1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% file template.tex %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % This is a template file for The European Physical Journal
4: %
5: % Copy it to a new file with a new name and use it as the basis
6: % for your article
7: %
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Springer-Verlag %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9: %
10: \begin{filecontents}{leer.eps}
11: %!PS-Adobe-2.0 EPSF-2.0
12: %%CreationDate: Mon Jul 13 16:51:17 1992
13: %%DocumentFonts: (atend)
14: %%Pages: 0 1
15: %%BoundingBox: 72 31 601 342
16: %%EndComments
17: gsave
18: 72 31 moveto
19: 72 342 lineto
20: 601 342 lineto
21: 601 31 lineto
22: 72 31 lineto
23: showpage
24: grestore
25: %%Trailer
26: %%DocumentFonts: Helvetica
27: \end{filecontents}
28: %
29: \documentclass[epj]{svjour}
30: % Remove option referee for final version
31: %
32: % Remove any % below to load the required packages
33: %\usepackage{latexsym}
34: \usepackage{graphicx}
35: \usepackage[english,german,finnish]{babel}
36: % etc
37: %
38: \newcommand{\Real}{\mathrm{Re}\,}
39: \newcommand{\Imag}{\mathrm{Im}\,}
40: \selectlanguage{english}
41: \begin{document}
42: %
43: \title{Forward analysis of $\pi$N scattering with an expansion method}
44:
45: \author{P.~Mets\"a% etc
46: % \thanks is optional - remove next line if not needed
47: } % Do not remove
48:
49: \institute{Department of Physical Sciences, P.O.\@ Box 64, FIN-00014
50: University of Helsinki, Finland}
51: %
52: \date{Received: date / Revised version: date}
53: % The correct dates will be entered by Springer
54: %
55: \abstract{ The $\pi$N forward scattering data are analyzed using an
56: expansion method, where the invariant amplitudes are represented by
57: expansions satisfying the forward dispersion relations. The
58: experimental errors of the data are taken into account through the
59: covariance matrix of the coefficients of the expansions in a careful
60: error analysis. From the results, some coefficients, $c_{n0}^\pm$,
61: of the subthreshold expansions have been calculated with proper
62: error bars.
63: %
64: \PACS{
65: {13.75.Gx}{Pion-baryon interactions}
66: } % end of PACS codes
67: } %end of abstract
68: %
69: \maketitle
70: %
71: \section{Introduction}
72: \label{intro}
73:
74: Forward dispersion relations are a special case in $\pi$N scattering
75: analysis, because in forward scattering the optical theorem provides a
76: direct connection to total cross section data. An expansion method
77: provides a tool for guaranteeing that the forward dispersion relations
78: are satisfied. Since the last forward analysis with the expansion
79: method~\cite{kaiser}, there has not been very much experimental
80: activity in the forward $\pi$N scattering. In particular, there are
81: no new total cross section data except the very high energy
82: measurements of the SELEX collaboration~\cite{selex}. However, there
83: is new information at the physical threshold from the very precise
84: pionic hydrogen experiments~\cite{schroder}, and, at low energy, from
85: some new integrated cross section
86: measurements~\cite{parttot2,parttot6} which are filling the gap
87: between the physical threshold and the first total cross section data
88: points. Both of these have a direct impact on the subthreshold
89: expansion.
90:
91: The aim of the present article is to construct invariant amplitudes
92: $C^\pm$ at $t=0$ to constrain a phase shift analysis with fixed-$t$
93: analyticity. Furthermore, information on $\Imag C^-(\omega)$ can be
94: used to study the Goldberger-Miyazawa-Oehme sum rule~\cite{gmo1,gmo2}.
95: The expansion method is briefly explained in sect.~\ref{sec:pieexp},
96: the experimental input is described in sect.~\ref{sec:input}, the
97: minimizations are discussed in sect.~\ref{sec:results} together with
98: the evaluation of the subthreshold expansion coefficients. In
99: sect.~\ref{sec:conclusions} the conclusions are drawn.
100:
101: \section{The expansion method}
102: \label{sec:pieexp}
103:
104: The isospin even pion-nucleon $C$-amplitude satisfies the
105: forward dispersion relation~\cite{hoehler}
106: \begin{eqnarray}
107: \label{eq:dispersion}
108: & &\Real C^+(\nu,t=0) = -\frac{g^2}{m}\frac{\nu^2}{\nu^2-\nu_B^2}+
109: \nonumber \\
110: & &
111: + \frac{2\nu^2}{\pi} P\!\!\!\!\!\!\int_{\nu_T}^\infty
112: \frac{\mathrm{d}\nu'}{\nu'}
113: \frac{\Imag C^+(\nu',t=0)}{\nu^{'2}-\nu^2} \nonumber \\
114: & &
115: + C^+(\nu=0,t=0).
116: \end{eqnarray}
117: Here $\nu$ is the crossing antisymmetric Mandelstam variable
118: $\nu=(s-u)/4m=\omega+t/4m$ with $\omega$ denoting the pion total
119: laboratory energy, $g^2$ is the $\pi$N coupling constant,
120: $\nu_B=-\mu^2/2m$ and $C^+(\nu=0,t=0)$ is the subtraction constant.
121: Everywhere we denote the proton mass by $m$ and the charged pion mass
122: by $\mu$. In practice, equations like (\ref{eq:dispersion}) are
123: difficult to use as constraints, because the principal value
124: integration is difficult to handle with experimental input. In
125: particular, integrating over experimental data is unreliable and
126: propagating the errors of the input to the error bars of the output is
127: very difficult. Instead, we express the isospin even and odd
128: amplitudes using \foreignlanguage{finnish}{Pietarinen}'s versions of
129: the expansions~\cite{handbook,pie1972} at $t=0$
130: \begin{equation}
131: \label{eq:pieexp}
132: C^\pm(\nu) = C^\pm_N(\nu) +
133: H^\pm(Z)\sum_{k=1}^N c^\pm_k [Z(\nu)]^{k-1},
134: \end{equation}
135: where the base function $Z(\nu)$ is a conformal mapping
136: \begin{equation}
137: \label{eq:basefunction}
138: Z(\nu)=\frac{\alpha-\sqrt{\nu^2_T-\nu^2}}{\alpha+\sqrt{\nu^2_T-\nu^2}},
139: \end{equation}
140: which maps the physical cut to the upper half of the unit circle in
141: such a way, that the threshold is mapped to $(1,0)$ and the infinity
142: to $(-1,0)$. The threshold of the cut in the forward direction is
143: $\nu_T=\mu$ and the parameter $\alpha$ controls which energy is mapped
144: to $(0,1)$; there the pion laboratory momentum
145: $p_\mathrm{lab}=\alpha$. The numerical value of $\alpha$
146: in~(\ref{eq:basefunction}) is not crucial, but it is fixed to
147: $\alpha=0.72$~GeV, which seems to give the most rapid
148: convergence~\cite{pie1972}. By using $Z(\nu)$ as the base function,
149: the analyticity structure of the invariant amplitudes is a built-in
150: feature and not only a constraint, so the resulting amplitudes will
151: satisfy the dispersion relations exactly. In the expansion method
152: there is also the great advantage, that experimental input for both
153: real and imaginary parts with their errors can be used simultaneously.
154: The pole terms~\cite{handbook,pie1976}
155: \begin{eqnarray}
156: \label{eq:CNs}
157: C^+_N(\nu) &=&
158: -\frac{\mu^2g^2}{2m}\left(\frac{1}{m^2-s}+\frac{1}{m^2-u}\right),
159: \nonumber \\
160: C^-_N(\nu) &=&
161: \frac{(s-u)g^2}{4m}\left(\frac{1}{m^2-s}+\frac{1}{m^2-u}\right)
162: \end{eqnarray}
163: are treated separately and the assumed high
164: energy behaviour in the forward direction is taken care of by the
165: functions $H^\pm(Z(\nu))$~\cite{handbook}
166: \begin{eqnarray}
167: \label{eq:hpms}
168: H^+(Z) &=& \frac{1+\left\{r_1 \log[r_2(1+Z)]\right\}^2}{1+Z}, \nonumber \\
169: H^-(Z) &=& 4 m \nu (1+Z)^{1-\alpha_\rho}, \\
170: \mbox{where } r_1&=&0.144, \ r_2=44.154 \ ,\mbox{ and } \alpha_\rho=0.48.
171: \nonumber
172: \end{eqnarray}
173: The number of terms in eq.~(\ref{eq:pieexp}), \emph{i.e.} $N$, was
174: taken to be 40 in the earlier work~\cite{pie1972,pie1976}, but here we
175: take $N=100$, which should fully guarantee that the truncation error
176: is negligible.
177:
178: An essential ingredient of the expansion technique is the convergence
179: test function (CTF)~\cite{pie1972,pie1976,pie1973}. It is not
180: sufficient to fix the coefficients $c_k^\pm$ in the expansion at
181: fixed-$t$ by fitting to data, but, in addition, to guarantee the
182: smoothness of the invariant amplitudes an additional term in the
183: $\chi^2$ sum is needed. The convergence test function part takes the
184: form~\cite{pie1972}
185: \begin{equation}
186: \label{eq:ctf}
187: \chi^2_\mathrm{ctf} = W^+_\mathrm{ctf} \sum_{k=1}^N (c_k^+)^2 k^3 +
188: W^-_\mathrm{ctf} \sum_{k=1}^N (c_k^-)^2 k^3,
189: \end{equation}
190: where the weights are
191: \begin{equation}
192: \label{eq:ctfweight}
193: W^\pm_\mathrm{ctf} = \frac{N}{\sum_{k=1}^N k^3\left[(\bar{c}_k^\pm)^2+
194: (\Delta\bar{c}_k^\pm)^2\right]}.
195: \end{equation}
196: Here $\bar{c}_k^\pm$ and $\Delta\bar{c}_k^\pm$ denote the expansion
197: coefficients and their corresponding errors in the isospin even and
198: odd $C$-amplitudes at the $\chi^2$-minimum, \emph{i.e.} at the best
199: fit to the data and to the contraints. So, the minimum has to be
200: roughly known before the final CTF weights can be calculated. This
201: leads to an iterative minimization.
202:
203: \section{The input}
204: \label{sec:input}
205:
206: As input for the fit, we used total cross section
207: data~\cite{pdg,pdgurl}, integrated cross section
208: measurements~\cite{parttot2,parttot6}, real-to-imaginary
209: ratios~\cite{pdg,pdgurl}, real parts of the isoscalar
210: $D$-amplitude~\cite{wiedner,joram,denz}, the $s$-wave scattering
211: length $a_{\pi^-p}$ from pionic hydrogen
212: experiments~\cite{schroder,gmo2} and the scattering length
213: $a_{\pi^+p}$ from discrete phase shift analysis~\cite{gmo2}. To begin
214: with, our full forward data base contains 1098 data points in 142 data
215: sets covering the laboratory momenta from 0.077~GeV/c to 640~GeV/c in
216: addition to the threshold values.
217:
218: % For one-column wide figures use
219: \begin{figure}
220: % Use the relevant command for your figure-insertion program
221: % to insert the figure file.
222: % For example, with the option graphics use
223: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
224: \includegraphics{tcsmcor.eps}
225: }
226: % If not, use
227: %\vspace{5cm} % Give the correct figure height in cm
228: \caption{Electromagnetic (solid line) and $\Delta$-splitting
229: corrections (dashed line) for $\sigma^\mathrm{Tot}_{\pi^-p}$.}
230: \label{fig:emcorpimp} % Give a unique label
231: \end{figure}
232:
233: \begin{figure}
234: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
235: \includegraphics{tcspcor.eps}
236: }
237: \caption{Electromagnetic correction for
238: $\sigma^\mathrm{Tot}_{\pi^+p}$.}
239: \label{fig:emcorpipp} % Give a unique label
240: \end{figure}
241: The electromagnetic effects were removed from the total cross sections
242: and from the real parts of the $D$-amplitude by the Tromborg
243: method~\cite{tromborg} for the laboratory momenta
244: $p_\mathrm{lab}<725$~MeV$\!$/c. The corrections have been published
245: only up to 655~MeV/c, but here we employ a smooth extrapolation up to
246: 725~MeV/c. In order to apply the Tromborg method, an existing partial
247: wave solution is needed. We used the KA84 solution~\cite{ka84}, but
248: the corrections are practically unchanged, if one chooses to take the
249: KH80~\cite{kh80} or the FA02 solution~\cite{fa02} instead. The
250: $\Delta$-splitting was treated by using the $P_{33}$ phase shift
251: differences from ref.~\cite{abaev}, which are very similar to the
252: earlier $P_{33}$-corrections of Bugg~\cite{bugg2,bugg3}. Bugg gives
253: the corrections for a discrete set of momenta from
254: $p_\mathrm{lab}=183$~MeV/c to $p_\mathrm{lab}=408$~MeV/c, while with
255: ref.~\cite{abaev} it is possible to treat all data up to
256: $p_\mathrm{lab}=725$~MeV/c. The corrections $\Delta
257: \sigma^\mathrm{Tot}_{\pi^\pm p}=\sigma^\mathrm{Tot}_{\pi^\pm p} -
258: \sigma^\mathrm{Tot,hadr}_{\pi^\pm p}$ applied to the measured total
259: cross sections to obtain the isospin invariant hadronic ones are
260: displayed in figs.~\ref{fig:emcorpimp} and~\ref{fig:emcorpipp}. After
261: applying these corrections, the data were assumed to be purely
262: hadronic and isospin invariant. That is reasonable, because any
263: remaining effects are expected to be considerably smaller than the
264: experimental errors. Above $p_\mathrm{lab}=$~725~MeV/c the one photon
265: exchange picture with the Coulomb phase and form factors was assumed
266: to be applicable. For the pionic hydrogen results $\chi$PT-based
267: electromagnetic corrections~\cite{gasser} were applied to extract the
268: hadronic quantities. To make use of the integrated differential cross
269: section data~\cite{parttot2,parttot6}, they were corrected to hadronic
270: cross sections integrated over the whole angular range by adding
271: corrections calculated with the KA84 solution.
272:
273: The error bars of the total cross sections of Carter
274: \emph{et~al.}~\cite{carter} were modified by adding the errors due to
275: the 0.25\% uncertainty in the beam momenta, as explained by
276: Bugg~\cite{bugg1}. Also, the corrections adopted by
277: Giacomelli~\cite{giacomelli} were applied to the total cross sections
278: of Citron \emph{et~al.}~\cite{citron}.
279:
280: The forward data alone are not enough to stabilize the low energy
281: behaviour, \emph{i.e.} the energy range from the threshold up to the
282: first total cross section data point. In order to stabilize it
283: without introducing any bias from earlier solutions, we used our
284: current partial wave solution to constrain the momentum range 20~MeV/c
285: $\le p_\mathrm{lab} \le$ 155~MeV/c. The details of the partial wave
286: solution will be published elsewhere~\cite{pekkopw}.
287:
288: \section{Results}
289: \label{sec:results}
290:
291: The coefficients $c_k^\pm$ of Pietarinen's
292: expansions~(\ref{eq:pieexp}) were fixed in a $\chi^2$-minimization
293: using the program \texttt{MINUIT}~\cite{minuit1,minuit2}. The actual
294: minimization was carried out three times, because the convergence test
295: function method depends on the previously determined minimum. The
296: data were allowed to float inside the quoted systematic errors and the
297: floating factors were searched simultaneously with the coefficients of
298: Pietarinen's expansions. In the process of the minimization we had to
299: discard six data sets, which were too discrepant even after the
300: renormalization: the $\pi^\pm p$ total cross section sets of Devlin
301: \emph{et al.}~\cite{devlin65}, two $\pi^+p$ total cross section sets
302: of Brisson \emph{et~al.}~\cite{brisson59,brisson61}, the $\pi^+p$
303: total cross section set of Ignatenko \emph{et~al.}~\cite{ignatenko56}
304: and the $\pi^+p$ total cross section set of Lindenbaum
305: \emph{et~al.}~\cite{lindenbaum}. In addition to these, we had to
306: discard the three lowest data points of Davidson~\emph{et
307: al.}~\cite{davidson}. After excluding these data, we were left with
308: 967 data points in 136 sets and the average $\chi^2$ per data point
309: was 1.47.
310: \begin{figure}
311: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
312: \includegraphics{tcsmprs.eps}
313: }
314: \caption{Difference plot of the total $\pi^-p$ cross section. The
315: dashed lines give the error band of the fit. The Carter
316: data~\protect{\cite{carter}} are marked with crosses, the Pedroni
317: data~\protect{\cite{pedroni}} with bars and the Davidson
318: data~\protect{\cite{davidson}} with circles.}
319: \label{fig:tcsm} % Give a unique label
320: \end{figure}
321: \begin{figure}
322: \resizebox{0.5\textwidth}{!}{%
323: \includegraphics{tcspprs.eps}
324: }
325: \caption{Difference plot of the total $\pi^+p$ cross section. For the
326: explanation of the symbols for the data, see the caption of
327: fig.~\ref{fig:tcsm}.}
328: \label{fig:tcsp} % Give a unique label
329: \end{figure}
330: The differences between the data and the total cross sections
331: calculated from the fit are plotted in figs.~\ref{fig:tcsm}
332: and~\ref{fig:tcsp} for the laboratory momentum range
333: $p_\mathrm{lab}=$150 -- 500~MeV/c. At higher energy the results are
334: in good agreement with the earlier work of the Karlsruhe
335: group~\cite{kaiser}.
336:
337: Inside the Mandelstam triangle, it is useful to formulate the $\pi$N
338: amplitudes in terms of the subthreshold expansion with the
339: pseudovector Born terms subtracted, $\bar{C}^\pm=C^\pm-C^\pm_{N,pv}$.
340: \begin{table*}
341: %\center
342: \caption{The coefficients of the subthreshold expansion of $\bar{C}^+$
343: in natural units (powers of $\mu^{-1}$). In the error estimate the first
344: part is the statistical error, and the second part is the combination of
345: the uncertainty in the coupling constant and the effect of
346: conflicting data sets. They should be added linearly in order to get
347: the total error. The Karlsruhe results are
348: from table~2.4.7.1.\@ of ref.~\protect{\cite{hoehler}}
349: (N.B. $c^\pm_{n0}=d^\pm_{n0}$).}
350: \label{tab:dp} % Give a unique label
351: % For LaTeX tables use
352: \begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l}
353: %\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
354: \hline
355: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Present analysis} &
356: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Karlsruhe} &
357: \multicolumn{1}{c}{SM99~\cite{martin}} \\
358: %\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
359: \hline
360: $c^+_{00}$ & $-1.20^\dagger\pm0.004\pm0.03$ & $-1.46\pm$0.10 &
361: $-1.26\pm$0.02 \\
362: $c^+_{10}$ & $\phantom-1.119\pm$0.001$\pm$0.002 &
363: $\phantom-1.12\pm$0.02 &
364: $\phantom-1.11\pm$0.02 \\
365: $c^+_{20}$ & $\phantom-0.2015\pm$0.0005$\pm$0.0008 &
366: $\phantom-0.200\pm$0.005 &
367: $\phantom-0.20\pm$0.01 \\
368: $c^+_{30}$ & $\phantom-0.0568\pm$0.0003$\pm$0.0001 & - & - \\
369: %\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
370: \hline
371: \end{tabular}\\
372: $^\dagger$The value resulting from a calculation with isospin invariance.
373: \end{table*}
374: \begin{table*}
375: \caption{The coefficients of the subthreshold expansion of $\bar{C}^-/\nu$
376: in natural units (powers of $\mu^{-1}$). The error estimates are
377: displayed in the same manner as in table~\ref{tab:dp}
378: except for $c^-_{00}$, where the $g^2$ dependence and
379: the effect of conflicting data are separated.}
380: \label{tab:dm} % Give a unique label
381: % For LaTeX tables use
382: \begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l}
383: \hline\noalign{}
384: %\hline
385: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Present analysis} &
386: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Karlsruhe} &
387: \multicolumn{1}{c}{SM99~\cite{martin}} \\
388: \hline
389: $c^-_{00}$ & $\phantom-1.41\pm$0.002$^\mathrm{a}
390: \pm0.05^\mathrm{b}\pm0.01^\mathrm{c}$
391: & $\phantom-1.53\pm$0.02 & $\phantom-1.43\pm$0.01 \\
392: $c^-_{10}$ & $-0.167\pm$0.001$\pm$0.001 & $-0.167\pm$0.005 &
393: $-0.16\pm$0.01 \\
394: $c^-_{20}$ & $-0.0388\pm$0.0004$\pm$0.0005 & $-0.039\pm$0.002 &
395: $-0.04\pm$0.01 \\
396: $c^-_{30}$ & $-0.0092\pm$0.0002$\pm$0.0001 & - & - \\
397: \hline
398: \end{tabular}\\
399: $^\mathrm{a}$The statistical error. \\
400: $^\mathrm{b}$The $g^2$ dependence, see sect.~\ref{sec:results}. \\
401: $^\mathrm{c}$Due to conflicting data.
402: % Or use
403: %\vspace*{5cm} % with the correct table height
404: \end{table*}
405: The subthreshold expansion coefficients are the coefficients in the
406: expansions based on crossing~\cite{hoehler}
407: \begin{eqnarray}
408: \label{eq:stexp}
409: \bar{C}^+(\nu,t) &=& \sum_{n,m} c^+_{nm} \nu^{2n} t^m\nonumber \\
410: \bar{C}^-(\nu,t)/\nu &=& \sum_{n,m} c^-_{nm} \nu^{2n} t^m,
411: \end{eqnarray}
412: where the isospin odd amplitude is divided by $\nu$ in order to get a
413: crossing even quantity. One gets the subthreshold parameters
414: $c_{n0}^\pm$ by Taylor expanding Pietarinen's representation
415: (\ref{eq:pieexp}) with the pseudovector Born term subtracted
416: around $\nu=t=0$
417: \begin{eqnarray}
418: \label{eq:stcofs}
419: c^+_{n0} &=& \frac{1}{n!} \sum_{k=1}^N c_k^+
420: \left.\frac{\partial^n}{\partial(\nu^2)^n} \left[ Z^{k-1}H^+(Z) \right]
421: \right|_{\nu=t=0}
422: \\
423: c^-_{n0} &=& \frac{g^2 \delta_{n0}}{2m^2} +
424: %\frac{4m}{n!} \sum_{k=1}^N c_k^-
425: %\frac{\partial^n}{\partial(\nu^2)^n} \left[ Z^{k-1} (1+Z)^\rho \right].
426: \left.\frac{1}{n!} \sum_{k=1}^N c_k^-
427: \frac{\partial^n}{\partial(\nu^2)^n} \left[ Z^{k-1} H^-(Z)/\nu \right]
428: \right|_{\nu=t=0}.
429: \nonumber
430: \end{eqnarray}
431: The numerical values of the lowest coefficients are given in
432: tables~\ref{tab:dp} and~\ref{tab:dm} together with the Karlsruhe
433: values~\cite{hoehler} and the GWU/VPI SM99 values~\cite{martin}.
434:
435:
436: The statistical errors of the subthreshold expansion
437: coefficients~(\ref{eq:stcofs}) are calculated by the standard way,
438: \emph{i.e.}
439: \begin{equation}
440: \label{eq:stater}
441: (\Delta c_{n0})^2 = \sum_{k,l} \frac{\partial c_{n0}}{\partial c_k}
442: \frac{\partial c_{n0}}{\partial c_l} V_{kl},
443: \end{equation}
444: where $V_{kl}$ is the covariance matrix of the Pietarinen
445: coefficients~$c_k$, calculated by \texttt{MINUIT}. In Pietarinen's
446: method, the minimized function is not a pure $\chi^2$-distribution,
447: but the combination of a $\chi^2$-distribution and the convergence
448: test function, which generally makes the minimum steeper and gives too
449: optimistic error bars. In practice 9.5\% of the probability
450: distribution at the minimum is due to CTF. Therefore, in order to get
451: the proper error bars, we increased the statistical errors of
452: eq.~(\ref{eq:stater}) by 10\%.
453:
454: Two sources of systematic errors are studied explicitly. The effect
455: of the uncertainty in the coupling constant was estimated by making
456: calculations with various values\footnote{The pseudoscalar coupling
457: constant $g$ is related to the pseudovector coupling $f$ by
458: $g^2=4\pi f^2(2m/\mu)^2$.} in the range
459: $f^2=0.075\pm0.002$~\cite{gmo2}. The conflicting data sets are
460: causing another systematic effect, which was estimated by making the
461: analysis with different subsets of the data. The combinations of
462: these effects are displayed in tables \ref{tab:dp} and \ref{tab:dm}.
463:
464: The coefficient $c^+_{00}$ can be written as
465: \begin{equation}
466: \label{eq:c00}
467: c^+_{00}=4\pi(1+x)a^+_{0+} + g^2 \frac{x^3}{4-x^2}\frac{1}{\mu}-J^+,
468: \end{equation}
469: where $x=\mu/m$, $a^+_{0+}$ is the isoscalar $s$-wave scattering length
470: and $J^+$ is the integral
471: \begin{equation}
472: \label{eq:Jplus}
473: J^+ = \frac{2\mu^2}{\pi} \int_0^\infty \frac{\sigma^+(k)\,
474: \mathrm{d}k}{\omega^2}.
475: \end{equation}
476: Here $\sigma^+$ is the average $\sigma^+ =
477: (\sigma^\mathrm{Tot}_{\pi^-p}+\sigma^\mathrm{Tot}_{\pi^+p})/2$. The
478: uncertainty in $c^+_{00}$ is mainly due to the first term of
479: eq.~(\ref{eq:c00}). The value of the integral $J^+$ is quite stable,
480: we obtain $J^+ = 1.459\pm0.005$~$\mu^{-1}$, if the integrations are
481: performed as in ref.~\cite{gmo2}. The result can be compared with the
482: \foreignlanguage{german}{Karlsruhe} value~\cite{kochpreprint} $J^+ =
483: 1.478\pm0.010$~$\mu^{-1}$. If the values for $a_{\pi^\pm p}$ derived
484: in ref.~\cite{gmo2} are used and isospin invariance is assumed, we
485: obtain $a^+_{0+}=0.0085\pm0.0016$~$\mu^{-1}$ which gives the value in
486: table~\ref{tab:dp}. However, employing the isovector scattering
487: lengths $a^-_{0+}$ derived from the width measurements of pionic
488: hydrogen to fix the isoscalar scattering length from
489: $a^+_{0+}=a_{\pi^-p}-a^-_{0+}$ would give a range of values for
490: $c^+_{00}$ extending from $-1.17$~$\mu^{-1}$ to $-1.41$~$\mu^{-1}$.
491: The detailed value depends on which data one wants to fit,
492: \emph{e.g.}, the Denz \emph{et al.} $\Real D^+$ data~\cite{denz}
493: favour a more negative $c^+_{00}$.
494:
495: To fix $a^+_{0+}$ it is also possible to make use of the measured
496: level shift in pionic deuterium~\cite{hauser}. For recent evaluations
497: of the $\pi^-d$ level shift, see \emph{e.g.}
498: ref.~\cite{ericson1,beane,doring,meissner}. Mei\ss ner
499: \emph{et~al.}~\cite{meissner} include isospin breaking corrections to
500: $\mathcal{O}(p^2)$ in chiral perturbation theory and give the result
501: $a^+_{0+}=0.0015\pm0.0022$~$\mu^{-1}$ which would lead to
502: $c^+_{00}=-1.30$~$\mu^{-1}$, a result well within the above range of
503: values.
504:
505: In table~\ref{tab:dm}, the explicit $g^2$ dependence of the parameter
506: $c^-_{00}$ is given separately as well as the effects due to
507: conflicting data sets. For all other parameter values the coupling
508: constant dependence, the conflicting data effects and the statistical
509: errors are added linearly. Beyond $c^\pm_{00}$ all the other
510: parameters are very stable.
511:
512: If one uses the value of the coupling constant from Ericson \emph{et
513: al.}~\cite{ericson2,ericson3}, $g^2/4\pi=14.07\pm0.17$ instead of
514: the value of ref.~\cite{gmo2}, the value of the first coefficient of
515: the isospin odd expansion will be $c^-_{00}=1.49\pm0.03$~$\mu^{-2}$.
516: The changes in the other coefficients are small.
517:
518: \section{Conclusions}
519: \label{sec:conclusions}
520:
521: The resulting expansions give smooth forward isospin even and odd
522: $C$-amplitudes, which can be used as a starting point for a phase
523: shift analysis with fixed-$t$ constraints as well as constraints for a
524: discrete phase shift analysis~\cite{abaevWIP}. Also, when the
525: $\Delta$-splitting corrections have been taken into account, the
526: hadronic $\pi^\pm p$ total cross sections can be calculated and used
527: to evaluate the Goldberger-Miyazawa-Oehme sum rule~\cite{gmo2}.
528:
529: The resulting forward subthreshold expansion co\-ef\-fi\-cients are in
530: excellent agreement with the earlier evaluations of the Karlsruhe
531: group except for $c^\pm_{00}$, where the effects due to the coupling
532: constant and the threshold amplitudes, obtained from pionic hydrogen
533: experiments, are important.
534:
535: \begin{acknowledgement}
536: I wish to thank E.~Pietarinen for useful exchanges in the early
537: phase of the project, A.M.~Green and M.~Sainio for useful comments
538: on the manuscript and V.~Abaev for many fruitful discussions.
539: Also, I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Magnus
540: Ehrnrooth Foundation and the Waldemar von Frenckell Foundation.
541: This work was supported in part by the EU Contract
542: MRTN-CT-2006-035482, FLAVIAnet.
543: \end{acknowledgement}
544:
545: %
546: % BibTeX users please use
547: % \bibliographystyle{}
548: % \bibliography{}
549: %
550: % Non-BibTeX users please use
551: \begin{thebibliography}{}
552: %
553: % and use \bibitem to create references.
554: %
555: \bibitem{kaiser} G.~H\"ohler, F.~Kaiser, \textit{Review and Tables
556: of Pion-Nucleon Forward Amplitudes}, (Kernforschungszentrum
557: Karlsruhe, KfK~3027, Germany 1980).
558: \bibitem{selex} U.~Dersch \emph{et~al.}, Nucl. Phys. B \textbf{579},
559: 277 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ex/9910052].
560: \bibitem{schroder} H.-Ch.~Schr\"oder \emph{et~al.}, Eur. Phys. J.
561: C \textbf{21}, 473 (2001).
562: \bibitem{parttot2} E.~Friedman \emph{et~al.}, Nucl. Phys. A
563: \textbf{514}, 601 (1990);\\ E.~Friedman, $\pi$N Newsletter
564: \textbf{15}, 37 (1999).
565: \bibitem{parttot6} B.J.~Kriss \emph{et~al.}, Phys. Rev. C \textbf{59},
566: 1480 (1999).
567: \bibitem{gmo1} M.L.~Goldberger, H.~Miyazawa, R.~Oehme, Phys. Rev.
568: \textbf{99}, 986 (1955).
569: \bibitem{gmo2} V.V.~Abaev, P.~Mets\"a, M.E.~Sainio, Eur. Phys. J. A
570: \textbf{32}, 321 (2007) [arXiv:0704.3167].
571: \bibitem{hoehler} G.~H\"ohler, \textit{Pion-Nucleon Scattering},
572: Landolt-B\"ornstein, edited by H.~Schopper, Vol.I/9b2
573: (Springer, Berlin 1983).
574: \bibitem{handbook} G.~H\"ohler, F.~Kaiser, R.~Koch, E.~Pietarinen,
575: \textit{Handbook of Pion-Nucleon Scattering}, (Institut f\"ur
576: Theoretische Kernphysik der Universit\"at Karlsruhe, Physics Data
577: Nr.~12-1, ISSN~0344-8401, Germany 1979).
578: \bibitem{pie1972} E.~Pietarinen, Nuovo Cim. A \textbf{12}, 522 (1972).
579: \bibitem{pie1976} E.~Pietarinen, Nucl. Phys. B \textbf{107},
580: 21 (1976).
581: \bibitem{pie1973} E.~Pietarinen, Nucl. Phys. B \textbf{55}, 541 (1973).
582: \bibitem{pdg} W.-M. Yao \emph{et~al.}, J. of Phys. G \textbf{33}, 1
583: (2006).
584: \bibitem{pdgurl}
585: \texttt{http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/hadronic-xsections/hadron.html}
586: \bibitem{wiedner} U.~Wiedner \emph{et~al.}, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{40},
587: 3568 (1989).
588: \bibitem{joram} Ch.~Joram \emph{et~al.}, Phys. Rev. C \textbf{51}, 2144
589: (1995).
590: \bibitem{denz} H.~Denz \emph{et~al.}, Phys. Lett. B \textbf{633}, 209
591: (2006) [arXiv:nucl-ex/0512006].
592: \bibitem{tromborg} B.~Tromborg, S.~Waldenstr\o m, I.~\O verb\o,
593: Phys. Rev. D \textbf{15}, 725 (1977).
594: \bibitem{ka84} R.~Koch, Z. Phys. C \textbf{29}, 597 (1985).
595: \bibitem{kh80} R.~Koch, E.~Pietarinen, Nucl. Phys. A \textbf{336},
596: 331 (1980).
597: \bibitem{fa02} R.A.~Arndt, W.J.~Briscoe, I.I.~Strakovsky,
598: R.L.~Workman, M.M.~Pavan, Phys. Rev. C \textbf{69}, 035213
599: (2004) [arXiv:nucl-th/0311089].
600: \bibitem{abaev} V.V.~Abaev, S.P.~Kruglov, Z. Phys. A \textbf{352}, 85
601: (1995).
602: \bibitem{bugg2} D.V.~Bugg, $\pi$N Newsletter \textbf{6}, 7 (1992).
603: \bibitem{bugg3} D.V.~Bugg \emph{et~al.}, Nucl. Phys. B \textbf{26},
604: 588 (1971).
605: \bibitem{gasser} J.~Gasser, M.A.~Ivanov, E.~Lipartia, M.~Moj\v zi\v s,
606: A.~Rusetsky, Eur. Phys. J. C \textbf{26}, 13 (2002)
607: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206068].
608: \bibitem{carter} A.A.~Carter, J.R.~Williams, D.V.~Bugg, P.J.~Bussey,
609: D.R.~Dance, Nucl. Phys. B \textbf{26}, 445 (1971).
610: \bibitem{bugg1} D.V.~Bugg, Eur. Phys. J. C \textbf{33}, 505 (2004).
611: \bibitem{giacomelli} G.~Giacomelli, Prog. in Nucl. Phys.
612: \textbf{12/2}, 1 (1970).
613: \bibitem{citron} A.~Citron \emph{et~al.}, Phys. Rev. \textbf{144},
614: 1101 (1966).
615: \bibitem{pekkopw} P.~Mets\"a \emph{et~al.}, work in progress.
616: \bibitem{minuit1} F.~James, M.~Roos, Comp. Phys. Comm. \textbf{10},
617: 343 (1975).
618: \bibitem{minuit2} F.~James, \textit{MINUIT Function Minimization and
619: Error Analysis Reference Manual}, (Computing and Networks
620: Division, CERN Geneva 1998).
621: \bibitem{devlin65} T.J.~Devlin \emph{et~al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
622: \textbf{14}, 1031 (1965).
623: \bibitem{brisson59} J.C.~Brisson \emph{et~al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
624: \textbf{3}, 561 (1959).
625: \bibitem{brisson61} J.C.~Brisson \emph{et~al.}, Nuovo Cim. \textbf{19}, 210
626: (1961).
627: \bibitem{ignatenko56} A.E.~Ignatenko, A.I.~Mukhin, E.B.~Ozerov,
628: B.~Pontecorvo, Soviet Physics JETP \textbf{3}, 10 (1956).
629: \bibitem{lindenbaum} S.J.~Lindenbaum, Luke C.L.~Yuan, Phys. Rev.
630: \textbf{111}, 1380 (1958).
631: \bibitem{davidson} D.~Davidson \emph{et~al.}, Phys. Rev. D \textbf{6},
632: 1199 (1972).
633: \bibitem{pedroni} E.~Pedroni \emph{et~al.}, Nucl. Phys. A \textbf{300},
634: 321 (1978).
635: \bibitem{martin} B.R.~Martin, G.C~Oades, $\pi$N Newsletter
636: \textbf{16}, 133 (2002).
637: \bibitem{kochpreprint} R.~Koch, Karlsruhe TKP 85-5, 1985, unpublished.
638: \bibitem{hauser} P.~Hauser \emph{et~al.}, Phys. Rev. C \textbf{58},
639: 1869 (1998).
640: \bibitem{ericson1} T.E.O.~Ericson, B.~Loiseau, A.W.~Thomas, Phys. Rev.
641: C \textbf{66}, 014005 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0009312].
642: \bibitem{beane} S.R.~Beane, V.~Bernard, E.~Epelbaum, U.-G.~Mei\ss
643: ner, D.R.~Phillips, Nucl. Phys. A \textbf{720}, 399 (2003)
644: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206219].
645: \bibitem{doring} M.~D\"oring, E.~Oset, M.J.~Vicente Vacas, Phys. Rev.
646: C \textbf{70}, 045203 (2004) [arXiv:nucl-th/0402086].
647: \bibitem{meissner} U.-G.~Mei\ss ner, U.~Raha, A.~Rusetsky, Phys.
648: Lett. B \textbf{639}, 478 (2006) [arXiv:nucl-th/0512035].
649: \bibitem{ericson2} T.E.O.~Ericson, A.N.~Ivanov, Phys. Lett. B.
650: \textbf{634}, 39 (2006).
651: \bibitem{ericson3} T.E.O.~Ericson, B.~Loiseau, S.~Wycech, Int. J. Mod.
652: Phys. A \textbf{20}, 1650 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0411230].
653: \bibitem{abaevWIP} V.V.~Abaev \emph{et~al.}, work in progress.
654: %\bibitem{RefJ}
655: % Format for Journal Reference
656: %Author, Journal \textbf{Volume}, (year) page numbers.
657: % Format for books
658: %\bibitem{RefB}
659: %Author, \textit{Book title} (Publisher, place year) page numbers
660: % etc
661: \end{thebibliography}
662:
663:
664: \end{document}
665:
666: % end of file template.tex
667: