30.Bf24.70.+s13.60.Fz
keywords beam-normalsingle-spinasymmetrytwo-photonexchangediffractivescatteringvectormesondominanceadditivequarkmodelelasticelectron-nucleusPREXpuzzle208Pb
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 sets out to explain the 'PREX puzzle': beam-normal single-spin asymmetries measured for 208Pb are positive and nearly zero, while standard two-photon-exchange models predict smooth negative values. The authors construct a diffractive model in which the imaginary part of the doubly virtual Compton amplitude follows the elastic scattering amplitude of rho mesons off the nucleus, obtained from pion-nucleus scattering via the additive quark model and vector-meson dominance. Their central result is that for a heavy nucleus with a neutron skin, the zeros of the Compton amplitude do not line up with the zeros of the charge form factor; since the asymmetry is proportional to their ratio, it changes sign and oscillates across the measured momentum-transfer range. For suitable values of an effective radius parameter, the model reproduces the small positive lead asymmetry and reconciles finite-angle data with the forward optical-theorem limit. The same framework gives smooth negative asymmetries for lighter, symmetric nuclei like carbon, broadly matching experiment.

What carries the argument

A Bessel-function ansatz for the imaginary Compton amplitude, Im(F) ∝ 2J1(qR)/(qR) exp(-B q^2), fitted to an eikonal-model calculation of rho-meson–nucleus elastic scattering (built from pion-nucleus amplitudes via the additive quark model and vector meson dominance), supplies the t-dependence of the Compton amplitude. The radius R sets the locations of the Compton diffraction minima; the competition between those zeros and the nuclear charge form factor's zero controls the oscillations of the beam-normal spin asymmetry and hence the sign and magnitude of the asymmetry at the measured points.

What would settle it

Measure B_n for 208Pb at one fixed beam energy (around 1 GeV) at a dense set of |t| values from near zero to above 0.04 GeV²: if the asymmetry varies smoothly and monotonically without the predicted sign changes near |t| ≈ 0.012 GeV² and |t| ≈ 0.017 GeV², the zero-mismatch mechanism is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the imaginary part of the doubly virtual Compton amplitude—which governs the beam-normal spin asymmetry—has a diffraction pattern inherited from the elastic scattering of rho mesons off nuclei. Because the heavy nucleus 208Pb has a neutron skin, the zeros of this Compton amplitude lie at momentum transfers different from the zeros of its charge form factor. Since the asymmetry is proportional to the ratio of these two form factors, the mismatch turns what would otherwise be a smooth monotonic asymmetry into one that changes sign and oscillates across the measured range. With the radius parameter set near 8 fm, the small positive values measured for lead at forward angle

Load-bearing premise

The argument hinges on treating the t-dependence of the imaginary two-photon-exchange amplitude as identical to elastic rho-meson–nucleus scattering via a single-radius Bessel form, and on allowing that radius R to be adjusted; if that identification is wrong, or if R cannot be predicted independently, the oscillatory explanation of the lead asymmetry does not go through.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For 208Pb, the asymmetry is predicted to change sign two or three times over the measured |t| range, so the near-zero positive values reported in experiments are compatible with a negative forward limit set by the optical theorem.
  • For light symmetric nuclei such as 12C, the Compton and charge form factors have nearly aligned zeros, so the model produces smooth negative asymmetries that match the measured sign and trend; for 40Ca, agreement improves when the effective radius is close to the charge radius.
  • If the mechanism is correct, measuring B_n for a fixed beam energy at several scattering angles across the diffraction minima would reveal the predicted oscillatory structure.
  • Measurements of real and virtual Compton scattering on nuclei near these kinematics would directly probe the Compton form factor and the assumed diffraction zero positions.
  • The diffractive framework is limited to small scattering angles and beam energies above the nucleon-resonance region; lower-energy kinematics require a non-diffractive treatment, as the paper notes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The need to raise R from the model's own ~7.1 fm to 8–10.3 fm to match the lead data suggests that the present diffractive estimate misses contributions—likely incoherent quasi-elastic and nucleon-resonance terms—that effectively broaden the diffraction pattern; if those contributions were computed, R might cease to be a free parameter.
  • If the diffractive zero-mismatch mechanism holds, the same framework predicts that BNSSA for other heavy neutron-rich spin-zero nuclei should also oscillate, with the oscillation pattern encoding the neutron-skin thickness; that would turn a systematic-error nuisance into a neutron-distribution observable.
  • The assumed proportionality of the doubly-virtual Compton amplitude to the rho-nucleus amplitude could be tested by comparing the extracted R and B from electron-scattering asymmetries with R and B independently inferred from pion- or rho-nucleus scattering at comparable energies.
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 develops a diffractive model for the imaginary part of the doubly virtual Compton amplitude that enters the beam-normal single-spin asymmetry (BNSSA) in elastic electron scattering from spin-0 nuclei. The authors start from an eikonal optical-model calculation of pion-nucleus scattering, use the additive quark model and vector-meson dominance to relate the pion amplitude to the rho-meson amplitude, and adopt a Bessel-type ansatz for the t-dependence of the Compton amplitude (Eqs. 30-31). They compute Bn for 12C, 40Ca, and 208Pb and compare with HAPPEX/PREX/CREX data, arguing that for 208Pb the misalignment between the Compton form-factor zeros and the charge-form-factor zeros produces oscillatory Bn values that may explain the measured small positive asymmetries and resolve the PREX puzzle.

Significance. The formal derivation of the BNSSA in Sec. II is standard, and the pion-nucleus eikonal benchmark in Appendix A provides a nontrivial check of the hadronic input. The proposal that diffractive TPE can generate oscillatory Bn with multiple sign changes for heavy nuclei is a testable idea; for example, fixed-energy multi-angle measurements could confirm the predicted oscillations. However, as presented, the quantitative reconciliation of the 208Pb data is obtained by treating the radius parameter R as a free parameter (Fig. 4), and the calculation has an uncontrolled singularity at the charge-form-factor zero. The paper is transparent about some of these limitations, but the central claim that the model 'predicts' the observed Pb behavior is not supported by the analysis as it stands.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, Fig. 4; Eqs. (30)-(31)] The key parameter R is not independently predicted. The model's own fitted values for 208Pb are R=7.1, 7.1, 6.9 fm, and the corresponding black curves in Fig. 4 do not reproduce the experimental asymmetries. Agreement is obtained only after R is increased by hand to 8.0-10.3 fm. Since the zero locations of 2J1(qR)/(qR), and therefore the sign changes of Bn, are set by R, the oscillatory behavior that explains the positive near-zero Pb asymmetries is fitted, not derived. The paper acknowledges the deviation but does not quantify its uncertainty or supply an independent constraint on R. This is load-bearing for the abstract's claim of 'predicted kinematic features'.
  2. [Sec. IV, Fig. 4 and Eq. (8)] The denominator of Bn contains the charge form factor F(Q^2), so the lowest-order asymmetry diverges at |t|≈0.017 GeV^2, where F(Q^2)=0. This point lies inside the measured range (|t|≤0.031 GeV^2 for 208Pb). The authors state that the divergence is unphysical and that higher orders will smooth it, but no smoothing calculation or estimate is provided. The central conclusion about the sign and near-zero magnitude of Bn in this t-region therefore rests on an uncontrolled singularity.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 3] The same free-R issue appears for 40Ca. With the model's R≈4.0 fm, the calculated asymmetry systematically disagrees with the data; only after manually setting R=3.3 fm do the curves flatten and approach the measurements. This shows that the discrepancy is not specific to 208Pb and that R is effectively a phenomenological parameter. The text calls this a known VMD/Pomeron limitation, but no uncertainty is assigned. Consequently, the comparison to data does not constitute a model test for either nucleus.
  4. [Sec. III, Eqs. (30)-(31)] The central ansatz equates the t-dependence of the doubly virtual Compton amplitude with the elastic rho-nucleus amplitude. This is an assumption: at the beam energies and momentum transfers considered, the imaginary Compton amplitude also receives contributions from nucleon resonances and quasi-elastic scattering whose t-dependence need not follow a high-energy diffractive rho amplitude. The paper mentions these effects but does not estimate their size. Since the sign changes of Bn are controlled by the zero of the Bessel function, this ansatz is load-bearing and needs either a dedicated calculation or a parametric uncertainty estimate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Ref. [36]] The DOI '10.1103/fd61-xxk6' appears malformed or is a placeholder; please verify the correct DOI for the MAMI result.
  2. [Eq. (2)] Use explicit parentheses: Bn = (dσ↑ - dσ↓)/(dσ↑ + dσ↓), to avoid ambiguity in the displayed fraction.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] Clarify that the quoted (B,R) parameters are fitted to the rho-nucleus amplitude, not to the BNSSA data.
  4. [Sec. IV, Pb discussion] The text describes R=8 fm as 'slightly larger' than the predicted 7.1 fm, which is a 13% change. Please state the relative change explicitly, since the sensitivity of the result to R is central.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

PREX reconciliation is a parameter fit: the model's own R≈7.1 fm fails, and agreement requires hand-set R=8–10.3 fm.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV (Results and Discussion), paragraph on 208Pb; Fig. 4 and caption]
    "Consequently, if R is treated as a free parameter in our model, this oscillatory behavior can potentially explain most of the experimental observations. For example, when R is set to a value slightly larger than the one predicted by the model, namely (R= 8 fm), the curves reproduce the results at 1.063 GeV and 2.18 GeV (see Fig. 4 (b) and (c)). Admittedly, the asymmetry still does not vanish at 0.95 GeV, and R has to be set to ≈10 fm for that to be the case."

    The paper's central claim is that the diffractive TPE model predicts oscillatory BNSSA for 208Pb that explains the PREX data. But the model's own predicted radii, R = 7.1, 7.1, 6.9 fm (black curves in Fig. 4), do not produce the measured near-zero/positive values; agreement is obtained only by hand-setting R = 8.0–10.3 fm. Since Eq. (31) makes the zero positions, sign, and magnitude of the asymmetry controlled by R through 2J1(qR)/(qR) and the charge-form-factor zero at |t| ≈ 0.017 GeV^2, tuning R to reproduce the data is equivalent to fitting the observable. The abstract's 'predicted kinematic features... may reconcile' the JLab results is therefore not a prediction but a fit of the decisive parameter.

full rationale

The derivation of the BNSSA formula from the imaginary part of the two-photon-exchange amplitude is independent and standard; the eikonal pion-nucleus calculation is tested against external pion-nucleus data (Figs. A1, A2); and the VMD/AQM chain is a modeling choice, not a circular self-citation. The circularity is concentrated in the 208Pb conclusion. The model itself predicts R≈7 fm, but those curves do not match the PREX/CREX data; the curves that 'may explain' the small positive asymmetry use R=8–10.3 fm, chosen by hand. Because Eq. (31) ties all oscillatory structure to R, the central reconciliation is not derived from the model's independent parameters but from adjusting R to the data. This is a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern, giving partial circularity rather than full circularity, since the framework retains independent content for lighter nuclei and the pion-scattering benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on a chain of hadronic-model assumptions (VMD, AQM, eikonal) plus a fitted Bessel ansatz. The only genuinely new input is the functional form for the Compton t-dependence, and its key parameter R is adjusted to the BNSSA data for Pb/Ca. No new particles or forces are introduced; the total photoabsorption cross sections and SAID amplitudes are external experimental inputs.

free parameters (3)
  • R (Compton diffractive radius) = C: 2.5-2.6 fm; Ca: 3.9-4.0 fm (plus 3.3 fm manual); Pb: 6.9-7.1 fm reference, 8.0-10.3 fm adjusted
    Appears in Eq. (30) as Bessel radius controlling zero positions of the Compton amplitude. For Pb and Ca the values used to reproduce experimental BnSSA are manually changed from the model prediction (e.g., Pb R=8 fm vs 7.1 fm; Ca R=3.3 fm vs 4.0 fm). This directly tunes the central oscillatory signal.
  • B (diffractive slope) = 13.0-13.3 GeV^-2 (C), 15.5-15.8 GeV^-2 (Ca), 15.0-16.0 GeV^-2 (Pb)
    Exponential falloff in Eq. (30) fitted to the computed rho-nucleus amplitude for each target/energy; affects the magnitude and t-dependence of the asymmetry.
  • A0 (ansatz normalization) = not reported
    Amplitude factor in Eq. (30). Not tabulated; the text moves to a proportionality in Eq. (31) using the total photoabsorption cross section, but the matching between A0 and sigma_tot is not shown explicitly. If not fixed by the optical theorem, it is an extra free normalization.
assumptions (8)
  • ad hoc to paper The imaginary part of the doubly virtual Compton amplitude at nonzero t is proportional to sigma_tot times 2J1(qR)/(qR) exp(-B q^2), with the same R and B as the fitted rho-nucleus amplitude.
    Eqs. (30)-(31) introduce the central t-dependence of the TPE amplitude; this is the model assumption that produces the diffractive minima. It is asserted from VMD/AQM, not derived from QED or data.
  • domain assumption Vector-meson dominance: the hadronic part of the photon is dominated by the rho0, and the rho-nucleus amplitude is obtained from pion amplitudes via AQM, F_rho0=(F_pi+ + F_pi-)/sqrt(2).
    Eq. (15) and Sec. III; standard but model-dependent inputs.
  • domain assumption Eikonal model for pion-nucleus elastic scattering [37], including optical potential and Wallace correction, describes the diffractive amplitudes F_pi+/-.
    Used to compute the rho amplitude; tested against pion data in Appendix A but 'slightly smaller' than data.
  • standard math Optical theorem connects the forward imaginary Compton amplitude to the total photoabsorption cross section.
    Eqs. (12)-(13); standard.
  • domain assumption The tensor structure of the Compton amplitude is restricted to terms surviving q^2 -> 0, q1^2 -> 0; terms of order Q^2/W^2 are dropped.
    After Eq. (14); valid only at very small momentum transfer and may fail at the JLab Pb kinematics where Q^2/W^2 is not tiny.
  • domain assumption Diffractive/Pomeron behavior dominates at beam energies 0.95-2.18 GeV; incoherent quasi-elastic and Delta(1232) resonance contributions are neglected.
    Sec. IV and Conclusions; the authors explicitly state this is questionable for the MAMI measurement and that resonance contributions could not be estimated.
  • domain assumption Charge symmetry relations for pion-nucleon amplitudes (f(pi+n)=f(pi-p), etc.) and SAID partial-wave input are used.
    Eq. (27) and Sec. III; external data input, standard.
  • ad hoc to paper For 208Pb, the charge form factor zero is at |t| about 0.017 GeV^2 and the divergence there is 'unphysical' and smoothed out by higher orders.
    The lowest-order Bn diverges at the charge form factor zero; the paper assumes higher-order effects remove it. This is an unverified assumption inside the data region.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffractive Two-Photon Exchange and Beam Normal-Spin Asymmetries for Elastic Electron Scattering on Nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E27VD47P

@misc{pith2026260720242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffractive Two-Photon Exchange and Beam Normal-Spin Asymmetries for Elastic Electron Scattering on Nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E27VD47P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20242}
}
abstract

We developed a theoretical approach to elastic electron scattering on nuclei that includes a two-photon-exchange mechanism responsible for parity-conserving single-spin beam asymmetries. The two-photon-exchange amplitude at small scattering angles is treated in a diffractive framework similar to that of pion-nucleus elastic scattering applied to the nuclei $^{12}_{6}$C, $^{40}_{20}$Ca and $^{208}_{82}$Pb. The predicted kinematic features of the beam polarization asymmetries for different nuclei may reconcile Jefferson Lab's experimental results at finite scattering angles with a forward limit given by an optical theorem, potentially resolving the so-called ``PREX Puzzle" for $^{208}_{82}$Pb.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20242 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) One-photon, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Beam-normal single-spin asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Beam-normal single-spin asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. A model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. BNSSA for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Therefore, using Eqs

    through Im A(q2 = 0, q2 1 =q 2 2, W2) = = 8π (W 2 −M 2 −q 1q2)2 W1(W 2, q2 1), (12) 3 whereW 1 can be expressed in terms of the total pho- toabsorption cross section as W1 W 2,0 = W 2 −M 2 8π2α σtot γA W 2 .(13) The dominant contribution to the beam-normal SSA comes from the phase-space region where the virtualities of both exchanged photons are small. Th...

  2. [2]

    Two-photon physics in hadronic processes,

    C. E. Carlson and M. Vanderhaeghen, “Two-photon physics in hadronic processes,” Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.57, 171 (2007), doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.57.090506.123116

    arXiv 2007

  3. [3]

    Review of two-photon exchange in electron scat- tering,

    J. Arrington, P. G. Blunden, and W. Melnitchouk, “Review of two-photon exchange in electron scat- tering,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.66, 782 (2011), doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2011.07.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2011.07.003 2011

  4. [4]

    Two-photon exchange in elastic electron–proton scattering,

    A. Afanasev, P. G. Blunden, D. Hasell, and B. A. Raue, “Two-photon exchange in elastic electron–proton scattering,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.95, 245 (2017), doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2017.03.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2017.03.004 2017

  5. [5]

    Perturbative QCD pre- dictions for two-photon exchange,

    D. Borisyuk and A. Kobushkin, “Perturbative QCD pre- dictions for two-photon exchange,” Phys. Rev. D79, 034001 (2009), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.034001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.034001 2009

  6. [6]

    Single-spin asymmetries in in- clusive deep inelastic scattering and multiparton corre- lations in the nucleon,

    A. Metz, D. Pitonyak, A. Sch¨ afer, M. Schlegel, W. Vo- gelsang, and J. Zhou, “Single-spin asymmetries in in- clusive deep inelastic scattering and multiparton corre- lations in the nucleon,” Phys. Rev. D86, 094039 (2012), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.094039

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.094039 2012

  7. [7]

    Lepton mass effects for beam-normal single-spin asymmetry in elastic muon– proton scattering,

    O. Koshchii and A. Afanasev, “Lepton mass effects for beam-normal single-spin asymmetry in elastic muon– proton scattering,” Phys. Rev. D100, 096020 (2019), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.096020

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.096020 2019

  8. [8]

    A direct measurement of hard two-photon exchange with electrons and positrons at CLAS12,

    A. Schmidtet al., “A direct measurement of hard two-photon exchange with electrons and positrons at CLAS12,” Jefferson Lab PAC 51 Proposal (2023), arXiv:2308.08777

    arXiv 2023

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Simple parametrization of nucleon form factors,

    J. J. Kelly, “Simple parametrization of nucleon form factors,” Phys. Rev. C70, 068202 (2004), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.70.068202

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    High energy elastic scattering of electrons on protons,

    M. N. Rosenbluth, “High energy elastic scattering of electrons on protons,” Phys. Rev.79, 615 (1950), doi:10.1103/PhysRev.79.615

    1950 doi

  3. [11]

    Measurements of the electric and magnetic form factors of the proton fromQ 2 = 1.75 to 8.83 (GeV/c) 2,

    L. Andivahiset al., “Measurements of the electric and magnetic form factors of the proton fromQ 2 = 1.75 to 8.83 (GeV/c) 2,” Phys. Rev. D50, 5491 (1994), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.5491

    1994 doi

  4. [12]

    G Ep/GM p ratio by polarization transfer in⃗ ep→e⃗ p,

    M. K. Joneset al.(Jefferson Lab Hall A Collab- oration), “G Ep/GM p ratio by polarization transfer in⃗ ep→e⃗ p,” Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 1398 (2000), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1398

    2000 doi

  5. [13]

    Measurement ofG Ep/GM p in⃗ ep→e⃗ pto Q2 = 5.6 GeV 2,

    O. Gayouet al.(Jefferson Lab Hall A Collabora- tion), “Measurement ofG Ep/GM p in⃗ ep→e⃗ pto Q2 = 5.6 GeV 2,” Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 092301 (2002), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.092301

    2002 doi

  6. [14]

    Two-photon exchange and elastic electron–proton scattering,

    P. G. Blunden, W. Melnitchouk, and J. A. Tjon, “Two-photon exchange and elastic electron–proton scattering,” Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 142304 (2003), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.142304

    2003 doi

  7. [15]

    ∆ resonance contribution to two-photon ex- change in electron–proton scattering,

    S. Kondratyuk, P. G. Blunden, W. Melnitchouk, and J. A. Tjon, “∆ resonance contribution to two-photon ex- change in electron–proton scattering,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 172503 (2005), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.172503

    2005 doi

  8. [16]

    Two- photon exchange from intermediate-state resonances in elastic electron–proton scattering,

    J. Ahmed, P. G. Blunden, and W. Melnitchouk, “Two- photon exchange from intermediate-state resonances in elastic electron–proton scattering,” Phys. Rev. C102, 045205 (2020), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.102.045205

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Elastic scattering of electrons from polarized protons and inelas- tic electron scattering experiments,

    A. De R´ ujula, J. M. Kaplan, and E. de Rafael, “Elastic scattering of electrons from polarized protons and inelas- tic electron scattering experiments,” Nucl. Phys. B35, 365 (1971), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(71)90460-3. 9

    1971 doi

  10. [18]

    Large logarithms in the beam normal spin asymmetry of elastic electron– proton scattering,

    A. V. Afanasev and N. P. Merenkov, “Large logarithms in the beam normal spin asymmetry of elastic electron– proton scattering,” Phys. Rev. D70, 073002 (2004), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.073002

    2004 doi

  11. [19]

    Collinear photon exchange in the beam normal polarization asymmetry of elastic electron–proton scattering,

    A. 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), doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.08.023

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    Resonance esti- mates for single-spin asymmetries in elastic electron– nucleon scattering,

    B. Pasquini and M. Vanderhaeghen, “Resonance esti- mates for single-spin asymmetries in elastic electron– nucleon scattering,” Phys. Rev. C70, 045206 (2004), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.70.045206

    2004 doi

  13. [21]

    Beam normal spin asymme- try in the quasireal Compton scattering ap- proximation,

    M. Gorchtein, “Beam normal spin asymme- try in the quasireal Compton scattering ap- proximation,” Phys. Rev. C73, 055201 (2006), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.73.055201

    2006 doi

  14. [22]

    Analyz- ing power in elastic scattering of electrons off a spin-0 target,

    M. Gorchtein and C. J. Horowitz, “Analyz- ing power in elastic scattering of electrons off a spin-0 target,” Phys. Rev. C77, 044606 (2008), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.77.044606

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    Beam normal spin asymmetry for theep→ e∆(1232) process,

    C. E. Carlson, B. Pasquini, V. Pauk, and M. Vander- haeghen, “Beam normal spin asymmetry for theep→ e∆(1232) process,” Phys. Rev. D96, 113010 (2017), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.113010

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Normal single-spin asymmetries in electron–proton scattering: Two-photon exchange with intermediate- state resonances,

    J. Ahmed, P. G. Blunden, and W. Melnitchouk, “Normal single-spin asymmetries in electron–proton scattering: Two-photon exchange with intermediate- state resonances,” Phys. Rev. C108, 055202 (2023), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.108.055202

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Measure- ment of the vector analyzing power in elastic electron– proton scattering as a probe of the double virtual Compton amplitude,

    S. P. Wellset al.(SAMPLE Collaboration), “Measure- ment of the vector analyzing power in elastic electron– proton scattering as a probe of the double virtual Compton amplitude,” Phys. Rev. C63, 064001 (2001), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.63.064001

    2001 doi

  18. [26]

    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,

    F. E. Maaset 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), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.082001

    2005 doi

  19. [27]

    Transverse beam spin asymmetries in forward-angle elastic electron– proton scattering,

    D. S. Armstronget al.(G0 Collaboration), “Transverse beam spin asymmetries in forward-angle elastic electron– proton scattering,” Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 092301 (2007), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.092301

    2007 doi

  20. [28]

    Precision mea- surement of the weak charge of the proton,

    D. Androi´ cet al.(Qweak Collaboration), “Precision mea- surement of the weak charge of the proton,” Nature (Lon- don)557, 207 (2018), doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0096-0

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Weak charge form factor and radius of 208Pb through parity violation in elec- tron scattering,

    C. J. Horowitzet al., “Weak charge form factor and radius of 208Pb through parity violation in elec- tron scattering,” Phys. Rev. C85, 032501(R) (2012), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.85.032501

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    Measure- ment of the neutron radius of 208Pb through parity viola- tion in electron scattering,

    S. Abrahamyanet al.(PREX Collaboration), “Measure- ment of the neutron radius of 208Pb through parity viola- tion in electron scattering,” Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 112502 (2012), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.112502

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    Beam-normal single-spin asymme- try in elastic scattering of electrons from a spin- 0 nucleus,

    O. Koshchii, M. Gorchtein, X. Roca-Maza, and H. Spiesberger, “Beam-normal single-spin asymme- try in elastic scattering of electrons from a spin- 0 nucleus,” Phys. Rev. C103, 064316 (2021), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.103.064316

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    New measurements of the transverse beam asymmetry for elastic electron scattering from se- lected nuclei,

    S. Abrahamyanet al.(HAPPEX and PREX Col- laborations), “New measurements of the transverse beam asymmetry for elastic electron scattering from se- lected nuclei,” Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 192501 (2012), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.192501

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    New measurements of the beam-normal single-spin asymmetry in elastic electron scattering over a range of spin-0 nuclei,

    D. Adhikariet al.(PREX and CREX Collaborations), “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 (2022), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.142501

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    The vector analyzing power in elastic electron–nucleus scattering,

    E. D. Cooper and C. J. Horowitz, “The vector analyzing power in elastic electron–nucleus scattering,” Phys. Rev. C72, 034602 (2005), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.72.034602

    2005 doi

  27. [35]

    Dispersion effects in elastic electron scattering from 208Pb,

    D. H. Jakubassa-Amundsen and X. Roca-Maza, “Dispersion effects in elastic electron scattering from 208Pb,” Phys. Rev. C108, 034314 (2023), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.108.034314

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Radiative corrections to the beam-normal spin asymmetry in elastic electron scat- tering from 208Pb,

    D. H. Jakubassa-Amundsen, “Radiative corrections to the beam-normal spin asymmetry in elastic electron scat- tering from 208Pb,” Phys. Rev. C109, L061303 (2024), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.109.L061303

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Beam-normal single-spin asymmetry in 208Pb at low energy: Discrepancy resolved or new kine- matic puzzle?

    A. Esseret al., “Beam-normal single-spin asymmetry in 208Pb at low energy: Discrepancy resolved or new kine- matic puzzle?” Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 232502 (2025), doi:10.1103/fd61-xxk6

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    High- energy pion–nucleus elastic scattering,

    C. M. Chen, D. J. Ernst, and M. B. Johnson, “High- energy pion–nucleus elastic scattering,” Phys. Rev. C48, 841 (1993), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.48.841

    1993 doi

  31. [39]

    Pion–nucleus elastic scattering on 12C, 40Ca, 90Zr, and 208Pb at 400 and 500 MeV,

    G. Kahrimaniset al., “Pion–nucleus elastic scattering on 12C, 40Ca, 90Zr, and 208Pb at 400 and 500 MeV,” Phys. Rev. C55, 2533 (1997), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.55.2533

    1997 doi

  32. [40]

    Quark model for forward scattering amplitudes,

    H. J. Lipkin and F. Scheck, “Quark model for forward scattering amplitudes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.16, 71 (1966), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.16.71

    1966 doi

  33. [41]

    The hadronic properties of the photon in high- energy interactions,

    T. H. Bauer, R. D. Spital, D. R. Yennie, and F. M. Pipkin, “The hadronic properties of the photon in high- energy interactions,” Rev. Mod. Phys.50, 261 (1978), doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.50.261

    1978 doi

  34. [42]

    Photofis- sion and total photoabsorption cross sections in the en- ergy range of shadowing effects,

    A. Deppman, G. Silva, S. Anefalos, S. B. Duarte, F. Garc ´ ıa, F. H. Hisamoto, and O. A. P. Tavares, “Photofis- sion and total photoabsorption cross sections in the en- ergy range of shadowing effects,” Phys. Rev. C73, 064607 (2006), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.73.064607

    2006 doi

  35. [43]

    Model- independent form factors for spin-independent neutralino–nucleon scattering from elastic electron scattering data,

    G. Duda, A. Kemper, and P. Gondolo, “Model- independent form factors for spin-independent neutralino–nucleon scattering from elastic electron scattering data,” J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.04, 012 (2007), doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2007/04/012

    2007 doi

  36. [44]

    Invariant amplitudes for virtual Compton scattering off polarized nucleons free from kinematical singularities, zeros and constraints,

    R. Tarrach, “Invariant amplitudes for virtual Compton scattering off polarized nucleons free from kinematical singularities, zeros and constraints,” Nuovo Cim. A28, 409 (1975), doi:10.1007/BF02894857

    1975 doi

  37. [45]

    Ac- curate determination of the neutron skin thick- ness of 208Pb through parity-violation in electron scattering,

    D. Adhikariet al.(PREX Collaboration), “Ac- curate determination of the neutron skin thick- ness of 208Pb through parity-violation in electron scattering,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 172502 (2021), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.172502

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    Direct determination of the neutron skin thicknesses in 40,48Ca from proton elastic scattering atE p = 295 MeV,

    J. Zenihiroet al., “Direct determination of the neutron skin thicknesses in 40,48Ca from proton elastic scattering atE p = 295 MeV,” arXiv:1810.11796 [nucl-ex] (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Pion scattering from C and Ca at 800 MeV/c,

    D. Marlow et al., “Pion scattering from C and Ca at 800 MeV/c,” Phys. Rev. C30, 1662 (1984), doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.30.1662

    1984 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.