The structure function method applied to polarized and unpolarized electron-proton scattering: a solution of the G_E(p)/G_M(p) discrepancy

E. A. Kuraev; E. Tomasi-Gustafsson; Yu. M. Bystritskiy

REVIEW

The structure function method applied to polarized and unpolarized electron-proton scattering: a solution of the G_E(p)/G_M(p) discrepancy

Yu. M. Bystritskiy, E. A. Kuraev, E. Tomasi-Gustafsson

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 17 Mar 2006 · 26 references

Pith's verdict: A genuine QED radiative-correction calculation that plausibly lowers the Rosenbluth slope, but the paper's own caveats prevent the 'solution' claim from being established.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0603132 (version 2)

Pith ID5Z7G7XFC, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationE. A. Kuraev, E. Tomasi-Gustafsson, Yu. M. Bystritskiy. "The structure function method applied to polarized and unpolarized electron-proton scattering: a solution of the G_E(p)/G_M(p) discrepancy." arXiv:hep-ph/0603132 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/5Z7G7XFC

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The thing to know about this paper is that it is a legitimate QED calculation that produces a plausible mechanism for the Rosenbluth/polarization form-factor discrepancy, but it does not actually prove the mechanism, and the authors half-admit this. The new step is applying the structure-function (SF) radiative corrections to the unpolarized Rosenbluth data and showing the corrected slope moves GE/GM toward the polarization-transfer values. The two-photon exchange contribution is computed with a dipole-FF box diagram (proton and Delta intermediate states) and found to be small. That part is not new in spirit—earlier SF papers already applied the method to polarization observables—but the unpolarized application is.

What the paper does well: the derivation is explicit, the cut dependence of the correction is acknowledged, and the text is honest about the main weaknesses. In Section IV they state the correction is 'an average correction, which is not applied event by event,' and in the Conclusion they concede that this 'does not solve the problem of the strong correlation between the parameters of the Rosenbluth fit.' They also note the box-diagram K-factor has unphysical behavior as epsilon goes to zero. That level of candor is rare and should be credited.

The soft spots are exactly where the stress-test note points. The central figure (Fig. 8) shifts published Rosenbluth points by a global correction evaluated at c=0.97, while the three data sets almost certainly had different inelasticity cuts. The correction is strongly cut-dependent through z0 in Eq. (7) and the log term in Eq. (13). The paper does not propagate that uncertainty into the corrected points, so the apparent agreement with the polarization fit may be an artifact of the cut choice. This is a real problem, but it is an addressable one: an event-by-event reanalysis with actual experimental cuts could settle it. The two-photon estimate is rough, and the admitted small-epsilon behavior weakens confidence in the K-factor, though the main conclusion only relies on the SF correction.

The citation pattern is fine; the earlier SF papers are directly relevant, and the self-citation is to the method the paper builds on. Nothing circular here.

Who should read this: experimentalists analyzing Rosenbluth data who want a concrete radiative-correction procedure, and theorists working on the two-photon-exchange puzzle. It deserves a serious referee. The referee should ask for an event-by-event treatment or at least a sensitivity analysis of the cut, plus a cleaner treatment of the box diagram. The paper's own caveats already outline the necessary revision.

If I were the editor, I would send it out.

Referee report

Significance

If the central claim were fully established, the paper would resolve a long-standing experimental discrepancy in a simple and theoretically motivated way: the structure-function treatment of collinear photon emission would account for the Rosenbluth/polarization discrepancy without invoking a large two-photon-exchange effect. The paper has genuine strengths: the radiative-correction derivation is explicit and self-contained, the structure-function framework is grounded in earlier QED work, and the box-diagram estimate is checked against an exactly solvable e-mu QED calculation, giving a useful cross-check on the size of two-photon effects. The main significance is therefore as a concrete, falsifiable proposal that can be tested by an event-by-event reanalysis of existing data. The limitation is that the quantitative conclusion is demonstrated only for a global correction at one cut value, not for the actual experimental conditions of the data sets used; this makes the "solution" claim conditional rather than established.

Major objections (3)

[Section IV, Fig. 8] The central quantitative claim is not yet established because the correction applied in Fig. 8 is a single global factor evaluated at c=0.97, whereas the data in Refs. [19,20,21] were taken under different experimental energy-loss cuts and event selections. The cut enters through z0 in Eq. (7) and through the term (alpha/pi)(L-1)[2 ln(1/(1-z0)) - z0 - z0^2/2] in Eq. (13), and Section IV itself states that the numerical results "strongly depend on the experimental conditions, in particular on the inelasticity cut." No sensitivity of the corrected points in Fig. 8 to the value of c is shown, so if the effective cut for a given data set is 0.95 or 0.99 rather than 0.97, the slope correction--the quantity that moves the Rosenbluth points toward the polarization fit--could change by an amount comparable to the discrepancy being explained. This should be addressed either by propagating cut uncertainties into the corrected points or by qualifying the claim as conditional on an event-by-event reanalysis.
[Section V, Conclusion] The concluding claim that applying radiative corrections as suggested here "would solve the discrepancy" overstates what the paper demonstrates, because the authors explicitly concede in the same section that the correction is "an average correction, which is not applied event by event" and that this procedure "does not solve the problem of the strong correlation between the parameters of the Rosenbluth fit." This is a load-bearing limitation rather than a purely presentational caveat: the apparent agreement in Fig. 8 is obtained by a global factor, while the actual Rosenbluth extraction involves a correlated two-parameter fit. The claim should be reframed as a strong suggestion requiring event-level reanalysis, or the missing analysis should be supplied.
[Section III A, Appendix B] The box-diagram contribution is estimated under the equal-sharing kinematics assumption, neglecting the loop-momentum dependence of the proton form factors and photon propagators and using a cutoff |kappa^2| < M^2 tau in Eq. (16). The authors note that this approximation overestimates the two-photon contribution and that it produces a nonphysical large deviation for small epsilon, as stated in Section V. Consequently the quantitative statement that the two-photon contribution is "not exceeding 1%" is model-dependent rather than a rigorous bound. Since the paper's conclusion that two-photon exchange is irrelevant to the form-factor discrepancy relies on this estimate, the model-dependence should be explicitly stated as a caveat in the summary of the two-photon result.

Minor objections (5)

[Abstract and title page] Several typos should be corrected: "an that" in the abstract, and "Federatio n" and "Fra nce" on the title page.
[Eq. (11)] The sentence following Eq. (11), "where the factor The factors K0,T,L contain...", has a grammatical error and should be rephrased.
[Eq. (4) and following text] The phrase "of the order of -2 thousandth" should be written more clearly, for example as "of order -2e-3" or "of the order of -0.002".
[Fig. 8 and its caption] The open and solid symbols in Fig. 8 are difficult to distinguish in print; larger symbols or an inset would improve readability. In addition, the caption lists Ref. [19] among corrected data, but the text says detailed RC information was published only for Refs. [20,21]; the correction procedure for the low-Q2 set should be clarified.
[Sections II and III] Notation for the K-factor is not fully consistent: Eq. (2) defines K = Ke + Kp + Kbox, while Eq. (11) introduces K0,L,T; the relationship between these quantities should be stated explicitly.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

The paper claims that applying higher-order radiative corrections computed with electron structure functions reconciles Rosenbluth and polarization-transfer measurements of the proton form-factor ratio, while two-photon exchange…

The reading

Measurements of the proton's electric and magnetic form factors disagree depending on whether they come from unpolarized Rosenbluth separation or from recoil polarization transfer. This paper argues that the disagreement is a radiative-correction artefact: once higher-order photon emission from the electron is resummed with the structure-function method, the slope of the reduced unpolarized cross section changes in the direction that reconciles the two data sets. The authors also estimate the two-photon-exchange box diagram, including proton and $\Delta$-resonance intermediate states, and find it contributes no more than about one percent. If correct, the paper removes the need for two-photon-exchange explanations of the discrepancy and shifts the burden onto a careful radiative-correction analysis of existing Rosenbluth data.

What carries the argument

The central object is the electron structure function $D(z,\beta)$, defined for $\beta=\frac{2\alpha}{\pi}(\ln(Q^2/m_e^2)-1)$, which resums collinear photon emission from the electron to all orders in leading-logarithmic approximation. The cross section is written as a Drell-Yan-like convolution over the energy fraction $z$ of the initial electron, with the lower limit $z_0=c/[\rho-c(\rho-1)]$ set by the experimental inelasticity cut $c$. Non-leading effects enter through a $K$-factor split into electron, proton, and box contributions; the two-photon box part is computed assuming the exchanged photons share the momentum nearly equally, which produces the enhancement factor $N(z)=(z+1)^2/[(z/4)+1]^4$ when the proton form factors fall like the dipole. These ingredients together determine the size and sign of the slope change in the $\epsilon$-dependence of the reduced cross section.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the experimentally reported discrepancy between the proton electric-to-magnetic form-factor ratio $G_E/G_M$ extracted by Rosenbluth separation and by recoil polarization transfer is a consequence of incomplete radiative corrections. The authors write the elastic electron-proton cross section in a Drell-Yan-like form in which the electron's structure functions $D(z,\beta)$ act as probability distributions, and they resum collinear photon emission from the initial and final electron to leading and next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy. This treatment lowers the slope of the reduced unpolarized cross section as a function of the virtual-photon polarization $\epsilon$, an effect that grows with $Q^2$. The two-photon-exchange box contribution, estimated with dipole form factors and with proton or $\Delta$-resonance intermediate states, stays below about one percent of the unpolarized cross section. After applying the correction computed with inelasticity cut $c=0.97$ to published Rosenbluth data, the extracted ratio $\mu G_E/G_M$ moves toward the polarization-transfer fit $R(Q^2)=1-0.130(Q^2-0.04)$.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical reconciliation assumes that a single global correction computed with one inelasticity cut, c=0.97, accurately represents the different event selections of the Rosenbluth experiments, even though the results depend strongly on that cut.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Rosenbluth and polarization-transfer determinations of $\mu G_E/G_M$ become consistent once the structure-function radiative corrections are applied, so the discrepancy does not require new physics.
The two-photon-exchange contribution is at most about 1% in the kinematics studied, arguing against two-photon exchange as the origin of the form-factor discrepancy.
The main radiative effect is a slope change in the $\epsilon$-dependence of the unpolarized reduced cross section, which alters the Rosenbluth extraction of $G_E$ more strongly than that of $G_M$.
The ratio of transverse to longitudinal recoil-proton polarization changes by less than about 1% up to $Q^2=10$ GeV$^2$, so polarization-transfer measurements are essentially unaffected by these corrections.
An average structure-function correction improves the internal consistency of Rosenbluth data sets, but the full reconciliation should be checked with an event-by-event analysis at the data-processing level.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension is to reanalyse the Rosenbluth experiments event by event with each data set's own inelasticity cut; the paper's global cut $c=0.97$ leaves open how much of the agreement depends on that choice.
If the two-photon contribution really is negligible, direct measurements designed to isolate 2γ exchange at low $\epsilon$ and $Q^2\approx 1.4$ GeV$^2$, where the enhancement factor peaks, would distinguish this explanation from earlier claims that 2γ drives the discrepancy.
The same structure-function treatment could be carried over to other elastic lepton-hadron scatterings where Rosenbluth-type extractions suffer from similar radiative-slope distortions.
The paper's own caveat that an average correction does not remove the strong correlation between Rosenbluth fit parameters implies that the final word on this discrepancy belongs to an event-by-event analysis rather than to the global correction shown in Fig. 8.

Original abstract

The cross section for polarized and unpolarized electron-proton scattering is calculated taking into account radiative corrections in leading and next-to leading logarithmic approximation. The expression of the cross section is formally similar to the cross section of the Drell-Yan process, where the structure functions of the electron play the role of Drell-Yan probability distributions. The interference of the Born amplitude with the two photon exchange amplitude (box-type diagrams) is expressed as a contribution to K-factor and it is larger when the momentum is equally shared between the two photons, assuming that proton form factors decrease rapidly with the momentum transfer squared. The calculation of the box amplitude is done when the intermediate state is a proton or the Delta-resonance. The results of numerical estimations show that the present calculation of radiative corrections can bring into agreement the conflicting experimental results on proton electromagnetic form factors an that the two photon contribution is very small.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,380 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.41 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.06 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.10 · compares with prior results 0.69 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

The cross section for polarized and unpolarized electron-proton scattering is calculated taking into account radiative corrections in leading and next-to leading logarithmic approximation. The expression of the cross section is formally similar to the cross section of the Drell-Yan process, where the structure functions of the electron play the role of Drell-Yan probability distributions. The interference of the Born amplitude with the two photon exchange amplitude (box-type diagrams) is expressed as a contribution to K-factor and it is larger when the momentum is equally shared between the two photons, assuming that proton form factors decrease rapidly with the momentum transfer squared. The calculation of the box amplitude is done when the intermediate state is a proton or the Delta-resonance. The results of numerical estimations show that the present calculation of radiative corrections can bring into agreement the conflicting experimental results on proton electromagnetic form factors an that the two photon contribution is very small.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	The cross section for polarized and unpolarized electron-proton scattering is calculated taking into account radiative corrections in leading and next-to leading logarithmic approximation.	method 0.59	0.88	0.04	asserted 1.00
s1	The expression of the cross section is formally similar to the cross section of the Drell-Yan process, where the structure functions of the electron play the role of Drell-Yan probability distributions.	method 0.77	0.68	0.04	asserted 1.00
s2	The interference of the Born amplitude with the two photon exchange amplitude (box-type diagrams) is expressed as a contribution to K-factor and it is larger when the momentum is equally shared between the two photons, assuming that proton form factors decrease rapidly with the momentum transfer squared.	result 0.43	0.76	0.08	asserted 0.92
s3	The calculation of the box amplitude is done when the intermediate state is a proton or the Delta-resonance.	method 0.97	0.88	0.03	asserted 0.99
s4	The results of numerical estimations show that the present calculation of radiative corrections can bring into agreement the conflicting experimental results on proton electromagnetic form factors an that the two photon contribution is very small.	result 0.92	0.93	0.88	asserted 0.65

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.88 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.76.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Feynman diagrams for two-photon exchange in elastic

Showing 1 of the paper's 8 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/0603132 by the authors.

References

Works cited (26)

[1]

Thus ⃗P = 0, p0 = p′ 0 = E′, |⃗ p1| = M√τ , ⃗Q2 = M 2 cot2 (θe/2), E′ = M √ τ + 1/ sin2 (θe/2), where θe is the electron scattering angle in laboratory frame. Before integrating over angle θκ let us write the explicit expression for real part of inte- grand: Re 1 (P±) (Q) = a (a + b cos θκ) ∓ δ1δ2 (a2 + δ2 1) ( (a + b cos θκ)2 + δ2 2 ), where a = −κ2 0 − ...

View on Pith
[2]

L. C. Maximon and J. A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. C 62, 054320 (2000)

View on Pith 2000
[3]

E. A. Kuraev, N. P. Merenkov and V. S. Fadin, Sov. J. Nucl. P hys. 47, 1009 (1988) [Yad. Fiz. 47, 1593 (1988)]

View on Pith 1988
[4]

A. Afanasev, I. Akushevich and N. Merenkov, Phys. Rev. D 64, 113009 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[5]

S. Dubni¸ cka, E. Kuraev, M. Se¸ canski and A. Vinnikov, hep-ph/0507242

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[6]

L. W. Mo and Y. S. Tsai, Rev. Mod. Phys. 41, 205 (1969)

View on Pith 1969
[7]

E. A. Kuraev and V. S. Fadin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 41, 466 (1985) [Yad. Fiz. 41, 733 (1985)]; M. Skrzypek, Acta Phys. Polon. B 23, 135 (1992)

View on Pith 1985
[8]

J. Gunion and L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 345 (1973); V. Franco, Phys. Rev. D 8, 826 (1973); V. N. Boitsov, L.A. Kondratyuk and V.B. Kopeliovich , Sov. J. Nucl. Phys 16, 287 (1973); F. M. Lev, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 21, 45 (1973)

View on Pith 1973
[9]

R. Blankenbecker and J. Gunion, Phys. Rev. D 4, 718 (1971)

View on Pith 1971
[10]

V. V. Frolov et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 45 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[11]

M. P. Rekalo, E. Tomasi-Gustafsson and D. Prout, Phys. R ev. C60, 042202 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[12]

A. Akhiezer and M. P. Rekalo, Dokl. Akad. Nauk USSR, 180, 1081 (1968); Sov. J. Part. Nucl. 4, 277 (1974)

View on Pith 1968
[13]

M. K. Jones et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 1398; O. Gayou et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 092301; V. Punjabi et al. , Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 055202

View on Pith 2000
[14]

I. A. Qattan et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 142301 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[15]

E. Tomasi-Gustafsson and G. I. Gakh, Phys. Rev. C 72, 015209 (2005). 21

View on Pith 2005
[16]

P. G. Blunden, W. Melnitchouk and J. A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. C 72, 034612 (2005). A. V. Afana- sev, S. J. Brodsky, C. E. Carlson, Y. C. Chen and M. Vanderhaeg hen, Phys. Rev. D 72, 013008 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[17]

E. A. Kuraev, V. V. Bytev, Y. M. Bystritskiy and E. Tomasi -Gustafsson, Phys. Rev. D 74, 013003 (2006)

View on Pith 2006
[18]

S. Kondratyuk, P. G. Blunden, W. Melnitchouk and J. A. Tj on, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 172503 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[19]

A.I. Akhiezer and M.P. Rekalo ”Electrodynamics of Hadr ons”, Kiev, Naukova Dumka, 1977

View on Pith 1977
[20]

T. Janssens, R. Hofstadter, E. B. Hughes and M. R. Yerian , Phys. Rev. 142, 922 (1966)

View on Pith 1966
[21]

L. Andivahis et al. , Phys. Rev. D 50, 5491 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[22]

M. E. Christy et al. [E94110 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 70, 015206 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[23]

A. V. Afanasev, I. Akushevich and N. P. Merenkov, Phys. R ev. D 65, 013006 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[24]

E. Tomasi-Gustafsson, arXiv:hep-ph/0412216

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[25]

E. A. Kuraev, M. Secansky and E. Tomasi-Gustafsson, Phy s. Rev. D 73, 125016 (2006)

View on Pith 2006
[26]

V. Bytev et al. , in preparation. 22

View on Pith

How the literature uses it

6 arXiv papers cite this in 8 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers whose main result relates to this one's

Found among the papers closest to this one by title and main claim. Pith's classifier compared each pair's main results and a second model family confirmed the relation; checked against two further families, shown conflicts agreed 118 times in 120 and shown same results 218 times in 239. The quoted sentence is the other paper's main claim.

States a conflicting result 2 papers

Overall, at high $Q^2$ and energies the total correction to $\mu G_E/G_M$ grows, but is dominated by TPE.

On radiative corrections to polarization observables in electron-proton scattering · 0.90
The difference between our results and polarization data agrees with that observed at lower Q$^2$ and attributed to hard two-photon exchange (TPE) effects, extending to 8~(GeV/c)$^2$ the range of Q$^2$ for which a discrepancy is established at $>$95\% confidence.

Form Factors and Two-Photon Exchange in High-Energy Elastic Electron-Proton Scattering · 0.87

Papers citing it · 4 sentences without a confident label

Compares with it 1 paper

Bystritskiy et al. [ref] used the electron structure function method to compute the higher-order radiative corrections to all orders in perturbative QED in the leading logarithm approximation.

Polarization Transfer Observables in Elastic Electron Proton Scattering at $Q^2 = $2.5, 5.2, 6.8, and 8.5 GeV$^2$ · Implications of GEp-2$γ$ for TPEX · 0.94

Cites it as background 3 papers

Historically, many analyses rely on next-to-leading order (NLO) QED RC with approximations following the pioneering work of Tsai [ref] and Mo–Tsai [ref] , while refinements and assessments of commonly used approximations have been developed over time [ref] .

Radiative Corrections to Elastic Lepton-Proton Scattering with Focus on Two-Photon-Exchange Diagrams · Introduction · 0.89
A partial list of these efforts includes Refs. [ref] .

Polarization Transfer Observables in Elastic Electron Proton Scattering at $Q^2 = $2.5, 5.2, 6.8, and 8.5 GeV$^2$ · Implications of GEp-2$γ$ for TPEX · 1.00
Note that there are several other approaches to the radiative corrections for $e^- p$ scattering (see [ref] , for example), but their discussion is beyond the scope of this paper.

A new event generator for the elastic scattering of charged leptons on protons · Theoretical foundations · 0.99

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

Thus ⃗P = 0, p0 = p′ 0 = E′, |⃗ p1| = M√τ , ⃗Q2 = M 2 cot2 (θe/2), E′ = M √ τ + 1/ sin2 (θe/2), where θe is the electron scattering angle in laboratory frame. Before integrating over angle θκ let us write the explicit expression for real part of inte- grand: Re 1 (P±) (Q) = a (a + b cos θκ) ∓ δ1δ2 (a2 + δ2 1) ( (a + b cos θκ)2 + δ2 2 ), where a = −κ2 0 − ...

View on Pith

[2] [2]

L. C. Maximon and J. A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. C 62, 054320 (2000)

View on Pith 2000

[3] [3]

E. A. Kuraev, N. P. Merenkov and V. S. Fadin, Sov. J. Nucl. P hys. 47, 1009 (1988) [Yad. Fiz. 47, 1593 (1988)]

View on Pith 1988

[4] [4]

A. Afanasev, I. Akushevich and N. Merenkov, Phys. Rev. D 64, 113009 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[5] [5]

S. Dubni¸ cka, E. Kuraev, M. Se¸ canski and A. Vinnikov, hep-ph/0507242

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[6] [6]

L. W. Mo and Y. S. Tsai, Rev. Mod. Phys. 41, 205 (1969)

View on Pith 1969

[7] [7]

E. A. Kuraev and V. S. Fadin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 41, 466 (1985) [Yad. Fiz. 41, 733 (1985)]; M. Skrzypek, Acta Phys. Polon. B 23, 135 (1992)

View on Pith 1985

[8] [8]

J. Gunion and L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 345 (1973); V. Franco, Phys. Rev. D 8, 826 (1973); V. N. Boitsov, L.A. Kondratyuk and V.B. Kopeliovich , Sov. J. Nucl. Phys 16, 287 (1973); F. M. Lev, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 21, 45 (1973)

View on Pith 1973

[9] [9]

R. Blankenbecker and J. Gunion, Phys. Rev. D 4, 718 (1971)

View on Pith 1971

[10] [10]

V. V. Frolov et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 45 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[11] [11]

M. P. Rekalo, E. Tomasi-Gustafsson and D. Prout, Phys. R ev. C60, 042202 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[12] [12]

A. Akhiezer and M. P. Rekalo, Dokl. Akad. Nauk USSR, 180, 1081 (1968); Sov. J. Part. Nucl. 4, 277 (1974)

View on Pith 1968

[13] [13]

M. K. Jones et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 1398; O. Gayou et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 092301; V. Punjabi et al. , Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 055202

View on Pith 2000

[14] [14]

I. A. Qattan et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 142301 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[15] [15]

E. Tomasi-Gustafsson and G. I. Gakh, Phys. Rev. C 72, 015209 (2005). 21

View on Pith 2005

[16] [16]

P. G. Blunden, W. Melnitchouk and J. A. Tjon, Phys. Rev. C 72, 034612 (2005). A. V. Afana- sev, S. J. Brodsky, C. E. Carlson, Y. C. Chen and M. Vanderhaeg hen, Phys. Rev. D 72, 013008 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[17] [17]

E. A. Kuraev, V. V. Bytev, Y. M. Bystritskiy and E. Tomasi -Gustafsson, Phys. Rev. D 74, 013003 (2006)

View on Pith 2006

[18] [18]

S. Kondratyuk, P. G. Blunden, W. Melnitchouk and J. A. Tj on, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 172503 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[19] [19]

A.I. Akhiezer and M.P. Rekalo ”Electrodynamics of Hadr ons”, Kiev, Naukova Dumka, 1977

View on Pith 1977

[20] [20]

T. Janssens, R. Hofstadter, E. B. Hughes and M. R. Yerian , Phys. Rev. 142, 922 (1966)

View on Pith 1966

[21] [21]

L. Andivahis et al. , Phys. Rev. D 50, 5491 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[22] [22]

M. E. Christy et al. [E94110 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. C 70, 015206 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[23] [23]

A. V. Afanasev, I. Akushevich and N. P. Merenkov, Phys. R ev. D 65, 013006 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[24] [24]

E. Tomasi-Gustafsson, arXiv:hep-ph/0412216

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[25] [25]

E. A. Kuraev, M. Secansky and E. Tomasi-Gustafsson, Phy s. Rev. D 73, 125016 (2006)

View on Pith 2006

[26] [26]

V. Bytev et al. , in preparation. 22

View on Pith