The Proton Radius Puzzle

Gil Paz

Department of Physics and Astronomy, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA

Abstract: In 2010 the proton charge radius was extracted for the first time from muonic hydrogen, a bound state of a muon and a proton. The value obtained was five standard deviations away from the regular hydrogen extraction. Taken at face value, this might be an indication of a new force in nature coupling to muons, but not to electrons. It also forces us to reexamine our understanding of the structure of the proton. Here I describe an ongoing theoretical research effort that seeks to address this “proton radius puzzle”. In particular, I will present the development of new effective field theoretical tools that seek to directly connect muonic hydrogen and muon-proton scattering.

Talk presented at the 2019 Meeting of the Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical Society (DPF2019), July 29–August 2, 2019, Northeastern University, Boston, C1907293.

1 Introduction

How big is the proton? To answer such a question one needs to define how the proton size is measured. For example, one can use an electromagnetic probe to determine the proton’s size. A “one photon” electromagnetic interaction with an on-shell proton can be described by two form 2 factors: F1 and F2. These form factors are functions of q , the square of the four-momentum transfer. Two different linear combinations of F1 and F2 define the “electric” form factor: GE = 2 2 F1 + q F2/4M , where M is the proton mass, and the “magnetic” form factor: GM = F1 + F2. The 2 p p
2 p 2 2 slope of GE at q = 0 defines the proton charge radius rE via rE = 6 dGE(q )/dq |q2=0. Notice that this definition1 is Lorentz invariant [1, 2, 3]. p Until 2010, the main method to extract rE was via electronic hydrogen spectroscopy. For p example, the 2010 edition of the particle data book [5] lists the value rE = 0.8768(69) fm from the p CODATA publication [6]. Many extractions of rE from electron-proton scattering were listed in [5] p but they were not used. These span the period of 1963-2005 and the range of 0.8 − 0.9 fm for rE. p p In 2010, the first extraction of rE from muonic hydrogen was reported as rE = 0.84184(67) fm [7]. Surprisingly, it was five standard deviations lower than the regular hydrogen value. This nine-year old discrepancy is known as the “proton radius puzzle” and it is still unresolved. The most recent p arXiv:1909.08108v3 [hep-ph] 26 Sep 2019 value obtained from muonic hydrogen is rE = 0.84087(39) fm [8], while the most recent CODATA p value is rE = 0.8751(61) fm [9]. The proton charge radius can be extracted in four types of experiments: regular hydrogen spectroscopy, muonic hydrogen spectroscopy, electron-proton scattering, and muon-proton scatter- ing. The proton radius puzzle has motivated new experiments in three of these areas. For muonic hydrogen spectroscopy there are no plans by other groups to repeat the measurement. For electron- proton scattering a new low-Q2 electron-proton scattering experiment called ISR was performed by p the A1 collaboration. They found rE = 0.81(8) fm [10] which cannot distinguish between the two p values of rE. Improved results by the same collaboration were presented at a 2018 MITP workshop on the proton radius puzzle [11]. Another new low-Q2 electron-proton scattering experiment called

1 p In a specific frame, called the Breit frame, rE is often identified with the root-mean-square radius of the charge distribution, see [4] for a recent discussion.

1 “PRad” [12] was recently performed at Jefferson Lab. Its results are not published yet2. Other planned scattering experiments were also presented at the MITP workshop [11]. Muon-proton p scattering is the least studied method to extract rE. A new muon-proton scattering experiment called MUSE was built at the Paul Scherrer Institute [14]. It started taking data in 2019. It is the first muon scattering measurement with the required precision to address the proton radius puzzle [11]. For regular hydrogen spectroscopy several new measurements were published in the last two p years with error bars comparable to the 2014 CODATA value. These are rE = 0.8335(95) fm from p 2S − 4P transition [15] by a group in Germany, rE = 0.877(13) fm from 1S − 3S transition [16] by p a group in France, and rE = 0.833(10) fm from 2S − 2P transition [17] by a group in Canada. A preliminary result from 1S − 3S transition by the group in Germany was reported at the workshop p [11]. They find rE smaller than that of [16]. Thus soon there will be two measurements of the same p 1S − 3S transition that extract different values of rE. p A different method to extract rE is by using lattice QCD. In the near future one can expect p precise determinations of rE using lattice QCD that can distinguish between the conflicting exper- imental values [18]. In addition to the new experiments, there was also considerable activity on the theoretical side. In the following I describe some advances in theory3 related to electron-proton scattering (section 2), muonic hydrogen spectroscopy (section 3), and muon-proton scattering (section 4), focusing on work I was involved in. The conclusions are presented in section 5.

2 Advances in the theory of electron-proton scattering

p Extractions of rE from electron-proton cross section data or even the form factor itself require an 2 extrapolation to q = 0. Since GE’s functional form is not known, such an extrapolation is not simple. Extractions that use different functional forms for the same data can lead to different p values of rE. The proliferation of functional forms might be one of the reasons that electron-proton p scattering values of rE were not used in the 2010 PDG average [5]. One of the important constraints on the form factor is its analytic structure. The form factor is 4 2 2 analytic in the complex plane outside a cut that starts at the two-pion threshold at q = 4mπ and extends to infinity. This implies, for example, that a simple Taylor expansion in q2 cannot have a 2 2 radius of convergence beyond q = 4mπ. In order to incorporate the analytic structure constraints one can use the so-called z expansion. By changing variables from q2 to z we map the domain of analyticity onto the unit disk |z| < 1. Since the form factor is analytic inside the unit |z| = 1 circle it can be expanded as a Taylor series,

∞ p 2 X 2 k GE(q ) = ak z(q ) . (1) k=0 For meson form factors the z expansion is by now a standard default method. For example, the 2019 Flavor Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG) review [24] only shows B-meson form factors as a function of z and not q2. In [19] Richard Hill and I were the first to suggest to use the z expansion p for baryon form factors in general and for extraction of rE in particular. Since then it has been p used to extract rE [19, 25], the proton magnetic radius [20, 25], the neutron magnetic radius [20], 2Preliminary results were presented at a conference [13], but are not available publicly. 3 p The theory related to the extraction of rE from regular hydrogen spectroscopy is simpler compared to the other methods and no issues were raised about it. 4The q2 threshold can be increased by including neutron and pion data [19, 20, 21]. See [22, 23] for a recent analysis of the relevant pion data.

2 GM GM

3 3

2 2

1 1

Q2HGeV2L z 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

-1 -1

-2 -2

Figure 1: Figure 2 of [20]. Proton (above the horizontal axes) and neutron (below) magnetic form factor data as a function of Q2 (left) and as a function of z (right). See [20] for details. the nucleon axial mass [26, 27] and radius [28], etc. It is also being used in lattice QCD studies of nucleon form factors. Here are two simple examples of the utility of the z expansion. First, it implies that the historical dipole model of the form factor is not consistent with the analytic properties of the form k factor. Since z are orthogonal over the unit |z| = 1 circle, the coefficients ak are just Fourier coefficients, see [19]. A dipole form factor leads to a linear growth of ak with k in contradiction to the analyticity of the form factor inside the unit circle. This is also in conflict with perturbative QCD [28]. Second, form factor plotted as a function of z can be simpler than the same data plotted as a function of q2. See for example figure 2 of [20] reproduced here as figure 1. As a function of Q2 = −q2 one would assume that there is a significant curvature, but in the z variable the data is almost linear. This implies that in the z variable one can extract with a reasonable uncertainty p only an intercept and a slope (equivalent to rE). To go beyond that requires better data. A similar phenomena is known from meson form factors [29]. p For an extraction of rE that does not depend on the number of terms in the series, the coefficients ak must be bounded. For lowest-lying meson form factors one can use constraints from unitarity. For baryon form factors unitarity only partially constrain the coefficients, see [19] for details, and one has to use other bounds as in [19, 20, 25]. Some other z-expansion based studies do not bound p the coefficients of the z expansion [30, 31, 32] which may lead to issues in the extraction of rE. The values obtained using z-expansion analyses [19, 25] disfavor the muonic hydrogen result. p More recently, lattice extractions of rE have used the z expansion, see e.g. [33, 34, 35], although p currently the errors are typically too large to distinguish between the two values of rE. p Besides the z-expansion analyses there were other recent extractions of rE that used other functional forms. These include dipole [36], polynomial [32], continued fraction [32], and modified z expansion [37]. Some extractions include inputs from chiral effective field theory [38, 39]. Most of these [36, 32, 39] favor the muonic hydrogen result. For pre-2010 extractions see [5].

3 Advances in the theory of muonic hydrogen spectroscopy

p The first extraction of rE from muonic hydrogen has led to much discussion in the literature. It is p reflected in the different theoretical formula relating the measured energy level shift and rE used in 2010 in [7] and in 2013 in [8]. Due to its precision, the muonic hydrogen result involves a more complicated hadronic input, beyond a one-photon probe of the proton structure. In particular, as emphasized in [40], two-photon effects are a potential source of uncertainty. The imaginary part

3 of the two-photon exchange amplitude is related to experimental data: form factors and structure functions. Unfortunately the amplitude cannot be reconstructed from its imaginary part and the 2 2 knowledge of a subtraction function W1(0,Q ) is required. The subtraction function W1(0,Q ) is not known exactly and unlike the imaginary part cannot be extracted directly from data. This 2 introduces a potential large source of uncertainty. Luckily, some information on W1(0,Q ) can be obtained by considering its small and large Q2 limits. Intuitively, in the small Q2 limit the photon “sees” the proton “almost” like an elementary particle. Non-Relativistic QED (NRQED) effective theory can be used [40] to give a rigorous interpretation to this intuition. Richard Hill and I used this to obtain the small Q2 expansion [40]:

2  3   2 Q 2mpβ 2 2 2 p 2 2 p 2 W1(0,Q ) = 2ap(2 + ap) + 2 − ap − (1 + ap) mp(rM ) − mp(rE) , (2) mp α 3 where ap is the anomalous magnetic moment of the proton, β is the magnetic polarizability of the p proton, and rM is the proton magnetic radius. Intuitively in the large Q2 limit the photon “sees” the quarks and gluons inside the proton. The 2 2 large Q expression for W1(0,Q ) can be calculated using the operator product expansion. There are two parts to the asymptotic form: spin-0 and spin-2. The spin-0 contribution was calculated in 1978 by John Collins [41]. Richard Hill and I corrected it in 2016 [42] and also calculated the spin-2 contribution which was unknown before. All together the leading power result is [42] 2    2mp X (0) 1 X (2) W (0,Q2) = − c f + c f˜(0) + (c − c ) f + (c − c ) f (2) , (3) 1 Q2 1f f 1g g 4 2f 3f f 2g 3g g f f (0) ˜(0) where cif and cig with i = 1, 2, 3 are the Wilson coefficients, ff and fg are the spin-0 matrix (2) (2) elements, and ff and fg are the spin-2 matrix elements. See [42] for details. 2 In [42] we interpolated the two limits to give an estimate for the contribution of W1(0,Q ) to two-photon exchange effects. The uncertainty on the interpolation is larger than in [8], but it is too small to explain the discrepancy. The estimate in [42] is consistent with the literature [43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50]. On the other hand, [51] finds a much larger uncertainty. Ultimately one would like to probe the muon-proton two-photon exchange effects by using a different method such as muon-proton scattering.

4 Advances in the theory of muon-proton scattering

p The MUSE experiment is intended to extract rE for the first time from muon-proton scattering . It can also be sensitive to possibly anomalous two-photon exchange effects. In making predictions for MUSE, a phenomenological approach was taken in a series of papers by Oleksandr Tomalak and Marc Vanderhaeghen [52, 53, 54, 55]. My collaborators and I have studied the utility of effective field theory (EFT) methods. In muonic hydrogen the muon’s typical momentum is mα ∼ 1 MeV, and both the muon and the proton can be treated non-relativistically. For MUSE the muon’s typical momentum is about the muon mass m ∼ 100 MeV, and the muon must be treated relativistically, while the proton can be treated non-relativistically. Richard Hill, Gabriel Lee, Mikhail Solon and I suggested an EFT, called QED-NRQED, that is applicable for such kinematics5 in [58].

5The dynamical degrees of freedom of this theory are proton, muon, and photon. The pion is not included as a dynamical degree of freedom. This is different from an earlier EFT applicable to the MUSE kinematics considered by Antonio Pineda in [56, 57] that contains very similar operators.

4 Steven Dye, Matthew Gonderinger, and I studied some aspects of this EFT in [59]. Denoting by m(M) the muon (proton) mass and using Z = 1 for a proton, we showed that one-photon exchange O(Zα) QED-NRQED scattering at power 1/M 2 reproduces Rosenbluth scattering [60], and the two-photon exchange O(Z2α2) QED-NRQED scattering at leading power reproduces the scattering of a relativistic fermion off a static potential [61, 62]. Two photon exchange effects start at O(Z2α2) and power 1/M 2. For QED-NRQED they appear as two four-fermion operators: b b L = 1 ψ†ψ `γ0` + 2 ψ†σiψ `γiγ5` + O 1/M 3
, (4) ψ` M 2 M 2

In a recent paper [63] Steven Dye, Matthew Gonderinger, and I determined b1 and b2 at O(Z2α2). For that we calculated the ` + p → ` + p off-shell forward scattering amplitude at O(Z2α2) and power 1/M 2 in the effective and full theory in both Feynman and Coulomb gauges. We considered two cases of full theories: a toy example of a non-relativistic point particle, and the real proton which is described by a hadronic tensor. p.p. p.p. 2 2 2 For the toy example we found b1 = 0 and b2 = Ql Z α [16/3 + log (M/2Λ)], where Λ p.p. 2 2 is the UV cutoff of QED-NRQED. Surprisingly b1 = 0 at O(Z α ). For the case of the real proton we give implicit expressions for b1 and b2 in terms of the components of the hadronic 2 0 tensor. Considering only the contribution of F1(0), F2(0) and M F1(0) to the Wilson coefficients 2 2 −1 2 2 −1 2 we found: b1(α Q` ) = 0 + ··· , b2(α Q` ) = F1(0) [16/3 + log (M/2Λ)] + F1(0)F2(0)16/3 + 2 2 0 F2(0) [17/12 − log (M/2Λ) + 3 log (Q/M)] /2+··· . The ellipsis denotes non F1(0),F2(0),M F1(0) terms. See [63] for details. Surprisingly, again there is no contribution to b1. Why? 2 2 The vanishing of b1 at O(Z α ) arises from a combination of two phenomena. On the EFT side the diagrams involve the propagator (±l0 −~l 2/2M + i)−1, with the plus (minus) sign corresponds to a direct (crossed) diagram. Expanding in 1/M, the 1/M 2 terms come with opposite signs. Direct and crossed diagrams usually appear as a sum for spin-independent terms and cancel each other. The exception are the IR divergent terms, but these must cancel in the matching. On the full theory side the amplitude involves integrals over the hadronic tensor W µν(p, l). Defining k = (m,~0) and taking the limit m → 0 ⇒ k → 0 the full theory amplitude is

iM Z d4l uγ (/k − /l + m)γ u W µν(p, l) Z d4l uγ (−/l)γ u W µν(p, l) Full = µ ν → µ ν . (5) 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 −Q` e (2π) (k − l) − m (l − λ ) (2π) l (l − λ ) Translation invariance implies W µν(p, l) = W νµ(p, −l) [63]. Since the full theory spin-independent amplitude is symmetric in µ ↔ ν, it vanishes for m → 0. 2 2 The combination of the two phenomena leads to the vanishing of b1 at O(Z α ). Notice that it does not obviously follow from a symmetry of the EFT. It might be a one-loop or power 1/M 2 “accident”. In [63] we showed that for the toy example of a point-particle full theory there is a term that contributes to spin-independent matching coefficient at power 1/M 3. Beyond the proton radius puzzle itself, this result can be of interest in physics beyond the standard model, where generating hierarchies, even “little” ones, between the weak scale and the scale of new physics is an active topic of research. It would be interesting to see if the vanishing of 2 2 b1 at O(Z α ) can be used to generate such hierarchies.

5 Conclusions

The proton radius puzzle has motivated the reevaluation of our understanding of the proton. It has led to new experiments and theoretical advances. Here I described three such advances in theory

5 that I was involved in: electron-proton scattering, muonic hydrogen spectroscopy, and muon-proton scattering. For the theory of electron-proton scattering one of the important advances is the introduction of the z expansion for baryon form factors in [19]. Based on its previous success in describing meson form factors, one can expect this method to become more and more prevalent in extraction p of rE from electron-proton scattering. Extractions based on the z expansion generally disfavor the muonic hydrogen result. Even if the regular and muonic hydrogen values were to agree, this is an issue that will need to be resolved. See [25] for further discussion. For the theory of muonic hydrogen spectroscopy one of the challenges is the calculation of two-photon exchange effects. The fact that we cannot reproduce the full hadronic tensor from experimental data implies that there is an inherent uncertainty that cannot be reduced. The missing 2 2 piece is the subtraction function W1(0,Q ). Its small Q expansion is known for some time. In 2016 its large Q2 was calculated for the first time [42] combining the spin-2 part and correcting the spin-0 part calculated in 1978 [41]. The high and low Q2 constraints should be fulfilled by any theory that aims to estimate the two-photon exchange effects. A simple interpolation of the two limits done in [42] finds a larger uncertainty than the one used in analyzing experimental data, but not large enough to explain the discrepancy. For the theory of muon-proton scattering one of the main tasks is making prediction for MUSE, the new muon-proton scattering experiment. As for spectroscopy, the main challenge are two- photon exchange effects. My collaborators and I have suggested to use an EFT [58], called QED- NRQED, to calculate muon-proton scattering. The Wilson coefficients of the effective theory up to p dimension six depended on the proton’s charge, magnetic moment, rE, and two types of two-photon exchange effects: spin-independent and spin-dependent. In [59] we studied one-photon exchange effects up to sub-sub-leading power and two-photon exchange effects at leading power and showed that they reproduce known results from the literature. Recently we have calculated the Wilson coefficients of the two contact interactions in terms of the components of the hadronic tensor. Surprisingly, the spin-independent Wilson coefficient vanishes at O(Z2α2). This does not follow from any symmetry of the effective theory. It also implies that MUSE will be much less sensitive p to such effects, but its extraction of rE will be more robust. In summary, after more than nine years of experimental and theoretical work we have learned a lot but the proton radius puzzle is still puzzling... .

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy grant de-sc0007983 and by a Career Development Chair award from Wayne State University. The work reported here was supported by grants from DOE, NSF, NIST, Simons Foundation, and Fermilab.

References

[1] M. I. Eides, H. Grotch and V. A. Shelyuto, Phys. Rept. 342, 63 (2001) [hep-ph/0002158].

[2] M. I. Eides, H. Grotch, and V. A. Shelyuto, “Theory of Light Hydrogenic Bound States,” Springer 2007, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.

[3] M. I. Eides, “On Some Recent Ideas on the Proton Radius Puzzle and Lepton Anomalous Magnetic Moments,” [arXiv:1402.5860 [hep-ph]].

6 [4] G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C 99, no. 3, 035202 (2019) [arXiv:1812.02714 [nucl-th]].

[5] K. Nakamura et al. [Particle Data Group], J. Phys. G 37, 075021 (2010).

[6] P. J. Mohr, B. N. Taylor and D. B. Newell, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 633 (2008) [arXiv:0801.0028 [physics.atom-ph]].

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

[8] A. Antognini et al., Science 339, 417 (2013).

[9] P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell and B. N. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035009 (2016) [arXiv:1507.07956 [physics.atom-ph]].

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

[11] See the talks at the 2018 MITP workshop “Precision Measurements and Fundamental Physics: The Proton Radius Puzzle and Beyond” https://indico.mitp.uni-mainz.de/event/132/timetable/#all

[12] A. H. Gasparian [PRad Collaboration], JPS Conf. Proc. 13, 020052 (2017).

[13] http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/HAW18/APS_epitome

[14] R. Gilman et al. [MUSE Collaboration], arXiv:1709.09753 [physics.ins-det].

[15] A. Beyer et al., Science 358, 79 (2017).

[16] H. Fleurbaey et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 183001 (2018) [arXiv:1801.08816 [physics.atom-ph]].

[17] N. Bezginov, T. Valdez, M. Horbatsch, A. Marsman, A. C. Vutha and E. A. Hessels, Science 365, 1007 (2019).

[18] Constantia Alexandrou private communication.

[19] R. J. Hill and G. Paz, Phys. Rev. D 82, 113005 (2010) [arXiv:1008.4619 [hep-ph]].

[20] Z. Epstein, G. Paz and J. Roy, Phys. Rev. D 90, 074027 (2014) [arXiv:1407.5683 [hep-ph]].

[21] G. Paz, AIP Conf. Proc. 1441, no. 1, 146 (2012) [arXiv:1109.5708 [hep-ph]].

[22] M. Hoferichter, J. Ruiz de Elvira, B. Kubis and U. G. Meiner, Phys. Rept. 625, 1 (2016) [arXiv:1510.06039 [hep-ph]].

[23] M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, J. Ruiz de Elvira, H.-W. Hammer and U.-G. Meiner, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, no. 11, 331 (2016) [arXiv:1609.06722 [hep-ph]].

[24] S. Aoki et al. [Flavour Lattice Averaging Group], arXiv:1902.08191 [hep-lat].

[25] G. Lee, J. R. Arrington and R. J. Hill, Phys. Rev. D 92, 013013 (2015) [arXiv:1505.01489 [hep-ph]].

[26] B. Bhattacharya, R. J. Hill and G. Paz, Phys. Rev. D 84, 073006 (2011) [arXiv:1108.0423 [hep-ph]].

7 [27] B. Bhattacharya, G. Paz and A. J. Tropiano, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 11, 113011 (2015) [arXiv:1510.05652 [hep-ph]].

[28] A. S. Meyer, M. Betancourt, R. Gran and R. J. Hill, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 11, 113015 (2016) [arXiv:1603.03048 [hep-ph]].

[29] R. J. Hill, eConf C 060409, 027 (2006) [hep-ph/0606023].

[30] I. T. Lorenz and U. G. Meiner, Phys. Lett. B 737, 57 (2014) [arXiv:1406.2962 [hep-ph]].

[31] I. T. Lorenz, U. G. Meiner, H.-W. Hammer and Y.-B. Dong, Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 1, 014023 (2015) [arXiv:1411.1704 [hep-ph]].

[32] K. Griffioen, C. Carlson and S. Maddox, Phys. Rev. C 93, no. 6, 065207 (2016) [arXiv:1509.06676 [nucl-ex]].

[33] C. Alexandrou, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, C. Kallidonis, G. Koutsou and A. Vaquero Aviles-Casco, Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 3, 034503 (2017) [arXiv:1706.00469 [hep- lat]].

[34] Y. C. Jang, T. Bhattacharya, R. Gupta, H. W. Lin and B. Yoon, EPJ Web Conf. 175, 06033 (2018) [arXiv:1801.01635 [hep-lat]].

[35] E. Shintani, K. I. Ishikawa, Y. Kuramashi, S. Sasaki and T. Yamazaki, arXiv:1811.07292 [hep-lat].

[36] D. W. Higinbotham, A. A. Kabir, V. Lin, D. Meekins, B. Norum and B. Sawatzky, Phys. Rev. C 93, 055207 (2016) [arXiv:1510.01293 [nucl-ex]].

[37] M. Horbatsch and E. A. Hessels, Phys. Rev. C 93, 015204 (2016) [arXiv:1509.05644 [nucl-ex]].

[38] M. Horbatsch, E. A. Hessels and A. Pineda, Phys. Rev. C 95, 035203 (2017) [arXiv:1610.09760 [nucl-th]].

[39] J. M. Alarc´on,D. W. Higinbotham, C. Weiss and Z. Ye, Phys. Rev. C 99, 044303 (2019) [arXiv:1809.06373 [hep-ph]].

[40] R. J. Hill and G. Paz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 160402 (2011) [arXiv:1103.4617 [hep-ph]].

[41] J. C. Collins, Nucl. Phys. B 149, 90 (1979) Erratum: [Nucl. Phys. B 153, 546 (1979)].

[42] R. J. Hill and G. Paz, Phys. Rev. D 95, 094017 (2017) [arXiv:1611.09917 [hep-ph]].

[43] K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. A 60, 3593 (1999)

[44] A. P. Martynenko, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 69, 1309 (2006). [hep-ph/0509236].

[45] D. Nevado and A. Pineda, Phys. Rev. C 77, 035202 (2008) [arXiv:0712.1294 [hep-ph]].

[46] C. E. Carlson and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. A 84, 020102 (2011). [arXiv:1101.5965 [hep-ph]].

[47] M. C. Birse and J. A. McGovern, Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 120 (2012)

[48] M. Gorchtein, F. J. Llanes-Estrada and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052501 (2013) [arXiv:1302.2807 [nucl-th]].

8 [49] J. M. Alarc´on,V. Lensky and V. Pascalutsa, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2852 (2014) [arXiv:1312.1219 [hep-ph]].

[50] C. Peset and A. Pineda, Nucl. Phys. B 887, 69 (2014) [arXiv:1406.4524 [hep-ph]].

[51] G. A. Miller, Phys. Lett. B 718, 1078 (2013) [arXiv:1209.4667 [nucl-th]].

[52] O. Tomalak and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D 90, 013006 (2014) [arXiv:1405.1600 [hep- ph]].

[53] O. Tomalak and M. Vanderhaeghen, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 125 (2016) [arXiv:1512.09113 [hep- ph]].

[54] O. Tomalak, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 517 (2017) [arXiv:1701.05514 [hep-ph]].

[55] O. Tomalak and M. Vanderhaeghen, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 514 (2018) [arXiv:1803.05349 [hep- ph]].

[56] A. Pineda, Phys. Rev. C 67, 025201 (2003) [hep-ph/0210210].

[57] A. Pineda, Phys. Rev. C 71, 065205 (2005) [hep-ph/0412142].

[58] R. J. Hill, G. Lee, G. Paz and M. P. Solon, Phys. Rev. D 87, 053017 (2013) [arXiv:1212.4508 [hep-ph]].

[59] S. P. Dye, M. Gonderinger and G. Paz, Phys. Rev. D 94, 013006 (2016) [arXiv:1602.07770 [hep-ph]].

[60] M. N. Rosenbluth, Phys. Rev. 79, 615 (1950). E. E. Chambers and R. Hofstadter, Phys. Rev. 103, 1454 (1956).

[61] R. H. Dalitz, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 206, 509 (1951).

[62] C. Itzykson and J. B. Zuber, “Quantum Field Theory,” New York, Usa: Mcgraw-hill (1980)

[63] S. P. Dye, M. Gonderinger and G. Paz, Phys. Rev. D 100, 054010 (2019) [arXiv:1812.05056 [hep-ph]].

9