Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Nucleon electromagnetic form-factors in a minimal Gari-Kr\"umpelmann model including the explicit two-pion continuum

T0 review · 4 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 This paper argues that the phenomenological rho pole in the Gari–Krümpelmann model can be replaced by the explicit two-pion continuum, leaving a five-parameter fit with a single intrinsic scale.

desk verdict A compact, honest GK update whose central 'no rho pole needed' claim is currently invisible to the reader because the decisive comparison fit is not reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10907 v1 pith:4EXAFTDV submitted 2026-08-11 nucl-th hep-exhep-phnucl-ex

Wulf Krümpelmann , Yong-Hui Lin , Ulf-G. Mei{ss}ner This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-exhep-phnucl-ex PACS 13.40.Gp14.20.Dh12.40.Vv25.30.Bf
keywords nucleonelectromagneticformfactorsGari-Krümpelmannmodeltwo-pioncontinuumvector-mesondominancedispersionrelationsrhomesonprotonchargeradiuselectron-protonscattering
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 claims that the rho-meson pole in the classic Gari–Krümpelmann nucleon form-factor model is not a fundamental input: it can be replaced by the explicit two-pion continuum obtained from dispersion relations. In the resulting picture, the rho meson remains physically present only as the dominant resonance inside that two-pion spectral function. With five free parameters, the model reproduces the spacelike proton and neutron form factors, their ratios, and electron-proton scattering cross-section data from Mainz and Jefferson Laboratory, including the proton charge radius. If this is correct, the isovector channel separates cleanly into computed long-range two-pion physics, a direct quark-current component, and a single high-energy scale around $\Lambda = 1.494(13)$ GeV.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the dispersive two-pion spectral function in the isovector channel, constructed from the unitarity relations $\operatorname{Im} G_E^V(t) = \frac{q_\pi^3(t)}{m_N\sqrt{t}}\, F_\pi^{V*}(t)\, f_+^1(t)$ and the analogous magnetic relation, with $F_\pi^V(t)$ represented as an Omnès function times a polynomial together with a $\rho$-$\omega$ mixing term, and the $\pi\pi\to \bar N N$ amplitudes $f_\pm^1$ taken from a Roy-Steiner-equation analysis. This spectral function is embedded into the GK ansatz through Eqs. (31) and (32), where the direct terms $1-g_{2\pi,1}$ and $3.706-g_{2\pi,2}$ supply the nonresonant quark-current piece and the intrinsic factors $F^{\mathrm{int}}_i$ enforce the perturbative-QCD falloff. What it does is convert the old phenomenological $\rho$ pole into a computed continuum, so the one-pole-plus-direct form becomes continuum-plus-direct.

What would settle it

Refit the model on the same data with a free rho-pole term added on top of the two-pion continuum: if the fitted pole strength is not compatible with zero at the bootstrap uncertainty, the continuum has not actually replaced the rho.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the isovector Dirac form factor needs no separate rho-pole term once the correlated two-pion continuum is inserted. The old effective rho pole is replaced by a dispersive integral over the two-pion spectral function built from the pion form factor and pion-nucleon amplitudes, with the rho surviving only as the dominant enhancement of that continuum. The model then describes the global body of proton and neutron form-factor and cross-section data with five parameters $g_{2\pi,1}$, $g_{2\pi,2}$, $g_{\omega,1}$, $g_{\omega,2}$, and $\Lambda$, where $\Lambda = 1.494(13)$ GeV. The best-fit proton charge radius is $r_p^E = 0.844(1)$ fm, and the converted core radius $r_c = \sqrt{12}/\Lambda$ comes out around 0.46 fm.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the computed two-pion contribution is accurate, especially the extra strength just below the rho mass; if that curve were wrong, the fit could hide the error in the other parameters and the conclusion that no separate rho pole is needed would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $\rho$ meson should not be added as an independent pole on top of the two-pion continuum; doing so would double-count the same isovector spectral strength.
  • The direct coupling terms are not optional background: they carry the transition to the perturbative-QCD scaling regime, so a model that drops the direct term while keeping the continuum would fail at large $Q^2$.
  • A single intrinsic scale $\Lambda = 1.494(13)$ GeV emerges, with a converted core radius $r_c \simeq 0.46$ fm matching estimates of a universal nucleon core.
  • The model describes the MAMI electron-proton cross-section data without floating normalizations, and its proton charge radius $0.844(1)$ fm sits consistently with the small-radius side of the proton-radius discussion.
  • Including the two-pion continuum allows isospin-violating $\rho$-$\omega$ mixing to enter naturally, which the old single-pole form could not.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same replacement logic suggests the isoscalar $\omega$ pole could eventually be unfolded into a three-pion continuum plus $\bar K K$ and $\pi\rho$ exchanges; the paper notes this as future work, and a quantitative isoscalar continuum would test whether the single-scale separation survives.
  • Editorial inference: because the two-pion spectral function is fixed input, a sharp test is to refit with updated Roy-Steiner solutions or with the alternative phase-shift inputs the paper says produce a spread; if the fitted $\Lambda$ and $g_{2\pi,i}$ move more than their quoted bootstrap errors, the claimed scale separation is not yet robust.
  • Editorial inference: the radius extraction could be repeated with correlated bootstrap uncertainties on all radii simultaneously, rather than parameter errors alone, to see whether the somewhat large $|(r_n^E)^2|$ and the smaller $r_p^M$ are tied to the minimal isoscalar input.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the Gari-Krümpelmann (GK) model by replacing the phenomenological rho-pole term in the isovector channel with an explicit dispersive two-pion continuum taken from modern analyses. The model is then fitted to a large body of nucleon form-factor data, form-factor ratios, and electron-proton scattering cross sections from MAMI, JLab, and PRad. The authors report that a five-parameter version (with a single intrinsic scale Lambda = 1.494(13) GeV) describes the data, that the explicit rho pole is no longer needed once the two-pion continuum is included, and that the direct quark-current terms remain essential for the high-Q^2 behavior. The paper also reports extracted proton and neutron radii and a core radius r_c ~ 0.46 fm derived from Lambda.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a minimal phenomenological description of nucleon electromagnetic form factors with a cleaner spectral interpretation than the original GK model: the rho resonance is embedded in the correlated two-pion continuum, and only one intrinsic high-energy scale is required. The inclusion of the high-quality MAMI and JLab cross-section data in a GK-type fit is new, and the bootstrap uncertainty analysis is a useful improvement. However, the main physical conclusion—that an explicit rho pole is unnecessary—rests on a fit that is not presented, and the imported spectral function already contains the rho by construction. The global fit also shows visible deviations at the highest energies and has chi2/dof = 2.65, so the evidence needs to be made explicit before the claimed replacement (Eq. 44) can be considered established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V.A and Eq. (44)] The central claim that the two-pion continuum can replace the rho pole is supported only by an unreported sanity check. Section V.A states that fits with an explicit pole plus the continuum were performed and 'found that an explicit rho is not needed any more', but no fitted rho-pole strength, no chi2 values, and no Delta-chi2 are given. Since the final model in Eqs. (31)-(32) omits the rho pole entirely, the reader cannot verify that the continuum plus pole fit does not improve the description. This is load-bearing because the best fit has chi2/dof = 2.65 (Section V.D), leaving room for an additional pole term to matter. Please report the results of that comparison fit, including the fitted rho-pole coupling and the change in chi2 per data set; if the rho-pole strength is consistent with zero and the chi2 improvement is negligible, the claim is supported, but the current text does not demonstrate this.
  2. [Section III.A, Eqs. (24)-(29)] The two-pion spectral function used in the fit is imported from Refs. [24,28], which are co-authored by members of the same group, and by construction it contains the rho resonance as its dominant enhancement (through the Omnès function and the pi-pi P-wave phase shift). Therefore the statement that no separate rho pole is needed is substantially baked into the input. The low-mass shoulder of the spectral function, which is important for the radii, is taken as fixed. The authors should test the sensitivity of the conclusion to the adopted spectral function, for example by varying the strength of the low-mass shoulder within the uncertainty of the dispersive input, or by using an independent spectral function from a different analysis. Without such a test, the claim that the explicit rho pole is redundant may simply reflect the input, not a property of the data.
  3. [Section V.D and Fig. 4] The claim that the model 'can describe the large body of data' is weakened by the observed fit quality. The global chi2/dof = 2.65, and the MAMI backward-angle data at the two highest energies are visibly not described (Fig. 4). These deviations are acknowledged qualitatively but not quantified or discussed in terms of their impact on the fitted parameters or on the rho-pole question. Please provide a breakdown of chi2 per data set (especially MAMI vs. JLab vs. form factors) and comment on whether the deviations at high Q^2 affect the extracted Lambda and the direct-coupling strengths. This is relevant because a chi2/dof of 2.65 leaves room for an additional pole term, which is precisely the alternative that the reported sanity check is supposed to rule out.
  4. [Section V.A, Eq. (38)] The fit uses data weights w_a that are assigned by hand (w = 2 for the proton ratio and neutron form-factor sets, unity otherwise). These weights are not counted among the '5 parameters', but they influence the fit. The paper shows one equal-weights variant and a variant without Gp_E,M, but it does not show whether the central conclusion (no rho pole needed) is stable under reasonable variations of these weights. Since the weights affect how strongly the form-factor data pull against the cross-section data, the authors should at least state that the sanity-check fit with an explicit rho pole was repeated for the different weight choices, or otherwise clarify that the conclusion is independent of the weighting scheme.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors and misspellings, including 'subsitute d', 'inlcuded', 'maounts', 'normalizeed', 'particuar', 'analsis', 'r ations', 'miminal', 'a markedely', 'furthermore', and 'Alltogether'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Eq. (38)] The chi2 definition in Eq. (38) includes the weights w_a in the last term, but Eq. (39) defines chi2_D without explicit weights. Please clarify whether the weights multiply the entire chi2 of each form-factor data set or are applied to individual points, and specify the numerical values of all six weights.
  3. [Section V.C] The statement 'we do not prune this data basis, that is, some of the data sets are not consistent' is useful, but the text should specify which data sets are considered inconsistent and how the fits are affected by their inclusion. As written, the claim that the model is robust to inconsistent data is not quantified.
  4. [Section III.A, after Eq. (29)] The values of alpha and epsilon_rhoomega are taken from Ref. [28], but no uncertainties or ranges are given. Since these parameters affect the low-mass shoulder of the spectral function, please quote them with their uncertainties or state that the spectral function is treated as fixed.
  5. [Section V.B] The bootstrap uncertainty analysis is described but no details are given on how the 5000 pseudo-data samples are generated for correlated data (e.g., MAMI cross sections have point-to-point correlated systematic uncertainties). Please state whether any correlation treatment is applied or whether the uncertainties are treated as uncorrelated, as the current description suggests purely uncorrelated Gaussian generation.
  6. [Section V.D, Eq. (43)] The comparison of the extracted neutron electric radius (r_n^E)^2 = -0.143(7) fm^2 to the chiral EFT value -0.105(6) fm^2 is presented as a discrepancy, but the text does not discuss whether this difference could be caused by the minimal isoscalar channel (only omega) or by the two-pion spectral input. A brief discussion would help the reader assess the significance of this deviation.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central claim that the two-pion continuum replaces the rho pole is built into the model construction and is supported only by an unreported comparison fit; the data fit is a consistency check, not an independent test of that claim.

  1. self definitional [Section III.A-III.B and Section VI; Eq. (28), Eqs. (31)-(32), Eq. (44)]
    "The physical ρ dynamics is then interpreted as part of the correlated two-pion spectral function. ... The ρ resonance appears dynamically as the dominant enhancement in the pion form-factor ... The present fits therefore support the interpretation ρeff −→ 2π continuum, where the physical ρ dynamics is already contained in the dispersive two-pion input."

    The two-pion spectral input is constructed from the pion vector form-factor, FVπ(t) = (1 + αt + ... ) Ω1_1(t), and the Omnès function Ω1_1(t) is built from the P-wave ππ phase shift, whose dominant feature is the ρ resonance. The final isovector Dirac form-factor (Eq. 31) is then built from this same continuum with no separate ρ pole. The conclusion in Eq. (44) that the ρ is 'already contained' in the continuum is therefore a restatement of how the model and input were defined, not a result independently derived from the fit. The successful data description provides consistency, but the replacement claim is secured by construction rather than by a reported comparison.

  2. other [Section V.A (fit strategy)]
    "First, as a sanity check, we performed fits with an explicit pole and the two-pion continuum. These fits are not further discussed as it was found that an explicit ρ is not needed any more if the two-pion continuum constructed by dispersive methods as described above is included."

    This sentence is the only evidence offered for the paper's headline result, yet the comparison fit is not reported: no fitted ρ-pole strength, χ2 values, or Δχ2 are given. The final model omits the ρ pole by construction, so the assertion that the pole is 'not needed' cannot be checked by the reader. Given that the best full-data fit has χ2/dof = 2.65, an explicit pole could still improve the description. The omitted comparison makes the central claim an assertion rather than a demonstrated reduction.

full rationale

The paper is not wholly circular: the fits to the MAMI cross sections, Jefferson Lab data, and form-factor data provide genuine external benchmarks, and the imported dispersive spectral function from Refs. [24,28] is itself a substantial independent analysis, even though it shares some authors with the present work. However, the specific advertised conclusion — that the explicit two-pion continuum can replace the phenomenological ρ-pole — reduces in part to the model construction. The input spectral function already contains the ρ as the dominant enhancement of the pion form-factor, and the final isovector form-factor is built from that same continuum with the pole omitted. The separate claim that adding an explicit ρ pole does not improve the description relies on a 'sanity check' fit that is mentioned but never shown. These two issues together make the central 'replacement' claim partially circular and partially unsupported, rather than independently demonstrated by the reported fits.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model depends on the imported two-pion spectral function and the minimal isoscalar ansatz. The five listed fit parameters plus the hand weights and the imported F_pi^V parameters determine the results; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • g2pi,1 = 0.606(9) global; 0.694(57) MAMI-only
    Coefficient of the two-pion continuum in the isovector Dirac form-factor, Eq (31).
  • g2pi,2 = 2.936(46)
    Coefficient of the two-pion continuum in the isovector Pauli form-factor, Eq (32).
  • gomega,1 = 0.963(7)
    Omega pole strength in the isoscalar Dirac form-factor, Eq (18).
  • gomega,2 = -0.121(7)
    Omega Pauli strength, Eq (19).
  • Lambda = 1.494(13) GeV
    Intrinsic cutoff; Lambda2 is set equal to Lambda1 after six-parameter fits showed Lambda1 approximately equal to Lambda2.
  • Data weights w_a = 1 or 2 by hand
    Hand-chosen weights in Eq (38) give extra weight to the proton ratio and neutron form-factor sets.
  • alpha, epsilon_rhoomega from F_pi^V = taken from Ref [28]
    Parameters in Eq (29) fixed by timelike pion form-factor data in the input dispersion analysis; they control the shape of the imported two-pion continuum.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Unsubtracted dispersion relation for the isovector form-factors, Eq (22)
    Assumes the integral over the spectral function converges without subtractions; no subtraction constants are fitted.
  • domain assumption Elastic unitarity and Watson theorem for the pion form-factor, Eqs (27)-(28)
    Assumes the two-pion channel dominates up to high energies and that the phase of F_pi^V is the elastic pi-pi P-wave phase shift.
  • domain assumption Roy-Steiner pion-nucleon amplitudes from Ref [30] are accurate
    The f1+ and f1- amplitudes in Eqs (24)-(25) are taken from an external analysis; errors in these inputs propagate into the continuum.
  • ad hoc to paper Minimal isoscalar spectral function with only omega and direct term
    Section IV omits 3pi, phi, KK and pi-rho continua; the authors note this approximation affects the extracted radii.
  • ad hoc to paper Intrinsic form-factor ansatz with Lambda2 = Lambda1
    The pQCD scaling factors in Eqs (14)-(15) are imposed by hand, and the equality of the two scales is adopted after fits.
  • domain assumption No two-photon exchange corrections in the cross-section fits
    Section V.C states two-photon exchange corrections are neglected, which can bias extracted form-factor radii.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nucleon electromagnetic form-factors in a minimal Gari-Kr\"umpelmann model including the explicit two-pion continuum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4EXAFTDV

@misc{pith2026260810907,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nucleon electromagnetic form-factors in a minimal Gari-Kr\"umpelmann model including the explicit two-pion continuum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4EXAFTDV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10907}
}
abstract

The Gari--Kr\"umpelmann (GK) model provided one of the first semiphenomenological descriptions of the electromagnetic nucleon form-factors over a wide range of momentum transfer. It combined vector-meson dominance at low and intermediate momentum transfer with perturbative-QCD constraints at large momentum transfer. The present work extends this framework by including the dispersive two-pion continuum explicitly in the isovector channel. The two-pion contribution is taken from modern dispersive analyses and embedded into the intrinsic high-$Q^2$ structure of the GK ansatz. The physical $\rho$ dynamics is then interpreted as part of the correlated two-pion spectral function. The direct coupling terms remain essential for the transition to the asymptotic regime. This gives a cleaner separation between long-range continuum dynamics, coherent vector-meson contributions, and direct quark-current dynamics. With just 5 parameters, we can describe the large body on form-factor data and differential cross sections from electron-proton scattering in the space-like region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10907 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic interpretation of the direct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Fitted cross sections for the best fit (solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Best fit for the form-factors and the form-factor ratios (solid red lines) in comparison with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Fitted cross sections for the best fit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    On the2π contin- uum in the nucleon form-factors and the proton radius puzzle,

    M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, J. Ruiz de Elvira, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, “On the2π contin- uum in the nucleon form-factors and the proton radius puzzle,”Eur. Phys. J. A52, 331 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [1]

    Nucleon electromagnetic form-factors,

    C. F. Perdrisat, V. Punjabi, and M. Vanderhaeghen, “Nucleon electromagnetic form-factors,”Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.59, 694–764 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [2]

    The Proton Radius Puzzle,

    C. E. Carlson, “The Proton Radius Puzzle,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.82, 59-77 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    Proton electromagnetic form-factors: Basic notions, present achievements and future per- spectives,

    S. Pacetti, R. Baldini Ferroli and E. Tomasi- Gustafsson, “Proton electromagnetic form-factors: Basic notions, present achievements and future per- spectives,” Phys. Rept.550-551, 1-103 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    Dispersion-theoretical analysis of the electromag- netic form-factors of the nucleon: Past, present and future,

    Y.-H. Lin, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, “Dispersion-theoretical analysis of the electromag- netic form-factors of the nucleon: Past, present and future,”Eur. Phys. J. A57, 255 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    The proton charge radius,

    H. Gao and M. Vanderhaeghen, “The proton charge radius,” Rev. Mod. Phys.94, no.1, 015002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Baryon Form Factors

    Y. H. Lin, H. W. Hammer and U.-G. Meißner, “Baryon form-factors,” [arXiv:2412.12885 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  8. [7]

    J. J. Sakurai,Currents and Mesons, University of Chicago Press, 1969

    work page 1969

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Neutral vector mesons and the hadronic electromagnetic current,

    N. M. Kroll, T. D. Lee, and B. Zumino, “Neutral vector mesons and the hadronic electromagnetic current,”Phys. Rev.157, 1376–1399 (1967)

    1967

  2. [9]

    Semi- phenomenological fits to nucleon electromagnetic form-factors,

    F. Iachello, A. D. Jackson, and A. Lande, “Semi- phenomenological fits to nucleon electromagnetic form-factors,”Phys. Lett. B43, 191–196 (1973)

    1973

  3. [10]

    Generalized vector-meson dominance and the electromagnetic structure of the nucleon,

    M. Gari and W. Krümpelmann, “Generalized vector-meson dominance and the electromagnetic structure of the nucleon,”Phys. Lett. B141, 295– 300 (1984)

    1984

  4. [11]

    Semiphenomeno- logical synthesis of meson and quark dynamics and the E.M. structure of the nucleon,

    M. Gari and W. Krümpelmann, “Semiphenomeno- logical synthesis of meson and quark dynamics and the E.M. structure of the nucleon,”Z. Phys. A322, 689–693 (1985)

    1985

  5. [12]

    The electromag- netic form-factor of the neutron,

    M. Gari and W. Krümpelmann, “The electromag- netic form-factor of the neutron,”Phys. Lett. B 173, 10–14 (1986)

    1986

  6. [13]

    The electric neu- tron form-factor and the strange quark content of the nucleon,

    M. Gari and W. Krümpelmann, “The electric neu- tron form-factor and the strange quark content of the nucleon,”Phys. Lett. B274, 159–162 (1992)

    1992

  7. [14]

    Extended Gari–Krümpelmann model fits to nucleon electromagnetic form-factors,

    E. L.Lomon, “Extended Gari–Krümpelmann model fits to nucleon electromagnetic form-factors,”Phys. Rev. C64, 035204 (2001)

    2001

  8. [15]

    Effect of recent R(p) and R(n) mea- surements on extended Gari-Krumpelmann model fits to nucleon electromagnetic form-factors,

    E. L. Lomon, “Effect of recent R(p) and R(n) mea- surements on extended Gari-Krumpelmann model fits to nucleon electromagnetic form-factors,” Phys. Rev. C66, 045501 (2002)

    2002

  9. [16]

    New formulation of the unitary and analytic VMD model of electromagnetic structure,

    S. Dubnicka, A. Z. Dubnickova and P. Stirzenec, “New formulation of the unitary and analytic VMD model of electromagnetic structure,” Nuovo Cim. A106, 1253-1268 (1993)

    1993

  10. [17]

    Cross Sections and the Electromagnetic form-factors within the Extended Vector Meson Dominance Model,

    C. Chen, B. Yan and J. J. Xie, “Cross Sections and the Electromagnetic form-factors within the Extended Vector Meson Dominance Model,” Chin. Phys. Lett.41, no.2, 021302 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    Electromagnetic nu- cleon form-factors in the extended vector meson dominance model,

    K. S. Kuzmin, N. M. Levashko and M. I. Krivoruchenko, “Electromagnetic nu- cleon form-factors in the extended vector meson dominance model,” Phys. Rev. D111, no.1, 1 (2025)

    2025

  12. [19]

    Analysis of electromagnetic nu- cleon form-factors,

    G. Höhler et al., “Analysis of electromagnetic nu- cleon form-factors,”Nucl. Phys. B114, 505–534 (1976)

    1976

  13. [20]

    Dis- persion theoretical analysis of the nucleon electro- magnetic form-factors,

    P. Mergell, U.-G. Meißner and D. Drechsel, “Dis- persion theoretical analysis of the nucleon electro- magnetic form-factors,” Nucl. Phys. A596367-396 (1996)

    1996

  14. [21]

    Updated dispersion-theoretical analysis of the nucleon elec- tromagnetic form-factors,

    H.-W. Hammer and U.-G. Meißner, “Updated dispersion-theoretical analysis of the nucleon elec- tromagnetic form-factors,”Eur. Phys. J. A20, 469– 473 (2004)

    2004

  15. [22]

    Dispersion analysis of the nucleon form- factors including meson continua,

    M. A. Belushkin, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, “Dispersion analysis of the nucleon form- factors including meson continua,”Phys. Rev. C 75, 035202 (2007)

    2007

  16. [23]

    High-precision determination of the electric and magnetic radius of the proton,

    Y. H. Lin, H. W. Hammer and U.-G. Meißner, “High-precision determination of the electric and magnetic radius of the proton,” Phys. Lett. B816, 136254 (2021)

    2021

  17. [24]

    New Insights into the Nucleon’s Electromagnetic Structure,

    Y. H. Lin, H. W. Hammer and U.-G. Meißner, “New Insights into the Nucleon’s Electromagnetic Structure,” Phys. Rev. Lett.128052002 (2022)

    2022

  18. [25]

    The proton magnetic radius: A new puzzle?,

    Y. H. Lin, H. W. Hammer and U.-G. Meißner, “The proton magnetic radius: A new puzzle?,” Sci. Bull. 69, 419-421 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    Effect of a pion-pion scattering resonance on nucleon structure,

    W. R. Frazer and J. R. Fulco, “Effect of a pion-pion scattering resonance on nucleon structure,”Phys. Rev. Lett.2, 365–368 (1959)

    1959

  20. [27]

    Partial-wave dis- persion relations for the processπ +π→N + ¯N,

    W. R. Frazer and J. R. Fulco, “Partial-wave dis- persion relations for the processπ +π→N + ¯N,” Phys. Rev.117, 1603–1609 (1960)

    1960

  21. [29]

    Electromagnetic Radii of Nucleon and Pion,

    G. Höhler and E. Pietarinen, “Electromagnetic Radii of Nucleon and Pion,” Phys. Lett. B53, 471-475 (1975)

    1975

  22. [30]

    Roy-Steiner-equation analysis of pion-nucleon scattering,

    M. Hoferichter, J. Ruiz de Elvira, B. Kubis and U.-G. Meißner, “Roy-Steiner-equation analysis of pion-nucleon scattering,” Phys. Rept.625, 1-88 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    Strange vector currents and the OZI rule,

    U.-G. Meißner, V. Mull, J. Speth and J. W. van Orden, “Strange vector currents and the OZI rule,” Phys. Lett. B408, 381-386 (1997)

    1997

  24. [32]

    Nucleon electroweak form-factors: Analysis of their spectral functions,

    V. Bernard, N. Kaiser and U.-G. Meißner, “Nucleon electroweak form-factors: Analysis of their spectral functions,” Nucl. Phys. A611, 429-441 (1996)

    1996

  25. [33]

    Another look at meson-exchange interac- tions,

    M. Gari, S. Deister, W. Krümpelmann, and M. Mahlke, “Another look at meson-exchange interac- tions,”Few-Body Systems10, 1–36 (1991)

    1991

  26. [34]

    Electric and magnetic form-factors of the proton,

    J. C. Bernaueret al.[A1], “Electric and magnetic form-factors of the proton,” Phys. Rev. C90, no.1, 015206 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Mea- 12 surements of the Electric form-factor of the Neu- tron up to Q2 = 3 .4GeV 2using the Reaction 3He−>(e−>,e′n)pp,

    S. Riordan, S. Abrahamyan, B. Craver, A. Kelle- her, A. Kolarkar, J. Miller, G. D. Cates, N. Liyan- age, B. Wojtsekhowski and A. Acha,et al., “Mea- 12 surements of the Electric form-factor of the Neu- tron up to Q2 = 3 .4GeV 2using the Reaction 3He−>(e−>,e′n)pp,” Phys. Rev. Le...

    2010

  28. [36]

    Measurement of the neutron electric to magnetic form-factor ratio atQ2 = 1.58GeV 2 using the reac- tion 3 ⃗He(⃗ e,e′n)pp,

    B.S.Schlimme, P.Achenbach, C.A.AyerbeGayoso, J. C. Bernauer, R. Böhm, D. Bosnar, T. Challand, M. O. Distler, L. Doria and F. Fellenberger,et al. “Measurement of the neutron electric to magnetic form-factor ratio atQ2 = 1.58GeV 2 using the reac- tion 3 ⃗He(⃗ e,e′n)pp,” Phys. Re...

    2013

  29. [37]

    MINUIT: A system for functionminimizationandanalysisoftheparameter errors and correlations,

    F. James and M. Roos, “MINUIT: A system for functionminimizationandanalysisoftheparameter errors and correlations,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 10 (1975) 343–367

    1975

  30. [38]

    NativeMinuit.jl: a native-Julia port of Minuit2,

    F.-K. Guo, “NativeMinuit.jl: a native-Julia port of Minuit2,” https://github.com/fkguo/NativeMinuit.jl (2026)

    2026

  31. [39]

    The size of the proton - closing in on the radius puzzle,

    I. T. Lorenz, H. W. Hammer and U.-G. Meißner, “The size of the proton - closing in on the radius puzzle,” Eur. Phys. J. A48(2012), 151

    2012

  32. [40]

    A small proton charge radius from an electron–proton scattering experi- ment,

    W. Xiong, A. Gasparian, H. Gao, D. Dutta, M. Khandaker, N. Liyanage, E. Pasyuk, C. Peng, X. Bai and L. Ye,et al.“A small proton charge radius from an electron–proton scattering experi- ment,” Nature575, no.7781, 147-150 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    High-accuracy calcula- tion of the deuteron charge and quadrupole form- factors in chiral effective field theory,

    A. A. Filin, D. Möller, V. Baru, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs and P. Reinert, “High-accuracy calcula- tion of the deuteron charge and quadrupole form- factors in chiral effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. C103, no.2, 024313 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Sizes of the nucleon,

    N. Kaiser and W. Weise, “Sizes of the nucleon,” Phys. Rev. C110, no.1, 015202 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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