Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Updated analysis of neutron magnetic form factor and the nucleon transverse densities

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Careful uncertainty bookkeeping makes the world's neutron magnetic form factor data agree without inflated errors, enabling the first neutron transverse densities.

desk verdict A careful G_M^n refit with a plausible but assumption-dependent resolution of the discrepancy; the first neutron transverse densities are a nice payoff. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18443 v1 pith:F677DTOM submitted 2025-01-30 nucl-ex

T. J. Hague (1 , 2) , J. Arrington (1) , J. Jayne (3) , G. A. Miller (4) , S. N. Santiesteban (3) , Z. Ye (5) ((1) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory , (2) Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
show 3 more authors
(3) University of New Hampshire (4) University of Washington (5) Tsinghua University)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-ex
keywords neutronmagneticformfactortransversechargedensitymagnetizationnucleonelectromagneticfactorsglobalfitz-expansionscaleuncertaintypoint-to-point
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 historical disagreements among measurements of the neutron magnetic form factor $G_M^n(Q^2)$ near $Q^2 \approx 0.5$--$1$ GeV$^2$ are largely a bookkeeping problem: previous experiments quoted their systematic errors without separating normalization (scale) uncertainties from point-to-point uncertainties. By assigning each old data set an explicit scale uncertainty, and adding the new $G_M^n$ extraction from $^3$H--$^3$He mirror-nucleus measurements, the authors obtain a global fit to the world data that needs no artificial inflation of uncertainties, unlike the earlier fit it replaces. The updated parameterization is used, together with existing fits for the other nucleon form factors, to extract the proton and neutron transverse charge and magnetization densities, including the first such neutron results. If correct, this gives the neutron magnetic form factor a realistic uncertainty band and a model-independent spatial picture of the neutron's charge and magnetization at a level of precision useful for nuclear scattering analyses and low-energy Standard Model tests.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the z-expansion parameterization of $G_M^n/\mu_n$, a conformal map of the momentum-transfer variable $t=-Q^2$ onto a unit circle cut at $t_{\rm cut}=4m_\pi^2$, so the form factor is represented by a power series in $z$ whose coefficients are fit parameters. Physical constraints are built in by fixing the $Q^2=0$ value and requiring the first four derivatives to vanish at $z=1$, enforcing the $Q^{-4}$ quark-counting falloff, and the fit is stabilized by pseudo-data at high $Q^2$ and by the PDG neutron magnetic radius as a low-$Q^2$ datum. Carrying the argument is the deliberate separation of each experiment's systematic uncertainty into a normalization (scale) component and a point-to-point component; the fitted normalization factors are what remove the old data contradictions. The transverse densities are then computed from the standard integrals over $Q^2$ involving Bessel functions $J_0$ and $J_1$ applied to the Sachs form factors (the conventional electric and magnetic combinations $G_E$ and $G_M$), with uncertainties propagated through the covariance matrix of the fit.

What would settle it

The claim would be contradicted if a re-analysis of any included data set using its original cross-section data and an independent, logbook-based breakdown of normalization uncertainties gave a normalization shift outside the assigned scale uncertainty, or if a new precision measurement in the disputed $Q^2$ region disagreed with the fit by more than the quoted uncertainty band.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that the inconsistent neutron magnetic form factor data sets in the disputed $Q^2$ range become mutually consistent once each measurement is assigned a realistic normalization uncertainty and a separate point-to-point uncertainty; the fitted scale factors (e.g. 0.978 for the new mirror-nucleus data and 1.064 for the earliest high-$Q^2$ data set) then absorb the discrepancies. The fit is a 10th-order z-expansion for $G_M^n/\mu_n$ with constraints at $Q^2=0$ and in the $Q^2\to\infty$ limit, plus two high-$Q^2$ pseudo-points and the PDG neutron magnetic radius, yielding $\chi^2/{\rm dof}=1.27$ for 46 degrees of freedom. It agrees with the previous global fit at the few-percent level but has about 20% smaller uncertainties over most of the range. Combined with the other form-factor fits, the paper presents proton and neutron transverse charge and magnetization densities; the neutron results are new, with a negative charge density at small transverse distance $b$, a positive density at large $b$, and a magnetization density of opposite sign to the proton.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the authors' judgment that the scale and point-to-point uncertainty split assigned to each old experiment (Table 1) correctly describes how that experiment's systematic errors were correlated; if the true correlations differ, the fitted normalizations, the claimed consistency, and the extracted densities would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The updated $G_M^n$ fit and its covariance are provided as code and a lookup table, so future electron- and neutrino-scattering analyses can use a neutron magnetic form factor without artificially enlarged uncertainties.
  • The scale uncertainties and fitted normalization factors imply that most of the old disagreement in the $0.5 \lesssim Q^2 \lesssim 1$ GeV$^2$ region was due to unaccounted normalization differences rather than new physics.
  • Because the high-$Q^2$ constraints are built into the fit, the transverse-density extraction no longer needs the $Q^2_{\rm max}$ cutoff used in the earlier proton-only analysis, and the density uncertainties are reduced.
  • The neutron transverse densities are the first results of this type, and the sign pattern of the neutron charge density connects to $d$-quark dominance and pion-cloud models of the neutron.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same normalization-versus-point-to-point decomposition were applied to the proton elastic form-factor data, apparent tensions in that world data set might shrink as they do here for the neutron.
  • The fitted normalization shifts in Table 2 should be checkable against independent observables, such as absolute cross-section measurements or target-thickness determinations from the original experimental records.
  • The stability of the neutron density results as the polynomial order is varied from 8 to 17 suggests the extraction is not an artifact of the fit form, so one testable expectation is that future higher-$Q^2$ data will mainly sharpen the small-$b$ densities rather than move their central values.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents an updated global z-expansion fit to the world data on the neutron magnetic form factor G_M^n, adding the recent JLab A=3 mirror-nuclei data of Santiesteban et al. (Ref. [14]) and re-examining, experiment by experiment, the decomposition of systematic uncertainties into normalization (scale) and point-to-point (p2p) components. The new fit is then combined with previous fits for the other nucleon form factors to extract, for the first time with this technique, proton and neutron transverse charge and magnetization densities and their uncertainties. The central claim, stated in Section 6, is that with the updated scale uncertainties the world data can be fit without the artificial uncertainty enhancement used in the earlier analysis of Ref. [13].

Significance. If the uncertainty decomposition is accepted, the paper provides a useful improved G_M^n parameterization with a publicly supplied covariance matrix and lookup tables, and it extends the transverse-density formalism of Venkat et al. to the neutron. The z-expansion procedure is standard, the stability in polynomial order is checked (Section 4), and the global chi2/dof of 1.27 is reasonable. The supply of code and covariance information, and the explicit use of physical constraints at low and high Q2, are strengths that make the fit reproducible. The main significance, however, hinges on the credibility of the hand-assigned scale uncertainties, so the value of the paper will depend on how convincingly those assignments are justified and tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Table 1] The central claim that the world data can be fit 'without artificial enhancement of the uncertainties' depends entirely on the per-dataset scale and p2p uncertainties listed in Table 1. These assignments are introduced through a list of qualitative bullets ('we estimated', 'we expect', 'we assign a significant fraction') without a documented, reproducible algorithm or a sensitivity study. Because the fitted normalization factors in Table 2 and the chi2/dof of 1.27 are direct consequences of these choices, the conclusion is not robust unless the authors show that alternative, still-defensible decompositions do not change the fit or the densities. A quantitative derivation of each added scale uncertainty, or a sensitivity scan over the Table 1 values, is needed before the no-artificial-enhancement statement can be accepted.
  2. [Section 2 and Table 2] The analysis treats Santiesteban et al. [14] as a trusted anchor: Section 2 states that 'no modifications were made' to [14], while every older dataset receives an added scale uncertainty and a floating normalization. Table 2 shows that the fit pulls the Santiesteban normalization to 0.978 +/- 0.007, a 2.2% downward shift that is comparable to its quoted 2.4% scale uncertainty. Since [14] is the only high-precision measurement spanning the previously discrepant 0.5-1 GeV^2 region, a small unaccounted normalization bias or a Q2-dependent A=3 nuclear-correction bias in that dataset would shift the fitted G_M^n and the resulting transverse densities by more than the quoted uncertainties. The paper provides no independent check of [14]'s systematic breakdown, so the conclusion that the older data are consistent after modest normalization adjustments is contingent on a dataset whose systematic treatment is adopted on faith.
  3. [Section 4] The paper does not report how the fit behaves when the new dataset [14] is removed or when the Table 1 scale uncertainties are varied, even though such tests are directly relevant to the main conclusion. The claim that the new fit has uncertainties '~20% lower over most of the fit region' could reflect the additional data, the new constraint from [14], or the changed uncertainty assignments; the source of the improvement is not identified. Showing that the fit and the transverse densities are stable under removal of [14], and that the no-artificial-enhancement conclusion survives reasonable variations of the Table 1 assignments, would materially strengthen the paper.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 4 caption] The word 'tansverse' is a typo and should read 'transverse'.
  2. [Section 2 heading] The heading 'onForm Factor Data Sets' appears to be a malformed section title; it should probably read 'Form Factor Data Sets'.
  3. [Table 1] Negative entries in the 'Added uncertainty p2p' column are not explained in the caption; the text implies that these are reductions of the original p2p uncertainties, but this should be stated explicitly in the table caption.
  4. [Section 4] The statement that the uncertainty is '~20% lower over most of the fit region' should specify the Q2 range and explicitly state the comparison to the fit of Ref. [13].
  5. [Section 5] The claim that the neutron densities are 'the first such results extracted using this technique' should be supported by a literature check or a reference; at minimum the comparison with any earlier neutron transverse-density extractions should be discussed.
  6. [Section 4] The number of data points entering the fit is not stated, which makes it hard to verify the reported degrees of freedom and chi2/dof. The authors should state the number of experimental points, the number of pseudo-data points, and the number of fitted parameters explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'no artificial enhancement' conclusion is partly constructed: scale uncertainties are hand-assigned to be large enough to allow the normalization shifts that remove the historical tension.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2, third bullet; Section 4, Table 2; Section 6, Conclusion]
    "For these cases, we include a scale uncertainty that is typically below the average uncertainty, but which we estimate to be large enough to allow for reasonable normalization based on the nature of the uncertainty. ... Allowing for the scale uncertainties in the updated evaluation of the data sets, we obtain a fit to the world data that does not require additional artificial enhancement of the uncertainties, as was done in [13] to provide a good fit."

    The central claim that no artificial enhancement is needed is the direct consequence of the input scale uncertainties: they are chosen to be 'large enough to allow for reasonable normalization,' and the normalization factors in Table 2 are free parameters of the fit. Floating per-data-set normalizations with priors of hand-chosen width can absorb inter-dataset discrepancies by construction, so the resulting chi2/dof = 1.27 does not independently validate the uncertainty model. The scale values are not derived from an external, reproduced covariance analysis; they are tuned to permit the shifts that remove the tension. Thus the 'no artificial enhancement' conclusion is substantially built into the fitting inputs, although the shape of the form factor and the new data from Ref.

full rationale

The fit is not globally circular: it is anchored by the z-expansion, PDG neutron magnetic radius constraint, quark-counting high-Q2 limits, and pseudo-data from Ref. [13], and the resulting parameterization and density uncertainties are new, code-supplied outputs. However, the specific conclusion in Section 6 that the world data are consistent 'without additional artificial enhancement' is weakened because the per-data-set scale uncertainties were hand-assigned with the stated goal of being 'large enough to allow for reasonable normalization,' and the fitted normalizations necessarily reduce tension. The new Santiesteban data set [14], from overlapping authors, is adopted with no modifications to its systematic breakdown, which makes the consistency conclusion contingent on that external measurement; this is a limitation rather than a circular step under the evidence available. No uniqueness theorem or pure self-citation chain forces the result, so the circularity burden is moderate, not total.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a fitting analysis, so its output is fully determined by the data, the polynomial representation, the imposed asymptotic and radius constraints, and most importantly the hand-assigned correlated uncertainties. The five free z coefficients are standard; the effective additional freedom enters through the per-data-set normalization factors and scale uncertainties, which are chosen from experiment descriptions and implicitly tuned to make the world data agree.

free parameters (4)
  • z-expansion coefficients a_1 through a_5 = Not reported in text; available in supplemental material
    Five coefficients of the 10th-order polynomial are fit to the world data; the remaining coefficients are fixed by Q^2=0 and asymptotic constraints.
  • Per-data-set normalization factors = Rock 1.064, Lung 1.005, Anklin 0.990, Lachniet 1.019, Kubon 0.986, Anderson 1.018, Santiesteban 0.978
    Each experiment is allowed a free normalization shift in the fit (Table 2); these fitted factors absorb part of the inter-experiment tension.
  • Added scale uncertainties per data set = Rock 4.13%, Lung 2.08%, Anklin 0.98%, Kubon 1.13%, Anderson 2.01%, Lachniet 1.90%, Santiesteban 2.4%
    Hand-estimated correlated systematic uncertainties assigned from experiment descriptions; they are designed to be large enough to reconcile the discrepant data sets.
  • z-mapping parameter t0 = 0.7 GeV^2
    Free choice of conformal mapping point, set to match Ref. [13]; with sufficient polynomial order the result should be insensitive, but it is still an input choice.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The z-expansion truncated at 10th order converges and accurately represents G_M^n from Q^2=0 to the highest data point.
    The fit uses the analytic structure of the form factor with cut at 4 m_pi^2; stability against order is checked from 8th to 17th order (Section 4).
  • domain assumption Quark counting rules imply G_M^n ~ Q^-4 at large Q^2, enforced by setting four derivatives to zero at z=1.
    This constraint (Eq. 5) fixes four coefficients and controls the high-Q^2 behavior of the fit; it is a physical assumption, not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption The PDG magnetic radius constraint, 0.864 +/- 0.009 fm, is a correct external input.
    Added as a data point, this constrains the low-Q^2 slope of G_M^n and shapes the fit at small momentum transfer.
  • ad hoc to paper The scale/p2p decomposition of each experiment's systematics (Section 2, Table 1) is accurate.
    The estimates are based on qualitative reading of the experimental write-ups rather than a full covariance model; this is the load-bearing step for resolving the data discrepancies.
  • standard math The transverse density formulas of Eqs. (6) and (7) are the correct light-front observables and the fit can be integrated to arbitrarily high Q^2 without truncation.
    Adopted from Refs. [6-8]; the neutron extension is new but uses the same formalism.
  • domain assumption The Santiesteban et al. [14] data set is a reliable extraction of G_M^n over the full Q^2 range, including the previously discrepant region.
    This new data set is the main addition that overlaps multiple older measurements; a bias here would propagate into the global fit and densities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Updated analysis of neutron magnetic form factor and the nucleon transverse densities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F677DTOM

@misc{pith2026250118443,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Updated analysis of neutron magnetic form factor and the nucleon transverse densities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F677DTOM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18443}
}
abstract

We provide an updated global extraction of the neutron magnetic form factor, including new extractions from $^3$H-$^3$He comparisons at Jefferson Lab. Our new global fit addresses discrepancies between previous data sets at modest momentum transfer by separating the uncertainties from world data into normalization and uncorrelated uncertainties. We use this updated global fit, along with previous fits for the other form factors, to extract the neutron and proton transverse charge and magnetization densities and their uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18443 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The G n M data sets included in the previous global fit [13] along with the new results of Ref. [14]. Note that below Q 2 = 2 GeV2 , there are multiple high-precision measurements that show significant disagreement. adjustment that reduced the tension between these data sets but was not based on a detailed analysis of the experiments. The most recent G n M extraction from 3H-3He comparisons [14] cov￾ered a wide Q 2 … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. G n M data included in the fit, after the normalization factors shown in Tab. 2 have been applied, along with the fit. The solid line indicates the best fit, and the dashed lines indicate the 1σ uncertainty band Data Set Scale Unc. Fit Norm. ± δFit Norm. Rock 4.1% 1.064 ± 0.058 Lung 2.1% 1.005 ± 0.021 Anklin 1.0% 0.990 ± 0.017 Lachniet 1.9% 1.019 ± 0.006 Kubon 1.1% 0.986 ± 0.010 Anderson 2.0% 1.018 ± 0.007 Gao N/A -… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The uncertainty in G n M /µnGD over a wide range in Q 2 values. 5. Transverse densities While electromagnetic form factors have historically been used to probe the underlying charge and magnetization den￾sities of hadrons, traditional three-dimensional Fourier trans￾form methods are not rigorously applicable for systems with constituents that move relativistically, such as the light up and down quarks. The use of th… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The tansverse nucleon charge and magnetic densities; the left (right) panels are for the proton (neutron), while the top (bottom) panels are the charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    S. N. Santiesteban, et al., Novel Measurement of the Neutron Magnetic Form Factor from A =3 Mirror Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (16) (2024) 162501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.162501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.162501 2024

  2. [13]

    Z. Ye, J. Arrington, R. J. Hill, G. Lee, Proton and Neutron Electro- magnetic Form Factors and Uncertainties, Phys. Lett. B 777 (2018) 8. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.11.023

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.11.023 2018

  3. [1]

    R. G. Sachs, High-energy behavior of nucleon electromagnetic form fac- tors, Phys. Rev. 126 (1962) 2256

    work page 1962

  4. [2]

    Arrington, C

    J. Arrington, C. D. Roberts, J. M. Zanotti, Nucleon electromagnetic form factors, J. Phys. G34 (2007) S23

    work page 2007

  5. [3]

    C. F. Perdrisat, V . Punjabi, M. Vanderhaeghen, Nucleon electromagnetic form factors, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 59 (2007) 694

    work page 2007

  6. [4]

    C. E. Carlson, M. Vanderhaeghen, Two-photon physics in hadronic pro- cesses, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 171. doi:10.1146/ annurev.nucl.57.090506.123116. 6

    work page arXiv 2007

  7. [5]

    Arrington, K

    J. Arrington, K. de Jager, C. F. Perdrisat, Nucleon Form Factors: A Jef- ferson Lab Perspective, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 299 (2011) 012002. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/299/1/012002

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/299/1/012002 2011

  8. [6]

    G. A. Miller, Charge Density of the Neutron, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 112001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.112001

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.99.112001 2007

Show all 50 references
  1. [7]

    G. A. Miller, Transverse Charge Densities, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 1–25. doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.012809.104508

    2010

  2. [8]

    Venkat, J

    S. Venkat, J. Arrington, G. A. Miller, X. Zhan, Realistic Transverse Im- ages of the Proton Charge and Magnetic Densities, Phys.Rev. C83 (2011) 015203. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.83.015203

    2011 doi

  3. [9]

    R. Pohl, R. Gilman, G. A. Miller, K. Pachucki, Muonic hydrogen and the proton radius puzzle, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63 (2013) 175–204. doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102212-170627

    2013 doi

  4. [10]

    C. E. Carlson, The Proton Radius Puzzle, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 82 (2015) 59–77. doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.01.002

    2015 doi

  5. [11]

    G. Lee, J. R. Arrington, R. J. Hill, Extraction of the proton radius from electron-proton scattering data, Phys. Rev. D 92 (1) (2015) 013013.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.013013

    2015 doi

  6. [12]

    Borah, R

    K. Borah, R. J. Hill, G. Lee, O. Tomalak, Parametrization and applica- tions of the low-Q2 nucleon vector form factors, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 074012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.074012

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    Rock, et al., Measurement of Elastic electron - Neutron Cross-Sections Up to Q2 = 10 (GeV/c)2, Phys

    S. Rock, et al., Measurement of Elastic electron - Neutron Cross-Sections Up to Q2 = 10 (GeV/c)2, Phys. Rev. Lett 49 (1982) 1139

    1982

  8. [16]

    Lung, et al., Measurements of the electric and magnetic form-factors of the neutron from Q2 = 1.75 to 4 (GeV/c)2, Phys

    A. Lung, et al., Measurements of the electric and magnetic form-factors of the neutron from Q2 = 1.75 to 4 (GeV/c)2, Phys. Rev. Lett 70 (1993) 718

    1993

  9. [17]

    Gao, et al., Measurement of the neutron magnetic form-factor from inclusive quasielastic scattering of polarized electrons from polarized He- 3, Phys

    H. Gao, et al., Measurement of the neutron magnetic form-factor from inclusive quasielastic scattering of polarized electrons from polarized He- 3, Phys. Rev. C 50 (1994) 546–549

    1994

  10. [18]

    Anklin, et al., Precise measurements of the neutron magnetic form factor, Phys

    H. Anklin, et al., Precise measurements of the neutron magnetic form factor, Phys. Lett. B428 (1998) 248

    1998

  11. [19]

    Kubon, et al., Precise neutron magnetic form factors, Phys

    G. Kubon, et al., Precise neutron magnetic form factors, Phys. Lett. B524 (2002) 26

    2002

  12. [20]

    Anderson, et al., Extraction of the neutron magnetic form factor from quasi-elastic−−−→3He(− →e ,e’) at Q2 = 0.1-0.6 (GeV/c)2, Phys

    B. Anderson, et al., Extraction of the neutron magnetic form factor from quasi-elastic−−−→3He(− →e ,e’) at Q2 = 0.1-0.6 (GeV/c)2, Phys. Rev. C 75 (2007) 034003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.75.034003

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    Lachniet, et al., A Precise Measurement of the Neutron Magnetic Form Factor GMn in the Few-GeV2 Region, Phys

    J. Lachniet, et al., A Precise Measurement of the Neutron Magnetic Form Factor GMn in the Few-GeV2 Region, Phys. Rev. Lett 102 (2009) 192001. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.192001

    2009 doi

  14. [22]

    Arrington, P

    J. Arrington, P. G. Blunden, W. Melnitchouk, Review of two-photon ex- change in electron scattering, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66 (2011) 782–833. doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2011.07.003

    2011 doi

  15. [23]

    Gao, E ffective neutron targets, Nucl

    H. Gao, E ffective neutron targets, Nucl. Phys. A 631 (1998) 170–189. doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(98)00022-0

    1998 doi

  16. [24]

    S. Rock, R. G. Arnold, P. E. Bosted, B. T. Chertok, B. A. Mecking, I. A. Schmidt, Z. M. Szalata, R. York, R. Zdarko, Measurement of elastic electron - neutron scattering and inelastic electron - deuteron scattering cross-sections at high momentum transfer, Phys. Rev. D 46 (199...

    1992 doi

  17. [25]

    Markowitz, et al., Measurement of the magnetic form-factor of the neu- tron, Phys

    P. Markowitz, et al., Measurement of the magnetic form-factor of the neu- tron, Phys. Rev. C 48 (1993) 5–9

    1993

  18. [26]

    Anklin, et al., Precision measurement of the neutron magnetic form- factor, Phys

    H. Anklin, et al., Precision measurement of the neutron magnetic form- factor, Phys. Lett. B336 (1994) 313

    1994

  19. [27]

    E. E. W. Bruins, et al., Measurement of the neutron magnetic form-factor, Phys. Rev. Lett 75 (1995) 21–24

    1995

  20. [28]

    measurement of the neutron magnetic form factor

    J. Jourdan, I. Sick, J. Zhao, Comment on “measurement of the neutron magnetic form factor”, Phys. Rev. Lett 79 (1997) 5186

    1997

  21. [29]

    measurement of the neu- tron magnetic form factor

    E. E. W. Bruins, et al., Reply to: Comment on “measurement of the neu- tron magnetic form factor”’, Phys. Rev. Lett 79 (1997) 5187

    1997

  22. [30]

    Arrington, Implications of the discrepancy between proton form factor measurements, Phys

    J. Arrington, Implications of the discrepancy between proton form factor measurements, Phys. Rev. C 69 (2004) 022201(R)

    2004

  23. [31]

    Hohler, et al., Analysis of electromagnetic nucleon form-factors, Nucl

    G. Hohler, et al., Analysis of electromagnetic nucleon form-factors, Nucl. Phys. B114 (1976) 505

    1976

  24. [32]

    R. J. Hill, G. Paz, Model independent extraction of the proton charge radius from electron scattering, Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 113005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.113005

    2010 doi

  25. [33]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL] for parameterizations and lookup tables for the fits and uncertainties

  26. [34]

    Patrignani, et al., Review of Particle Physics, Chin

    C. Patrignani, et al., Review of Particle Physics, Chin. Phys. C40 (10) (2016) 100001. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/40/10/100001

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    D. E. Soper, The Parton Model and the Bethe-Salpeter Wave Function, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 1141. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.1141

    1977 doi

  28. [36]

    Burkardt, Impact parameter space interpretation for generalized parton distributions, Int

    M. Burkardt, Impact parameter space interpretation for generalized parton distributions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 18 (2003) 173–208. doi:10.1142/ S0217751X03012370

    2003

  29. [37]

    Diehl, Generalized parton distributions in impact parameter space, Eur

    M. Diehl, Generalized parton distributions in impact parameter space, Eur. Phys. J. C 25 (2002) 223–232, [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 31, 277–278 (2003)]. doi:10.1007/s10052-002-1016-9

    2002 doi

  30. [38]

    C. E. Carlson, M. Vanderhaeghen, Empirical transverse charge densities in the nucleon and the nucleon-to-Delta transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 032004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.032004

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    G. A. Miller, Electromagnetic Form Factors and Charge Densities From Hadrons to Nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 045210. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevC.80.045210

    2009

  32. [40]

    S. J. Brodsky, D. S. Hwang, B.-Q. Ma, I. Schmidt, Light cone repre- sentation of the spin and orbital angular momentum of relativistic com- posite systems, Nucl. Phys. B 593 (2001) 311–335. doi:10.1016/ S0550-3213(00)00626-X

    2001

  33. [41]

    Arrington, W

    J. Arrington, W. Melnitchouk, J. A. Tjon, Global analysis of proton elastic form factor data with two-photon exchange corrections, Phys. Rev. C76 (2007) 035205

    2007

  34. [42]

    A. J. R. Puckett, et al., Recoil Polarization Measurements of the Proton Electromagnetic Form Factor Ratio to Q2 = 8.5 GeV2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 242301

    2010

  35. [43]

    A. J. R. Puckett, et al., Final Analysis of Proton Form Factor Ratio Data at Q2 = 4.0, 4.8 and 5.6 GeV 2, Phys. Rev. C85 (2012) 045203. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.045203

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    A. J. R. Puckett, et al., Polarization Transfer Observables in Elastic Elec- tron Proton Scattering at Q2 =2.5, 5.2, 6.8, and 8.5 GeV 2, Phys. Rev. C 96 (5) (2017) 055203, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 98, 019907 (2018)]. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.96.055203

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    M. E. Christy, et al., Form Factors and Two-Photon Exchange in High- Energy Elastic Electron-Proton Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (10) (2022) 102002. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.102002

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    J. J. Kelly, Nucleon charge and magnetization densities from sachs form factors, Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 065203

    2002

  39. [47]

    G. A. Miller, J. Arrington, The neutron negative central charge density: an inclusive- exclusive connection, Phys. Rev. C78 (2008) 032201. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.78.032201

    2008 doi

  40. [48]

    J. A. Rinehimer, G. A. Miller, Neutron charge density from simple pion cloud models, Phys. Rev. C 80 (2009) 025206. doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.80.025206. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.80. 025206

    2009 doi

  41. [49]

    F. E. Close, An Introduction to Quarks and Partons, Academic Press, Lon- don, 1979

    1979

  42. [50]

    A. W. Thomas, S. Theberge, G. A. Miller, The Cloudy Bag Model of the Nucleon, Phys. Rev. D 24 (1981) 216. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.24. 216. 7

    1981 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.