1: \documentclass[a4paper,12pt,notitlepage,onecolumn,oneside]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx,longtable}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{cite}
5: \usepackage{float}
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7: \usepackage{subfigure}
8: \usepackage{a4wide}
9: \newcommand{\eqs}[1]{\begin{eqnarray}#1\end{eqnarray} }
10: \newcommand{\ce}[1]{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}
11: \newcommand{\ced}[2]{Eqs.~(\ref{#1}) \& (\ref{#2})}
12: \newcommand{\cf}[1]{{Figure~\ref{#1}}}
13: \newcommand{\ct}[1]{{Table~\ref{#1}}}
14: \newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}
15: \newcommand{\lvec}{\vec{\ell}}
16: \newcommand{\vect}[1]{\vec{#1}}
17: \newcommand{\vectc}[1]{\vec{#1}\,^2}
18: \newcommand{\mvec}[1]{|\vec{#1}|}
19: \newcommand{\matrice}[1]{\begin{matrix} #1\end{matrix} }
20: \newcommand{\ks}[1]{#1 \!\!\!\!\! \slash }
21: \newcommand{\Mvariable}[1]{#1}
22: \newcommand{\ga}{\gamma^5}
23: \newcommand{\gmu}{\gamma^\mu}
24: \newcommand{\gnu}{\gamma^\nu}
25: \newcommand{\gmup}{\gamma^{\mu'}}
26: \newcommand{\gnup}{\gamma^{\nu'}}
27: \newcommand{\grho}{\gamma^\rho}
28: \newcommand{\gsig}{\gamma^\sigma}
29: \newcommand{\grhop}{\gamma^{\rho'}}
30: \newcommand{\gsigp}{\gamma^{\sigma'}}
31: \newcommand{\gtau}{\gamma^{\tau}}
32: \newcommand{\gtaup}{\gamma^{\tau'}}
33: \newcommand{\gz}{\gamma^0}
34: \newcommand{\tr}{{\rm Tr}}
35: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}
36: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.}}
37: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
38: \renewcommand{\cal}{\mathcal}
39:
40: \begin{document}
41:
42: \title{The soft and the hard pomerons\\
43: in hadron elastic scattering at small $t$}
44: \author{J.R. Cudell$^{a}$, A. Lengyel$^{b}$ and E. Martynov$^{c}$\\~\\
45: \leftline{\small $^a$ Physique th\'eorique fondamentale, D\'ep. de Physique,
46: Universit\'e de Li\`ege, }\\
47: \leftline{\small ~~All\'ee du 6 Ao\^{u}t 17, b\^{a}t. B5a,
48: B-4000 Li\`ege~1, Belgium}\\
49: \leftline{\small ~~E-mail: JR.Cudell@ulg.ac.be}\\
50: \leftline{\small $^b$ Inst. of Electron Physics, Universitetska 21, UA-88000
51: Uzhgorod, Ukraine.
52: }\\
53: \leftline{\small ~~E-mail: sasha@len.uzhgorod.ua}\\
54: \leftline{\small $^c$ Bogolyubov Inst.
55: for Theoretical Physics, UA-03143 Kiev, Ukraine.
56: }\\
57: \leftline{\small ~~E-mail: martynov@bitp.kiev.ua}\\
58: }
59: \maketitle
60:
61: \begin{abstract}
62: We consider simple-pole descriptions of soft elastic scattering
63: for $pp$, $\bar pp$, $\pi^{\pm}p$ and $K^{\pm}p$. We work at
64: $t$ and $s$ small enough for rescatterings to be neglected, and
65: allow for the presence of a hard pomeron. After building
66: and discussing an exhaustive dataset, we show that simple poles
67: provide an excellent description of the data in the region
68: $- 0.5$ GeV$^2 \leq t \leq -0.1$ GeV$^2$, 6~GeV$\leq\sqrt{s}\leq$ 63~GeV.
69: We show that new form factors have to be used, and get
70: information on the trajectories of the soft and hard pomerons.
71: \end{abstract}
72: \noindent {\bf Keywords:} Hadron elastic scattering\\
73: \noindent {\bf PACS:} 13.85.-t,13.85.Dz, 11.55.-m, 12.40.Na, 13.60.Hb\\
74:
75: \section*{Introduction}
76: In recent papers \cite{clms}, we have shown that a model which includes
77: a hard pomeron reproduces very well the total cross sections and
78: the ratios $\rho$ of the real to imaginary parts of the forward
79: scattering amplitude,
80: while the description obtained from a soft pomeron only
81: is much less convincing \cite{COMPETE}. We considered the full set of forward
82: data \cite{t0set} for $pp$, $\bar p p$, $Kp$, $\pi p$, $\gamma p$ and
83: $\gamma\gamma$, and showed that the description extends down to $\sqrt{s}=5$
84: GeV.
85:
86: However, if one uses a simple pole
87: for the hard pomeron and a fit to all data for $\sqrt{s}\geq 5$~GeV,
88: the coupling of this new
89: trajectory is almost zero in $pp$ scattering, while it is non negligible
90: in $Kp$ and $\pi p$. The reason is simple: a hard pole, with an intercept
91: of about 1.45, needs to be unitarised at high energy. Hence the high-energy
92: $\bar p p$ data almost decouple any fast-rising pole\footnote{This explains the
93: very small coupling obtained in \cite{DLsig} and the bound of
94: \cite{precompete}.}. To see the hard singularity, one thus needs to limit
95: the energy range of the fit, and we found that for centre-of-mass energies
96: 5 GeV$\leq \sqrt{s}\leq$ 100 GeV the data were well described by a sum of four simple poles:
97: a charge-conjugation-odd ($C=-1$) exchange (corresponding to the $\rho$ and
98: $\omega$ exchanges and denoted $R_-$) with intercept 0.47, and three $C=+1$ exchanges,
99: with intercepts 0.61 ($f$ and $a_2$ trajectories denoted $R_+$), 1.073 (soft pomeron $S$)
100: and 1.45 (hard pomeron $H$).
101:
102: We then showed that it is possible to extend the fit to high energies,
103: provided that one unitarises the hard pomeron. The low-energy description
104: remains dominated by the pole term, whereas the multiple scatterings
105: tame the growth at high energy. However, despite the fact that the hard pomeron
106: intercept is very close to what is observed in deeply inelastic
107: scattering \cite{DisL}
108: and in photoproduction \cite{DppL}, it is not entirely sure that it is
109: present in soft scattering. Indeed, its couplings are small and
110: its contribution is less than 10\% for $\sqrt{s}<100$~GeV. Hence it
111: is important to look for confirmation of its presence in other soft
112: processes, and the obvious place to start from is elastic scattering.
113:
114: Although elastic scattering has been studied for a long time, its description
115: within Regge theory poses several problems:
116: \begin{itemize}
117: \item
118: There is no standard dataset: the data are present in the HEPDATA
119: system \cite{HEPDATA}, but they have not been gathered into a common format, some of
120: the included datasets are not published, and several are superseded. Furthermore,
121: the treatment of systematic errors is often obscure. This may explain
122: why many authors neglect the quality of their fits: most existing
123: models do not reproduce the data in a statistically acceptable manner.
124: \item
125: Maybe because of the absence of a standard dataset, most theoretical
126: works concentrate on $pp$ and $\bar p p$ data, and neglect $\pi p$
127: and $K p$ elastic scattering. As we showed in \cite{clms}, this may
128: however be the place to look for a hard pomeron.
129: \item
130: On the theoretical side, the situation is also more difficult: whereas at
131: $t=0$ one had to introduce coefficients in front of the Regge exchanges,
132: one now has to use form factors. These are a priori unknown. Also, there is no
133: reference fit with an acceptable $\chi^2$ per degree of freedom ($\chi^2$/d.o.f.).
134: \item
135: For the purpose of this paper,
136: one has to implement several cutoffs: first of all, the energy has to
137: be sufficient to use leading exchanges, and small enough to be able to
138: neglect rescatterings\footnote{or to absorb them in the
139: parameters describing the simple-pole exchanges.} (especially when we consider contributions from
140: a hard pomeron). Similar cut-offs need to be implemented in the
141: off-forward case: first of all, many datasets have inconsistencies in the first few bins, so that $|t|$ needs to be large enough\footnote{Besides, one needs to be away from the Coulomb interference
142: region.}.
143: At the same time, one needs
144: to be far from the dip region, where rescatterings are notoriously
145: important. Thus there must also be an upper cutoff in $|t|$.
146: \end{itemize}
147:
148: Our strategy in this paper will be to fix the parameters entering the
149: description of the data at $t=0$ \cite{clms}, and to compare a model
150: containing only a soft pomeron with a model where we add a hard pomeron.
151: After a theoretical summary fixing the conventions,
152: we shall recall the parametrisation of forward data in section 2.
153: In section 3, we will present the dataset which we are using,
154: discuss the problem of systematic errors, and use a
155: general method \cite{overlap} to determine the functions describing the
156: form factors of the various Regge exchanges. As an output, we shall also
157: be able to determine the position of the first cone in $t$, i.e. the
158: region where the rescatterings can be neglected.
159: In section 4, we shall then produce a fit using only a soft pomeron,
160: and show that it describes very well the elastic data.
161: In section 5, we shall give our results for the
162: hard pomeron case, and give constraints on its form factors and slope.
163:
164: \section{Theoretical framework}
165: We shall parametrise all exchanges by simple poles,
166: and limit ourselves to a region in $s$ and $t$ where these are dominant.
167: The amplitude $A^{ab}(s,t)$ that describes the elastic scattering of
168: hadrons $a$ and $b$
169: is normalised so that the total and the differential elastic
170: cross sections are given by
171: \begin{eqnarray}
172: \label{eq:sigtot}
173: \sigma_{tot}^{ab}(s)&=&\frac{1}{2q_{ab}\sqrt{s}}\Im mA^{ab}(s,0),\\
174: \frac{d\sigma_{el}^{ab}(s,t)}{dt}&=&\frac{1}{64\pi
175: sq_{ab}^{2}}|A^{ab}(s,t)|^{2},
176: \label{eq:sigel}
177: \end{eqnarray}
178: where
179: $q_{ab}=\sqrt{[(s-m_{a}^{2}-m_{b}^{2})^{2}-4m_{a}^{2}m_{b}^{2}]/4s}$
180: is the momentum of particles $a$ and $b$ in the centre-of-mass
181: system.
182:
183: Regge theory implies that one can write
184: $A(s,t)\equiv A(z_{t},t)$ where the
185: Regge variable, $z_{t}$, is the cosine of the scattering angle in the
186: crossed channel:
187: \begin{equation}\label{eq:cos}
188: z_{t}=\frac{t+2s_{ab}}{\sqrt{(4m_{a}^{2}-t)(4m_{b}^{2}-t)}}
189: \end{equation}
190: with $s_{ab}=s-m_{a}^{2}-m_{b}^{2}$.
191:
192: A simple-pole singularity (reggeon) in the complex $j$ plane
193: at $j=\alpha(t)$ then leads to a term in the amplitude
194: given by
195: \begin{equation}\label{eq:s-pole}
196: A_{R}^{ab}(z_{t},t)=16\pi^{2}[2\alpha(t)+1]\frac{\Gamma
197: (\alpha(t)+1/2)}{\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma(\alpha(t)+1)}\beta^{a}(t)\beta^{b}(t)
198: \eta(\alpha(t))P_{\alpha(t)}(z_{t}),
199: \end{equation}
200: where $\alpha(t)$ is the trajectory of the reggeon, $\beta^{i}(t)$ is
201: the coupling of the reggeon with particle $i$: $t$-channel
202: unitarity implies that the couplings factorise, and that the
203: dependence on the beam $a$ and target $b$ enters through the product
204: $\beta^{a}(t)\beta^{b}(t)$.
205: The signature factor
206: $\eta(\alpha(t))$ can be written\footnote{We chose the denominators to obtain
207: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:sigtot}, \ref{eq:sigel}) automatically, and absorbed their $t$
208: dependence in $\beta^i(t)$.}
209: \begin{equation}\label{eq:modsign}
210: \eta_{\xi}(\alpha(t))=\left
211: \{
212: \begin{array}{ll}
213: \displaystyle -\frac{\exp(-i\pi \alpha(t)/2)}{\sin(\pi
214: \alpha(0)/2))} &\quad
215: ({\rm crossing\ even},\ C=+1),\\
216: \displaystyle -i\frac{\exp(-i\pi \alpha(t)/2)}{\cos(\pi
217: \alpha(0)/2))} &\quad ({\rm crossing\ odd},\ C=-1).
218: \end{array}
219: \right.
220: \end{equation}
221:
222: At high energy $s\gg -t$, $z_{t}$ is large. This allows, taking into account
223: the asymptotics of the Legendre polynomials and using the variable
224: \begin{equation}\label{eq:zab}
225: \tilde s_{ab}=\frac{t+2s_{ab}}{s_{0}}, \qquad \mbox{with} \quad s_{0}=1\ \mbox{GeV}^{2}
226: \end{equation}
227: instead of $z_{t}$,
228: to re-absorb many of the factors of Eq.(\ref{eq:s-pole}) into the
229: definition of the couplings\footnote{This is in fact necessary if one considers
230: $\gamma p$ and $\gamma \gamma$ total cross sections for which $t=0$ and
231: $m_{a,b}=0$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:cos}). We also included a factor ${2^{-\alpha_R(0)}}$ so
232: that the definition of the couplings coincides with that used in [1].}
233: so that, for the scattering of $a$ on protons, the simple-pole
234: contribution to the amplitude becomes
235: \begin{equation}
236: A_{R}^{ap}(\tilde
237: s_{ap},t)=\frac{g^{a}_{R}}{2^{\alpha_R(0)}}
238: F^a_R(t)F^{p}_{R}(t)\ \eta_{\xi}({ \alpha_{R}(t)})\
239: \tilde s_{ap}^{\alpha_{R}(t)}.
240: \label{eq:pole}
241: \end{equation}
242: with $F^a_R(0)=1$, $a=$ $p$, $\pi$, $K$.
243:
244: \subsection{Trajectories}
245:
246: At high enough energies ($\sqrt{s}\geq 5$ GeV \cite{clms}), the amplitude is
247: dominated by a few exchanged trajectories.
248:
249: For the $C=-1$ part, we shall restrict ourselves
250: to a region in $t$ where it is
251: enough to consider meson trajectories: one of the reasons to limit ourselves
252: to the first cone is that we can forget the odderon contribution, which is known to
253: be negligible at $t=0$.
254:
255: For the $C=+1$ part, we shall first consider meson exchanges, as well
256: as a soft pomeron and a hard pomeron.
257:
258: We shall consider here scattering of $p$, $\bar p$, $\pi^\pm$ and $K^\pm$ on protons,
259: and we summarise the possible exchanged trajectories in Table~\ref{tab:trajs}.
260: \begin{table}
261: \begin{center}
262: \begin{tabular}[h]{|c|c|c|c|}
263: \hline
264: $a$ & $C=+1$ & $C=-1$ & $A^{ap}(s_{ap},t)$\\\hline
265: $p$ & $P, f, a_{2}$ & $ \omega ,\rho $ & $A^{pp}=P+f+a_{2}-\omega-\rho ,$\\
266: $\bar p$ & & & $A^{\bar p p}=P+f+a_{2}+\omega+\rho ,$\\\hline
267: $\pi^{+}$ & $P, f$ & $\rho $ & $A^{\pi^{+}p}=P+f-\rho ,$\\
268: $\pi^{-}$ & & & $A^{\pi^{-}p}=P+f+\rho ,$\\\hline
269: $K^{+}$ & $P, f, a_{2}$ & $\omega ,\rho $ & $A^{K^{+}p}=P+f+a_{2}-\omega-\rho ,$\\
270: $K^{-}$ & & & $A^{K^{-}p}=P+f+a_{2}+\omega+\rho ,$\\\hline
271: %$\gamma$ & $p$ & $P, f, a_{2}$ & - & $A^{\gamma p}=P+f $,\\
272: %$\gamma$ & $\gamma$ & $P, f, a_{2}$ & - & $A^{\gamma p}=P+f $,\\
273: \end{tabular}
274: \end{center}
275: \caption{The trajectories entering the amplitudes considered in this paper.}
276: \label{tab:trajs}
277: \end{table}
278:
279: Generally, the $\omega $, $\rho$, $f$ and $a_2$ trajectories are different:
280: they do not have coinciding intercepts or
281: slopes\cite{dgmp}. However, as each trajectory comes with three form
282: factors, we shall have to assume degeneracy for the $C=+1$
283: and for the $C=-1$ trajectories \cite{CKK}, in order to limit the number of
284: parameters.
285:
286: Hence the model that we are considering can be written:
287: \begin{equation}
288: A^{ap}(s,t)=A_+^{ap}(\tilde s_{ap},t)+A_S^{ap}(\tilde s_{ap},t)+A_H^{ap}(\tilde s_{ap},t)\mp A^{ap}_-(\tilde s_{ap})
289: \label{eq:amplitude}
290: \end{equation}
291: with the $-$ sign for the (positively charged) particles.
292:
293: \section{Description of the forward data}
294: We have shown in \cite{clms} that the data for $pp$, $\bar p p$, $\pi^\pm p$, $K^\pm p$,
295: $\gamma p$ and $\gamma\gamma$ can be well described from $\sqrt{s}=5$ GeV
296: to\footnote{The hadron-hadron data extend to 62.4 GeV.} 100 GeV
297: by either a soft pomeron, or a mixture of a soft pomeron and a hard pomeron,
298: the latter case being significantly better. We have also shown that the inclusion
299: of the subtraction constants that enter the dispersion relations lead to
300: a better description of the real part of the amplitude. The formula for the $\rho$ parameter
301: is then given by
302: \begin{equation}
303: \label{eq:final dr}
304: \rho _{\pm }\, \sigma _{\pm }=\frac{R_{ap}}{p}+\frac{E}{\pi p}{\textrm{P}}\int
305: _{m_{a}}^{\infty }\left[ \frac{\sigma _{\pm }}{E'(E'-E)}-\frac{\sigma _{\mp
306: }}{E'(E'+E)}\right] p'\, dE'
307: \end{equation}
308: where the \( + \) sign refers to the process \( ap\rightarrow ap \)
309: and the \( - \) sign to \( \bar{a}p\rightarrow \bar{a}p \), \( E \)
310: and $p$ are the energy and the momentum
311: of $a$ in the proton rest frame, P indicates
312: a principal-part integral, \( R_{ap} \) is the subtraction constant,
313: and $\sigma$ are the total cross sections. They are given
314: by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:sigtot}, \ref{eq:amplitude}) for $\sqrt{s}\geq 5$ GeV,
315: and fitted directly to the data at lower energy \cite{clms}.
316:
317: We give in Table 2 the values of the parameters resulting for a fit to
318: all data for $\sigma_{tot}$ and $\rho$ for $\bar p p$, $pp$, $\pi^\pm p$ and $K^\pm p$,
319: and for $\sigma_{tot}$ for $\gamma p$ and\footnote{We have used
320: the factorisation of the simple-pole residues to obtain the amplitude for $\gamma\gamma$ \cite{clms}.} $\gamma\gamma$.
321: We quote the values obtained in \cite{clms}
322: (for a model with both a soft and a hard
323: pomeron), and follow the same procedure for a model with a soft pomeron only.
324: Table~\ref{tab:chi-0} shows the quality of the fits. Clearly, even in this
325: modest energy range,
326: the inclusion of a hard pomeron makes the fits much better, particularly those to
327: the $\rho$ parameter for pions and kaons.
328: Converting the $\chi^2$/d.o.f.
329: into a confidence level (CL), one gets for the overall soft pomeron CL=6\%,
330: whereas the fit including a hard pomeron achieves CL=93\%. Nevertheless, as the existence of the hard
331: pomeron is not totally settled, we shall
332: keep both models in the following, and see how well they fare in the description of the elastic
333: data.
334: \begin{table}
335: \begin{center}
336: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
337: \hline
338: Parameter & soft pomeron & soft \& hard pomerons \\
339: \hline
340: $\alpha_{S}(0)$ & 1.0927 & 1.0728 \\
341: $\alpha_{H}(0)$ & - & 1.45 \\
342: $\alpha_{+}(0)$ & 0.61 & 0.61\\
343: $\alpha_{-}(0)$ & 0.47 & 0.47 \\\hline
344: $g_{H}^{p}$ & - & 0.10 \\
345: $g_{H}^{\pi}$ & - & 0.28 \\
346: $g_{H}^{K}$ & - & 0.30 \\\hline
347: $g_{S}^{p}$ & 49.5 & 56.2 \\
348: $g_{S}^{\pi}$ & 31.4 & 32.7 \\
349: $g_{S}^{K}$ & 27.7 & 28.3 \\\hline
350: $g_{+}^{p}$ & 177 & 158 \\
351: $g_{+}^{\pi}$ & 78 & 78 \\
352: $g_{+}^{K}$ & 43 & 46 \\\hline
353: $g_{-}^{p}$ & 81 & 79 \\
354: $g_{-}^{\pi}$ & 13.9 & 14.2 \\
355: $g_{-}^{K}$ & 32 & 32 \\
356: \hline
357: \end{tabular}
358: \end{center}
359: \caption{Values of the intercepts and couplings ($t=0$).}
360: \label{tab:teq}
361: \end{table}
362:
363: \bigskip
364:
365:
366: \begin{table}
367: \begin{center}
368: \begin{tabular}{|c|c||c||c|}
369: \hline Quantity & Number & soft & soft and hard \\
370: & of points $N$ &$\chi^{2}/N$ & $\chi^{2}/N$ \\
371: \hline
372: $\sigma_{tot}^{pp}$ & 104 & 1.2 & 0.86 \\
373: $\sigma_{tot}^{\bar pp}$ & 59 & 0.78 & 0.88 \\
374: $\sigma_{tot}^{\pi^{+}p}$ & 50 & 1.2 & 0.78 \\
375: $\sigma_{tot}^{\pi^{-}p}$ & 95 & 0.90 & 0.90 \\
376: $\sigma_{tot}^{K^{+}p}$ & 40 & 0.93 & 0.72 \\
377: $\sigma_{tot}^{K^{-}p}$ & 63 & 0.72 & 0.62 \\
378: $\sigma_{tot}^{\gamma p}$ & 38 & 0.61 & 0.57 \\
379: $\sigma_{tot}^{\gamma \gamma}$ & 34 & 0.87 & 0.74 \\
380: \hline
381: $\rho^{pp}$ & 64 & 1.59 & 1.62 \\
382: $\rho^{\bar pp}$ & 9 & 0.49 & 0.43 \\
383: $\rho^{\pi^{+}p}$ & 8 & 2.8 & 1.52 \\
384: $\rho^{\pi^{-}p}$ & 30 & 1.8 & 1.09 \\
385: $\rho^{K^{+}p}$ & 10 & 0.72 & 0.70 \\
386: $\rho^{K^{-}p}$ & 8 & 1.7 & 0.90 \\
387: \hline
388: Total & 603 & 1.07 & 0.95 \\
389: \hline
390: \end{tabular}
391: \end{center}
392: \caption{Partial $\chi^{2}$ for the total cross sections
393: $\sigma_{tot}$ and the ratios $\rho$.}\label{tab:chi-0}
394: \end{table}
395:
396: \section{The elastic dataset}
397: Throughout the last 40 years, there have been many measurements of the
398: differential elastic cross sections [\citen{ABE}-\citen{SCHIZ}]. In the present paper,
399: we shall use not only $pp$ and $\bar pp$ data, but also $K^\pm p$ and $\pi^\pm p$
400: data as the hard pomeron seems to couple more to mesons \cite{clms}. Fortunately,
401: most of these measurements have been communicated to the HEPDATA group \cite{HEPDATA},
402: so that one does not need to re-encode all the data. However, some basic work still
403: needs to be done, as there are 80 papers, with different conventions,
404: and various units. Once the translation into a common format has been achieved,
405: there are still a number of issues to be dealt with:
406: \begin{itemize}
407: \item Some of the data are preliminary or redundant. We chose to include
408: only final published data in the set that we are building;
409: \item The main systematic error usually comes from a poor knowledge of the beam
410: luminosity. This means that all the data of one run taken in a given experiment
411: at a given energy can be shifted up or down by a certain amount. Although we shall mostly treat
412: these errors as random (and add them quadratically to the statistical error), we
413: have encoded this information in the dataset.
414: Hence we have split the data into
415: subsets, to which correspond data in a given paper
416: with the same systematic error. This defines 263 different subsets of the data, shown
417: in Appendix~1. We shall also use this information to exclude subsets
418: which blatantly contradict the rest of the dataset.
419: \item Several experiments have not spelled out their systematic errors in
420: the published work, and these have to be reconstructed. Indeed, many
421: measurements are not absolute, but rather normalised by
422: extrapolating to the optical point $d\sigma_{el}/dt(t=0)$, which is known from
423: measurements of the total cross section. In that case, we have assigned
424: the error on the optical point ({\i.e.} twice that on the total cross section
425: used) as a systematic error on the subset.
426: \item In the case of bubble chamber experiments, such as \cite{BRICK}, the
427: luminosity was monitored, but it was included in the systematic uncertainty added to the
428: statistical one. We have thus subtracted it so that these data can be shifted
429: in the same way as the others.
430: \item In the case of \cite{SCHIZ}, we have added the $t$-dependent systematics
431: to the statistical error, and allowed 4\% in the global normalisation.
432: \item As we shall see in the subsequent sections of this paper,
433: some of the subsets \cite{BRUNETON,BOGOLYUBSKY,ARMITAGE,AKERLOF} are
434: in strong disagreement with the other sets considered. We shall
435: eventually exclude them from our analysis.
436: \end{itemize}
437: The global dataset \cite{Edata} contains 10188 points (we have restricted it to
438: data at $\sqrt{s}\geq 4$ GeV). We show some of its
439: details in the tables of the Appendix. The
440: present analysis, which concentrates on the first cone,
441: will include about a fourth of these data, as explained in the next section,
442: and shown in Table~\ref{tab:stats}.
443:
444: \begin{table}
445: \begin{center}
446: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
447: \hline
448: observable&$N_{pp}$&$N_{\bar p p}$&$N_{\pi^+ p}$&$N_{\pi^- p}$&$N_{K^+ p}$&$N_{K^-p}$&$N_{tot}$\\
449: \hline
450: $\sigma_{tot}$ (full set, all $\sqrt{s}$) & 261& 444 & 412& 606 & 208& 416&2347\\
451: this analysis& 104& 50 &50 &95 &40 & 63&402\\
452: \hline
453: $\rho$ (full set, all $\sqrt{s}$) &116 & 90 & 9 & 39 & 22 & 15&291\\
454: this analysis&64 &9 &8 &30 &10 & 8&129\\
455: \hline
456: $d\sigma_{el}/dt$ (full set, $\sqrt{s}\geq 4$ GeV) &4639& 1252& 802& 2169& 595& 731&10188\\
457: this analysis&818 &281 &290 &483 &166 &169&2207\\
458: after exclusion&795 &226 &281 &478 &166 &169&2115\\
459: \hline
460: \end{tabular}
461: \end{center}
462: \caption{The statistics of the full dataset and of the present analysis.}
463: \label{tab:stats}
464: \end{table}
465: The forward fit of section 1 gave us the intercepts and the couplings $g_\pm$,
466: $g_S$ and $g_H$. To extend it to non-zero $t$, we need to find the form
467: factors. These are
468: {\it a priori} unknown, so that one has to deal with arbitrary functions.
469: \subsection{Form factors and local fits}
470: In order to obtain the possible form factors, we shall scan the dataset
471: at fixed $t$, {\it i.e.} we shall fit a complex
472: amplitude
473: with constant form factors to the data in small bins of $t$
474: (and refer to these fits as $local$ fits)\footnote
475: {Note
476: that we shall neglect the subtraction constants
477: of the real part in the following. We checked that their inclusion does not
478: significantly improve the description of non-forward data.}.
479: The constants that we get will then depend on $t$
480: and give us a picture of the form factor. The value of the $\chi^2$ will also tell us
481: in which region of $t$ we should work.
482:
483: This strategy however will not
484: work for the general case considered here: each bin does not contain enough points
485: to have a unique minimum. We can take advantage of the fact that both models considered here
486: give the same values
487: for the intercept of the crossing-odd Reggeon contribution,
488: and for the crossing-even ones as well
489: (see Table~\ref{tab:teq}).
490: We can also read off the slopes from a Chew-Frautschi plot.
491: This gives the following $f/a_2$ and $\rho/\omega$
492: trajectories:
493: \begin{eqnarray}
494: \alpha_+&=& 0.61+0.82~t,\nonumber\\
495: \alpha_-&=& 0.47+0.91~t.
496: \label{eq:Chew}
497: \end{eqnarray}
498: Furthermore, we shall not be able to include a hard pomeron in the local fits
499: as its contribution is too small to be stable.
500:
501: We fit all the data from 6 GeV$\leq\sqrt{s}\leq 63$ GeV, and we choose small bins
502: of width 0.02~GeV$^2$.
503: We restrict ourselves to independent
504: bins where we have more than four points for each process.
505: \begin{figure}
506: \includegraphics[scale=.7]{chi2traj.eps}
507: \caption{The results of the local fits for the $\chi^2$ per number
508: of points (left) and for the pomeron trajectory (right).
509: The dashed curve is from \cite{DLel} and the plain curve
510: results from the global fit given in the next section.}
511: \label{fig:tbins1}
512: \end{figure}
513: \begin{figure}
514: \begin{center}
515: \includegraphics[scale=.7]{couplings.eps}
516: \end{center}
517: \caption{The results of the local fits for the residues of the poles.
518: The curves are the results of a global fit explained
519: in the next section.}
520: \label{fig:tbins2}
521: \end{figure}
522:
523: Each of these fits gives us a values of the $\chi^2$ per number of points,
524: the coefficients $g_R^{ap}F^p_R(t)F^a_R(t)$, as well as
525: $\alpha_S(t)$ for each $t$.
526: We show these results in Figs.~\ref{fig:tbins1} and \ref{fig:tbins2}.
527: The $\chi^2$ curve of Fig.~\ref{fig:tbins1} shows two things:
528: first of all, the fit is never perfect, and this
529: can be traced back to incompatibilities in the data\footnote{The inclusion of data for $\sqrt{s}\leq 6$ GeV would only make this problem worse.}.
530: We shall come back to this in the next section, when we perform a global fit to
531: all data.
532: The second lesson is that the simple-pole description of the data has a chance to
533: succeed in a limited region: the $\chi^2$ grows fast both at low $|t|$ (partly because
534: the Coulomb interaction begins to matter)
535: and for $|t|>0.6$ (where multiple exchanges come into play).
536: To be conservative, we shall consider
537: in the following\footnote{
538: We have tried several possibilities
539: for the meson trajectories, and also added a hard pomeron to the local fits. The
540: range of validity of the fit is not affected by these details.}
541: the region $0.1\leq |t|\leq 0.5$.
542: The right-hand graph in Fig.~\ref{fig:tbins1} shows the soft pomeron trajectory. It is
543: very linear as a function of $t$. Its intercept and slope are somewhat different
544: from the standard ones \cite{DLel}.
545:
546: Figure \ref{fig:tbins2} shows the results for the residues of the poles
547: $g^a F_{R}^a(t)F_{R}^p(t)$.
548: In all cases, it is obvious that form factors must be different
549: for different trajectories. There is in fact no reason why the
550: hadrons should respond in the same way to different exchanges,
551: as these have different quantum numbers and different ranges, and
552: couple differently to quarks and gluons.
553:
554: For the soft pomeron, we find that we can get a good description in
555: the $pp$ and $\bar p p$ cases
556: if we take
557: \begin{equation}\label{eq:sffp2}
558: F^{p}_{S}(t)=\frac{1}{1-t/t_{S}^{(1)}+\left(t/t_{S}^{(2)}\right)^2}.
559: \end{equation}
560: For $\pi$ and $K$ mesons, an adequate fit is provided by
561: the monopole form factors\footnote{although in this limited range of $t$
562: it is also possible to use dipoles.}
563: \begin{equation}
564: F^{a}_{S}(t)=\frac{1}{1-t/t^{a}_{S}}, \qquad a=\pi, K.
565: \label{eq:softc}
566: \end{equation}
567:
568: The local fits for both the $C=+1$ and the $C=-1$ reggeons indicate that
569: the form factors have a zero at some $t$ value. In the crossing-odd case,
570: this is the well-known cross-over phenomenon \cite{crossovers}:
571: the curves for $d\sigma/dt$ for $pa$ and $p\bar a$ cross
572: each other at some value of $t$. In the crossing-even case, the zero
573: is close to the upper value of $|t|$, so that we have evidence for a sharp
574: decrease but not necessarily for a zero.
575:
576: In each case, we have tried to obtain such zeroes through rescatterings.
577: However, it is hard then to cancel both the real and the imaginary parts,
578: and the zero moves with energy, or disappears when energy changes. We thus
579: assume here, in a way which is consistent with the simple-pole hypothesis,
580: that these zeroes are the same for $pp$, $\bar p p$, $\pi^\pm p$ and $K^\pm p$
581: scattering, and that they are fixed with energy: they can be thought of
582: as a property of the form factors, or of the exchange itself, and are consistent
583: with Regge factorisation.
584:
585: We thus parametrise the $R_-$ and $R_+$ contributions as
586: \begin{equation}
587: A_{\pm}^{ap}(\tilde
588: s_{ap},t)=Z^{a}_{\pm}(t)g^{a}_{\pm}F^a_{\pm}(t)F^{p}_{\pm}(t)\
589: \eta_{\xi}({ \alpha_{\pm}(t)})\
590: \tilde s_{ap}^{\alpha_{\pm}(t)}.
591: \label{eq:pole-}
592: \end{equation}
593: For the form factors $F^{a}_{\pm}(t)$, we take the form
594: \begin{equation}\label{eq:fp}
595: F^{p}_{\pm}(t)=\frac{1}{\left(1-t/t^p_{\pm}\right)^2}.
596: \end{equation}
597: in the proton case, whereas we find that
598: \begin{equation}\label{eq:fpik}
599: F^{\pi,K}_{\pm}(t)=F_S^{\pi,K}(t)
600: \end{equation}
601: gives us a good fit for $\pi$ and $K$.
602:
603: The factor
604: $Z^{a}_{\pm}(t)$
605: has a common zero $\zeta_\pm$, independent of $s$, for $p,\pi,K$,
606: but a different one for the $C=+1$ and
607: the $C=-1$ trajectories:
608: \begin{equation}\label{eq:oz-fixed}
609: Z^{a}_{\pm}(t)=
610: \frac{\tanh(1+t/\zeta_{\pm})}{\tanh(1)},
611: \quad a=p,\pi,K.
612: \end{equation}
613: We choose this simple form to restrict the growth of $Z^{a}_{\pm}$ with $t$.
614:
615: Finally, when we shall introduce a hard pomeron, we shall find that a
616: dipole form factor describes the proton data well
617: \begin{equation}\label{eq:fh}
618: F^{p}_{H}(t)=\frac{1}{\left(1-t/t^p_{H}\right)^2},
619: \end{equation}
620: whereas we can use the same
621: form factor as for the soft pomeron to describe pions and kaons:
622: \begin{equation}\label{eq:fpikh}
623: F^{\pi,K}_{H}(t)=F_S^{\pi,K}(t).
624: \end{equation}
625:
626: We summarise in Table~\ref{tab:forms} our choice of form factors.
627: Of course, these are the simplest functions that reproduce the data
628: at the values of $t$ considered here. Consideration of different $t$
629: ranges will probably call for more complicated parametrisations.
630: \def\dst{\displaystyle}
631: \begin{table}
632: \label{tab:forms}
633: \begin{center}
634: \begin{tabular}{c|ccc}
635: %\hline
636: & $p$ & $\pi$ & $K$ \\
637: \hline
638: & & & \\
639: $S$ & $\dst \frac{1}{1-t/t_{S}^{(1)}+(t/t_{S}^{(2)})^{2}}$ & $\dst\frac{1}{1-t/t^{\pi}}$ & $\dst\frac{1}{1-t/t^{K}}$ \\
640: & & & \\
641: %\hline
642: % & & & \\
643: $C=+1$ &$\dst \frac{1}{(1-t/t_{+})^{2}}$ & $\dst\frac{1}{1-t/t^{\pi}}$ & $\dst\frac{1}{1-t/t^{K}}$ \\
644: % & & & \\
645: %\hline
646: & & & \\
647: $C=-1$ &$\dst \frac{1}{(1-t/t_{-})^{2}}$ & $\dst\frac{1}{1-t/t^{\pi}}$ & $\dst\frac{1}{1-t/t^{K}}$ \\
648: % & & & \\
649: %\hline
650: & & & \\
651: $H$ &$\dst \frac{1}{(1-t/t_{H})^{2}}$ & $\dst\frac{1}{1-t/t^{\pi}}$ & $\dst\frac{1}{1-t/t^{K}}$ \\
652: % & & & \\
653: %\hline
654: \end{tabular}
655: \end{center}
656: \caption{Parametrisation of the form factors.}
657: \end{table}
658:
659: \section{Soft pomeron fit}
660: Equipped with the information from the local fits, we can now perform a global
661: fit to the elastic data for 0.1 GeV$^2\leq |t|\leq$ 0.5 GeV$^2$, for
662: 6 GeV$\leq \sqrt{s}\leq $ 63 GeV, and for a soft pomeron only.
663: We fix the trajectories of the $C=+1$ and $C=-1$ exchanges according to
664: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Chew}).
665:
666: The $\chi^2$/d.o.f. reaches the value 1.45, which is unacceptable
667: for the number of points fitted (2207). Such a high value of the $\chi^2$ is
668: largely due to contradictions between sets of data.
669: \begin{table}
670: \begin{center}
671: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
672: \hline
673: Parameter & soft pomeron & soft and hard pomerons \\
674: \hline
675: $\alpha\, '_{S}$ (GeV$^{-2}$) & 0.332 $\pm$ 0.007 & 0.297 $\pm$ 0.010 \\
676: $\alpha\, '_{H}$ (GeV$^{-2}$) & - & 0.10 $\pm$ 0.21 \\
677: $\alpha\, '_{+}$ (GeV$^{-2}$) & 0.82 (fixed) & 0.82 (fixed) \\
678: $\alpha\, '_{-}$ (GeV$^{-2}$) & 0.91 (fixed) & 0.91 (fixed) \\
679: $t_{S}^{(1)}$ (GeV$^{2}$) & 0.56 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.56 $\pm$ 0.02 \\
680: $t_{S}^{(2)}$ (GeV$^{2}$) & 2.33 $\pm$ 0.34 & 1.16 $\pm$ 0.06 \\
681: $t_{H}$ (GeV$^{2}$) & - & 0.20 $\pm$ 0.05 \\
682: $t_{+}$ (GeV$^{2}$) & 2.96 $\pm$ 0.25 & 2.34 $\pm$ 0.22 \\
683: $t_{-}$ (GeV$^{2}$) & 7.97 $\pm$ 1.41 & 9.0 $\pm$ 1.8 \\
684: $t^{\pi}$ (GeV$^{2}$) & 2.53 $\pm$ 0.14 & 2.89 $\pm$ 0.23 \\
685: $t^{K}$ (GeV$^{2}$) & 3.92 $\pm$ 0.28 & 6.33 $\pm$ 0.94 \\
686: $\zeta_{-}$ (GeV$^{2}$) & 0.148 $\pm$ 0.003 & 0.153 $\pm$ 0.003 \\
687: $\zeta_{+}$ (GeV$^{2}$) & 0.47 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.47 $\pm$ 0.03 \\
688: \hline
689: \end{tabular}
690: \end{center}
691: \caption{Values of the parameters (fit at $t\neq 0$).}\label{tab:fits}
692: \end{table}
693: We thus excluded the following data, which all have a CL less than $10^{-8}$:
694: Bruneton \cite{BRUNETON} (sets 1050, 1204 and 1313, 25 points), Armitage
695: \cite{ARMITAGE} (set 1038, 12 points), Akerlof \cite{AKERLOF} $\bar p p$
696: for $\sqrt{s}= 9.78$ GeV (set 1101, 20 points)
697: and Bogolyubsky \cite{BOGOLYUBSKY} (set 1114, 35 points).
698: The removal of these 92 points (less than 5\% of the data)
699: brings the $\chi^2$/d.o.f. to 1.03, i.e. a confidence level of 20\%.
700:
701: The parameters of the fit are given in Table~\ref{tab:fits}, and the partial $\chi^2$
702: in Table~\ref{tab:chis}. We also show the form factors resulting from the global fit in
703: Fig.~\ref{fig:tbins2}. We see that there is good agreement with the local fits.
704:
705: The main result is that
706: the slope of the soft pomeron is higher than usually believed: $\alpha'_S\approx 0.3$
707: GeV$^{-2}$.
708: Also, the fit to near-forward data is remarkably good\footnote{The
709: fact that the soft pomeron reproduces elastic scattering well
710: while it fails to reproduce data at $t=0$ is due to the very different
711: systematic errors, which are typically of a few percents in forward
712: data, and of order 10\% in elastic near-forward data.}.
713:
714: We also show in Figs. \ref{fig:pp}, \ref{fig:pbarp}, \ref{fig:pi}
715: and \ref{fig:k} some of the fits to the data.
716: We see in Fig.~\ref{fig:pbarp} that our description
717: extends very well to S$p\bar p$S energies.
718: Also, the top-left of Fig.~\ref{fig:pbarp} shows the kind of disagreement that we had to remove:
719: the points of Akerlof are in definite
720: disagreement with those of Ayres. Similar graphs can be plotted for all the data that we removed.
721: Furthermore, one can see e.g. in the data of Brick \cite{BRICK} in Fig.~\ref{fig:k}
722: that the first few points are
723: in strong disagreement with other sets. Such problems explain the rather high value of $|t|_{min}$
724: that we had to use.
725:
726: Finally, let us mention that we also considered a fit where one allows the
727: data of one given set at one given energy to be shifted by a common factor
728: within one systematic error while treating the statistical error through
729: the usual $\chi^2$ minimisation. Such a procedure leads to a higher $\chi^2$/d.o.f.,
730: of the order of 1.15 [7], without affecting the parameters significantly. As
731: the datasets do not have compatible slopes within the statistical errors, we
732: preferred to present here the results based on errors added quadratically.
733: \begin{table}[H]
734: \begin{center}
735: \begin{tabular}{|c|c||c||c|}
736: \hline Quantity & Number & $\chi^{2}/N$& $\chi^{2}/N$ \\
737: & of points & (soft) & (soft+hard) \\
738: \hline \hline
739: $d\sigma^{pp}/dt$ & 795 & 0.90 & 0.86 \\
740: $d\sigma^{\bar pp}/dt$ & 226 & 1.01 & 0.99 \\
741: $d\sigma^{\pi^{+}p}/dt$ & 281 & 0.90 & 0.89 \\
742: $d\sigma^{\pi^{-}p}/dt$ & 478 & 1.18 & 1.18 \\
743: $d\sigma^{K^{+}p}/dt$ & 166 & 1.02 & 1.11 \\
744: $d\sigma^{K^{-}p}/dt$ & 169 & 1.18 & 1.12 \\
745: \hline Total &2115 & 1.022 & 0.997 \\
746: \hline
747: \end{tabular}
748: \end{center}
749: \caption{Partial values of $\chi^{2}$, differential cross sections.}\label{tab:chis}
750: \end{table}
751: \begin{figure}[H]
752: \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{pp.eps}}
753: \caption{$pp$ differential cross sections. The plain curve shows the soft pomeron fit, and the dashed one the fit that includes a hard pomeron.} \label{fig:pp}
754: \end{figure}
755: \begin{figure}[H]
756: \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{pbarp.eps}}
757: \caption{$p\bar p$ differential cross sections. The plain curve shows the soft pomeron fit, and the dashed one the fit that includes a hard pomeron.} \label{fig:pbarp}
758: \end{figure}
759: \begin{figure}[H]
760: \includegraphics[scale=0.50]{pip.eps}
761: \includegraphics[scale=0.50]{pim.eps}
762: \caption{$\pi^{+}p$ and $\pi^{-}p$ differential cross sections.}
763: \label{fig:pi}
764: \end{figure}
765: \begin{figure}[H]
766: \includegraphics[scale=0.50]{kp.eps}
767: \includegraphics[scale=0.50]{km.eps}
768: \caption{$K^{+}p$ and $K^{-}p$ differential cross sections.}
769: \label{fig:k}
770: \end{figure}
771:
772: \section{Hard pomeron}
773: One of the motivations of this paper was to confirm the presence of
774: a small hard component in soft cross sections. The problem however
775: is that the fit with only one soft pomeron is so good that a hard
776: component is really not needed here. Following the philosophy of the previous section,
777: we can nevertheless investigate the effect of its contribution in elastic data
778: by fixing the parameters from the $t=0$ fit of Table \ref{tab:teq}
779: and constrain the form factors and trajectories. As can be seen from
780: Table \ref{tab:chis}, the introduction of a hard pomeron makes the fit
781: slightly better (the CL rises to about 48\%)
782: if we allow a different form factor
783: from that of the soft pomeron in the $pp$ and $\bar p p$ cases.
784: We obtain the parameters
785: of the third column of Table~\ref{tab:fits}. The hard pomeron slope
786: is confirmed to be of the order of 0.1 GeV$^{-1}$, although the errors are large.
787: We show in Fig. \ref{fig:forms} the form factors of the various trajectories in this case. Note in the $pp$ and $\bar p p$ cases
788: that the hard contribution is suppressed at higher $t$ by the form factor.
789: Forcing it to be identical to the form factor of the soft pomeron
790: results in a trajectory with a very large slope
791: $\alpha'_H\approx 1 GeV^{-2}$.
792: \begin{figure}[H]
793: \centerline{\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{formfs.eps}}
794: \caption{Form factors as function of $|t|$, in the model that includes a
795: hard pomeron.} \label{fig:forms}
796: \end{figure}
797: \section{Conclusion}
798: This paper has presented a few advances in the study of elastic cross sections:
799: \begin{itemize}
800: \item We have elaborated a complete dataset, including an evaluation
801: of the systematic errors for all data. We have shown that statistical
802: and systematic errors should be added in quadrature (i.e. the slopes
803: of the data from different subsets
804: are not consistent if one uses only statistical errors).
805: \item We have shown that rescattering effects can be neglected in the region
806: 0.1 GeV$^2\leq |t|\leq 0.5$ GeV$^2$, 6 GeV$\leq \sqrt{s}\leq $ 63 GeV.
807: This of course does not necessarily
808: mean that the pomeron cuts are small,
809: but rather that they can be re-absorbed in a simple-pole parametrisation
810: \cite{DLel}.
811:
812: \item We showed that different trajectories must have different form factors.
813: We confirm that the crossing-odd meson exchange has a zero.
814: We also found evidence for a sharp suppression of the crossing-even
815: form factor around $|t|=0.5$ GeV$^2$.
816: \item The soft pomeron has a remarkably linear trajectory, and leads to a
817: very good fit that extends well to S$p\bar p$S energies.
818: \item Because of the quality of the soft pomeron fit, the elastic data do not
819: confirm strongly the need for a hard pomeron. It is remarkable however that
820: the hard pomeron fit gives 0.1 GeV$^{-2}$
821: for the central value of the slope, in agreement with \cite{DppL}.
822: \end{itemize}
823: It is our hope that this dataset, and this study, will serve as a starting
824: point for precise studies of the whole range of elastic scattering, and especially
825: for studies of unitarisation effects at higher $s$ or higher $t$, and for the
826: comparison of several models.
827: \section*{Acknowledgements}
828: E.M. acknowledges the support of FNRS (Belgium) for visits to
829: the university of Li\`ege where part of this work was done.
830: We thank O.V. Selyugin, L. Szymanowski, M. Polyakov, P.V. Landshoff
831: and B. Nicolescu for discussion, G. Soyez for partially checking our results,
832: and A. Prokhudin for help with the data.
833: \section*{Appendix: experimental data}
834: \centerline{\large $pp\rightarrow pp$}
835: \small
836: \begin{longtable}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
837: \hline
838: set&ref.&$\sqrt{s}$&$|t|_{min}$&$|t|_{max}$&syst.&number \\
839: & & (GeV) & (GeV$^2$) & (GeV$^2$) && of points\\
840: \hline\hline
841: 1001&\cite{AKERLOF}& 9.8 13.8 19.4& 0.075 & 1.03 2.8 3.3& 7\%&50 61 55\\\hline
842: 1002&\cite{ALBROW}& 23.4 26.9 30.6 & 0.15 0.15 0.25 & 1.1 0.55 0.95& 15\%& 19 8 15\\
843: && 32.4 35.2 38.3& 0.20 0.20 0.20& 0.35 0.75 0.7& & 4 9 9\\\hline
844: 1014&\cite{ALLABY}& 4.5 4.9 5.3& 0.14 0.10 0.27& 2.1 2.7 3.5& 15\%& 24 25 22\\
845: 1015&& 6.2 6.4& 0.058 0.070& 6.0 1.9& 8\%& 37 17\\
846: 1037&& 4.6 4.8 5.0& 2.0 2.2 2.5& 8.6 9.6 10.5& 7\%& 18 15 15\\
847: && 5.3 5.8 6.2& 7.6 9.1 9.7& 13 15 17& & 4 9 4\\
848: && 6.5& 11 & 18& & 4\\
849: 1039&& 6.8& 0.083& 6.7& 10\%& 35\\\hline
850:
851: 1020&\cite{AMALDI}& 23.5 30.7& 0.042 0.016& 0.24 0.11& 1.2\%& 50 48\\
852: 1021&& 30.7 44.7& 0.11 0.05& 0.46 0.29& 2\%& 58 95\\
853: 1030&& 23.5& 0.25& 0.79& 3\%& 28\\
854: 1022&& 23.5 30.7 & 0.83 0.90& 3.0 5.8& 5\%& 34 55\\
855: && 44.7 62.5& 0.62 0.27& 7.3 6.3& & 65 74\\
856: 1023&& 23.5& 3.1& 5.8& 10\%& 21\\
857: 1024&& 30.7& 0.0011& 0.008& 0.40\%& 9\\
858: 1025&& 62.5& 0.0017& 0.009& 0.25\%& 16\\
859: 1026&& 30.7& 0.46& 0.86& 3.5\%& 11\\
860: 1027&& 44.7& 0.001& 0.009& 0.2\%& 24\\
861: 1028&& 44.7 62.5& 0.0092 0.0095& 0.052 0.099& 1\%& 46 49\\\hline
862: 1003&\cite{AMBROSIO}& 52.8& 0.011& 0.048& {\it 0.4\%\footnote{\label{lum} From the luminosity measurement by the experiment.}} & 36\\\hline
863: 1009&\cite{AMOS}& 23.5 30.6& 0.0004 0.0005& 0.010 0.018& 1\%& 31 32\\
864: && 52.8 62.3& 0.0011 0.0054& 0.055 0.051& & 34 22\\\hline
865: 1004&\cite{APOKIN}& 9.0 10.0& 0.0019& 0.043 0.05& 1.1\%& 20 18\\\hline
866: 1038&\cite{ARMITAGE}& 53.0& 0.13& 0.46& 5\%& 12\\\hline
867: 1052&\cite{ASAD}& 9.8& 0.825& 3.8& 15\%& 17\\\hline
868: 1005&\cite{AYRES}& 9.8 11.5 13.8& 0.038& 0.75 0.70 0.75& 3\%& 16 17 18\\
869: && 16.3 18.2& 0.0375 0.075& 0.80 0.75& & 19 15\\\hline
870: 1006&\cite{BEZNOGIKH}& 4.4 5.1 5.6&0.0008 0.0092 0.0089& 0.013 0.10 0.11 & {\it 2\%\footnote{\label{opt} From the uncertainty on the optical point used to normalise the data.}} & 34 22 27\\
871: && 6.1 6.2 6.5& 0.0009 0.0011 0.015& 0.11 0.014 0.11& & 67 35 30\\
872: && 6.9 7.3 9.8& 0.011 0.0093 0.0010& 0.11 0.11 0.12 & & 26 33 66\\
873: && 7.7 8.0 8.3& 0.011 0.0171 0.0093& 0.11 0.11 0.11& & 29 24 28\\
874: && 8.6 8.7 8.8& 0.0009 0.0011 0.0009& 0.11 0.015 0.11& & 65 47 65\\
875: && 9.3 10.0 10.2& 0.0114 0.0109 0.0108& 0.12& & 29 34 29\\
876: && 10.3 10.4 10.6& 0.0008 0.013 .0008&0.015 0.12 0.015& & 37 35 44\\
877: &&10.7 11.0 11.2&0.0108 0.013 0.011& 0.12 0.12 0.12 & & 33 33 30\\
878: && 11.5& 0.011 0.0010& 0.12 0.11& & 26 156\\\hline
879: 1013&\cite{BRANDENBURG}& 4.6& 0.023& 1.5& 2\%& 97\\\hline
880: 1031&\cite{BREAKSTONE}& 31.0 53.0 62.0& 0.050 0.11 0.13& 0.85& 10\% & 24 24 23\\
881: 1064&& 53.0& 0.62& 3.4& 20\%& 31\\\hline
882: 1055&\cite{BRICK}& 16.7& 0.01& 0.62& {\it 2\%\footnote{\label{brick} This uncertainty in the luminosity, originally included in the statistical error, has been removed from it.}} & 26\\\hline
883: 1007&\cite{BURQ}& 13.8 16.8 & 0.0022& 0.039& 1\%& 73 68 \\
884: && 21.7 23.8& & & & 64 60\\\hline
885: 1054&\cite{COOL}& 13.8 19.4& 0.035& 0.095& 0.8\%& 7 7\\\hline
886: 1058&\cite{CONETTI}& 19.5 27.4& 5.0 2.3& 12 16& 20\%& 31 87\\\hline
887: 1017&\cite{DALKHAZHAV}& 4.7& 0.0028& 0.14& {\it 1.6\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 13\\\hline
888: 1053&\cite{DEVENSKI}& 9.8& 0.012& 0.12& {\it 3\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 10\\\hline
889: 1042&\cite{DIDDENS}& 5.0& 0.011& 0.34& 15\%& 5\\
890: 1044&& 5.6& 0.019& 0.56& 13\%& 5\\
891: 1045&& 6.1 7.1& 0.036 0.064& 0.79 1.0& 20\%& 5 4\\
892: 1046&& 6.5& 0.032& 1.1& 17\%& 5\\\hline
893: 1019&\cite{EDELSTEIN}& 4.5 5.5& 0.016 0.027& 5.1 4.9& 15\%& 31 32\\
894: && 6.3 7.6& 0.032 0.079& 3.8 2.8& & 30 29 \\\hline
895: 1029&\cite{ERHAN}& 53.0& 0.64& 2.05& 10\%& 15\\\hline
896: 1057&\cite{FAISSLER}& 19.5 27.4& 5.0 5.5& 12 14& 15\%& 34 30\\\hline
897: 1056&\cite{FIDECARO}& 19.4& 0.61& 3.9& {\it 15\%}\footnote{This uncertainty is the same as in \cite{RUSACK}.} & 33\\\hline
898: 1016&\cite{FOLEY}& 4.7 5.1 5.4& 0.058 0.049 0.066& 0.82 0.86 0.78& 5\%& 13 13 12\\
899: && 5.8 6.2& 0.042 0.12 & 0.70 0.81& & 12 11\\
900: 1018&& 4.7 5.5 6.2 & 0.2 0.22 0.23& 0.89 0.74 0.79& 5\%& 9 7 7\\
901: && 6.5 6.9& 0.24 0.25& 0.81 0.75& & 7 6\\\hline
902: 1048&\cite{GESHKOV}& 7.6 9.8 11.5& 0.0027 0.0026 0.0028& 0.119 0.12 0.12& {\it 2\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 21 23 21\\\hline
903: 1049&\cite{RUSACK}& 8.2 10.2 11.1& 0.29 0.34 0.34& 1.93 1.98 1.98& 15\%& 21 20 20\\
904: && 12.3 13.8 15.7& 0.35& 0.70 2.0 0.99& & 8 19 11\\
905: && 16.8 17.9 18.9& 0.35 0.35 0.29& 2.1& & 32 29 30\\
906: && 19.9 20.8 21.7& 0.29& 2.1 2.0 2.0 & & 29 19 17\\\hline
907: 1043&\cite{HARTING}& 5.0 6.0& 0.13 0.19& 2.0 3.6& 7\%& 22 20\\\hline
908: 1040&\cite{JENNI}& 4.5& 0.0018& 0.097& 1\%& 55\\\hline
909: 1050&\cite{BRUNETON}& 9.2& 0.16& 2.0& {\it 2\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$& 27\\\hline
910: 1036&\cite{KUZNETSOV}& 10.0& 0.0006& 0.031& 0.9\%& 72\\
911: 1035&& 12.3& 0.0007& 0.029& 0.69\%& 58\\
912: 1034&& 19.4& 0.0007& 0.032& 0.56\%& 69\\
913: 1033&& 22.2& 0.0005& 0.030& 0.57\%& 63\\
914: 1032&& 23.9& 0.0007& 0.032& 0.5\%& 66\\
915: 1008&& 27.4& 0.0005& 0.026& 0.52\%& 60\\\hline
916: 1010&\cite{NAGY}& 52.8& 0.83& 9.8& 5\%& 63\\\hline
917: 1041&\cite{OREAR}& 4.9& 1.2& 2.5& 10\%& 5\\\hline
918: 1011&\cite{RUBINSTEIN}& 13.8 19.4& 0.55 0.95& 2.5 10.3& 15\%& 20 35\\\hline
919: 1012&\cite{SCHIZ}& 19.4& 0.021 & 0.66& {\it 4\%}\footnote{\label{sch}The $t$-dependent systematics have been included in the statistical error.}& 134 \\
920: \hline
921: \end{longtable}
922: \centerline{\large$\bar pp\rightarrow \bar pp$}
923: \begin{longtable}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
924: \hline
925: set&ref.&$\sqrt{s}$&$|t|_{min}$&$|t|_{max}$&syst.&number \\
926: & & (GeV) & (GeV$^2$) & (GeV$^2$) && of points\\\hline\hline
927: 1130&\cite{ABE}& 546.0 &0.026 & 0.078 & {\it 0.52\%}\footnote{\label{abe}From Table VI of \cite{ABE}.} & 14 \\
928: 1132&& 1800.0&0.035& 0.285& {\it 0.48\%}$^{\ref{abe}}$ & 26\\\hline
929: 1101&\cite{AKERLOF}& 9.8 13.8 19.4& 0.075& 1.0 0.95 0.75& 7\%& 31 30 13\\\hline
930: 1102&\cite{AMBROSIO}& 52.8& 0.011& 0.048& {\it 1.54 \%}$^{\ref{lum}}$ & 48\\\hline
931: 1103&\cite{AMOS}& 30.4 52.6 & 0.0007 0.001 & 0.016 0.039 & 2.5\%& 29 28 \\
932: && 62.3 & 0.0063 & 0.038 & & 17 \\
933: 1104&& 1800.0& 0.034& 0.63& 9\% & 17 51\\\hline
934: 1105&\cite{ANTIPOV}&6.9 7.0 8.8&0.19 0.83 0.075& 0.58 3.8 0.58&5\%& 22 17 33\\\hline
935: 1106&\cite{ARNISON}& 540.0& 0.045& 0.43& 8\%& 36\\\hline
936: 1107&\cite{ASAD}& 7.6 9.8& 0.53 0.83 & 5.4 3.8& 15\%& 30 17\\
937: \hline
938: 1108&\cite{AYRES}& 9.8 11.5 13.8& 0.038& 0.75 0.5 0.75& 3\%& 17 13 15\\
939: && 16.3 18.2& 0.075 0.038& 0.6& & 11 13\\\hline
940: 1109&\cite{BATYUNYA}& 6.6& 0.055 & 0.88& {\it 2.1 \%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 43\\\hline
941: 1110&\cite{BERGLUND}& 4.6& 0.19 & 3.0& 5\%& 35\\\hline
942: 1111&\cite{BERNARD}& 546.0& 0.0022& 0.035& 2.5\%& 66\\
943: 1112&& 630.0& 0.73 & 2.1& 15\%& 19\\\hline
944: 1126&\cite{BIRNBAUM}& 5.6& 0.11 & 1.3& {\it 10\%}\footnote{From \cite{BIRNBAUM}.} & 23\\\hline
945: 1114&\cite{BOGOLYUBSKY}& 7.9& 0.055 & 1.0& {\it 0.8\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 52\\\hline
946: 1113&\cite{BOZZO}& 546.0& 0.032& 0.50& 5\%& 87\\
947: 1117&& 546.0& 0.46 & 1.5& 10\%& 34\\\hline
948: 1118&\cite{BRANDENBURG}& 4.6& 0.023& 1.5& 2\%& 97\\\hline
949: 1115&\cite{BREAKSTONE}& 53.0& 0.52 & 3.5& 30\% & 27\\
950: 1116&& 31.0 53.0 62.0& 0.05 0.11 0.13 & 0.85 & 15\% & 22 24 23\\\hline
951: 1128&\cite{COOL}& 13.8 19.4& 0.035 & 0.095& 0.8\%& 7 7\\\hline
952: 1129&\cite{ERHAN}& 53.0& 0.64 & 1.9& 10\%& 8\\\hline
953: 1124&\cite{FOLEY}& 4.5 4.9& 0.03 0.043 & 0.18 0.52& 5\%& 6 10\\
954: 1125&& 4.9 5.6& 0.20 0.22& 0.49 0.45& 5\%& 5 4\\\hline
955: 1123&\cite{JENNI}& 4.5& 0.0018& 0.097& 1\%& 55\\\hline
956: 1127&\cite{BRUNETON}& 8.7& 0.17 & 1.24& {\it 2\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 11\\\hline
957: 1119&\cite{LEWIN}& 7.9& 0.07 & 0.62& {\it 2\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 23\\\hline
958: 1131&\cite{OWEN}& 4.5& 0.76& 5.5& 5\%& 10\\\hline
959: 1121&\cite{RUSS}& 5.6& 0.085 & 1.2& 5\%& 34\\\hline
960: 1120&\cite{RUBINSTEIN}& 13.8& 0.55 & 2.5& 15\%& 15 \\
961: 1122&& 19.4& 0.95 & 3.8& 35\%& 7\\\hline
962: \end{longtable}
963:
964: \centerline{\large $\pi^+ p\rightarrow \pi^+ p$}
965: \begin{longtable}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
966: \hline
967: set&ref.&$\sqrt{s}$&$|t|_{min}$&$|t|_{max}$&syst.&number \\
968: & & (GeV) & (GeV$^2$) & (GeV$^2$) && of points\\\hline\hline
969: 1212&\cite{ADAMUS}& 21.7& 0.08 & 0.94& {\it 2\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 18\\\hline
970: 1205&\cite{AKERLOF}&9.7 13.7 19.4& 0.075 & 1.7 1.7 1.8& 7\%& 70 63 53\\\hline
971: 1203&\cite{APOKIN}& 9.0 9.9& 0.002 0.0019& 0.043 0.05& 1.1\%& 20 18\\\hline
972: 1214&\cite{AZHINENKO}& 7.8& 0.075 & 0.68& {\it 1.4\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 13\\\hline
973: 1206&\cite{ASAD}& 9.7& 0.75 & 3.9& 15\%& 22\\\hline
974: 1207&\cite{AYRES}& 9.7 11.5& 0.038& 0.8 0.7& 3\%& 19 17\\
975: && 13.7 16.2 18.1& 0.11 0.038 0.075 & 0.8& & 17 19 18\\\hline
976: 1215&\cite{BAGLIN}& 4.4& 0.46 & 17.3& 15\%& 84\\\hline
977: 1201&\cite{BRANDENBURG}& 4.5& 0.023& 1.5& 2\%& 97\\\hline
978: 1210&\cite{BRICK}& 16.6& 0.01 & 0.58& {\it 2\%}$^{\ref{brick}}$ & 25\\\hline
979: 1209&\cite{COOL}& 13.7 19.4& 0.035 & 0.095& 0.8\%& 7 7\\\hline
980: 1204&\cite{BRUNETON}& 9.2& 0.16 & 1.92& {\it 2\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 18\\\hline
981: 1202&\cite{RUBINSTEIN}& 5.2& 0.65 & 3.8& 10\%& 24\\
982: 1208&& 13.7 19.4& 0.55 0.95 & 2.5 3.4& 15\%& 20 20\\\hline
983: 1211&\cite{SCHIZ}& 19.4& 0.022 & 0.66& {\it 4\%}$^{\ref{sch}}$& 133\\
984: \hline
985: \end{longtable}
986: \centerline{\large $\pi^- p\rightarrow \pi^- p$}
987: \begin{longtable}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
988: \hline
989: set&ref.&$\sqrt{s}$&$|t|_{min}$&$|t|_{max}$&syst.&number \\
990: & & (GeV) & (GeV$^2$) & (GeV$^2$) && of points\\\hline\hline
991: 1302&\cite{AKERLOF}& 9.7 13.7 19.4 & 0.075 & 1.60 1.83 2.38&7\%&64 60 61\\\hline
992: 1310&& 6.9 8.7& 0.075 & 0.78 0.70& 5\%& 38 38\\
993: 1324&& 8.7& 0.19 & 1.3& 10\%& 28\\\hline
994:
995: 1301&\cite{APOKIN}& 8.7& 0.002 & 0.008& 1.5\%& 21\\
996: 1312&& 8.0 8.4 8.7& 0.0012 0.0015 0.0016& 0.025 0.03 0.034& 1.5\%& 19 19 36 \\
997: && 9.3 9.8& 0.0022 0.0028& 0.05 0.056& & 17 18\\
998: && 10.4 10.6& 0.0035 0.0014& 0.077 0.085& & 18 19\\
999: 1314&& 8.7 9.7& 0.0016 0.0022& 0.021 0.035& {\it 1\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 20 34\\\hline
1000: 1309&\cite{ASAD}& 6.2 9.7& 0.65 0.73 & 6.0 7.8& 15\%& 22 46\\\hline
1001: 1315&\cite{AYRES}& 9.7 11.5& 0.038& 0.75 0.50& 3\%& 18 13\\
1002: && 13.7 16.2 18.1& 0.038& 0.80 0.75 0.80& & 19 18 19\\\hline
1003: 1304&\cite{BAGLIN}& 6.2 7.6& 7.4 10. & 17 25& 15\%& 6 4\\\hline
1004: 1305&\cite{BRANDENBURG}& 4.5& 0.023& 1.5& 2\%& 97\\\hline
1005: 1318&\cite{BURQ}& 13.7 16.8 19.4& 0.0022 0.0022 0.0023 & 0.039& 1\%& 73 68 64\\
1006: && 21.7 23.7 24.7& 0.0022& & & 116 59 56\\
1007: && 25.5& & 0.038& & 57\\\hline
1008: 1317&\cite{CHAPIN}& 13.7& 0.028 & 0.092& {\it 10\%}\footnote{From \cite{CHAPIN}.} & 5\\\hline
1009: 1303&\cite{COOL}& 13.7 19.4& 0.035 & 0.095& 0.8\%& 7 7\\\hline
1010: 1308&\cite{CORNILLON}& 5.2& 0.75 & 4.5& 9\%& 25\\
1011: 1325&& 6.6& 0.3 & 5.2& 12\%& 44\\\hline
1012: 1311&\cite{DEREVSHCHIKO}& 7.9 8.2 8.9& 0.057 0.16 0.066& 0.20 0.49 0.37&5\%& 14 18 25\\
1013: && 9.3 9.6 9.8& 0.068 0.04 0.082& 0.42 0.37 0.55&& 18 25 27\\
1014: && 10.2 10.2& 0.054 0.055 & 0.53 0.46& & 19 17\\
1015: 1306&& 9.7& 0.035 & 0.40& 2.5\%& 37\\\hline
1016: 1326&\cite{DZIERBA}& 5.2& 0.015 & 0.77& 6\%& 41\\\hline
1017: 1307&\cite{HARTING}& 4.1 4.9 6.0& 0.05 0.09 0.19 & 1.1 2.0 3.6& 7\%& 23 24 20\\\hline
1018: 1320&\cite{JENKINS}& 4.02 4.06 4.11& 4.5 & 9.3 9.9 9.9& 3\%& 25 28 28\\
1019: && 4.14 4.18 4.21& 4.9 & 9.9 10.1 10.9& & 26 27 30\\
1020: && 4.26 4.30 4.33& 5.3 & 10.7 10.5 10.7& & 26 22 21\\\hline
1021: 1313&\cite{BRUNETON}& 8.6& 0.17 & 2.1& {\it 2\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 20\\\hline
1022: 1321&\cite{OREAR}& 4.8& 1.2 & 2.4& 10\%& 4\\\hline
1023: 1322&\cite{RUSS}& 5.6& 0.15 & 1.8& 5\%& 38\\\hline
1024: 1316&\cite{RUBINSTEIN}& 13.7 19.4& 0.55 0.95 & 2.5 10& 15\%& 20 31\\\hline
1025: 1319&\cite{SCHIZ}& 19.4& 0.021& 0.66& 4\%& 134\\\hline
1026: \end{longtable}
1027: \newpage
1028: \centerline{\large $K^- p\rightarrow K^- p$}
1029: \begin{longtable}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1030: \hline
1031: set&ref.&$\sqrt{s}$&$|t|_{min}$&$|t|_{max}$&syst.&number \\
1032: & & (GeV) & (GeV$^2$) & (GeV$^2$) && of points\\\hline\hline
1033: 1414&\cite{ADAMUS}& 21.7& 0.12 & 0.94& {\it 2\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 17\\\hline
1034: 1406&\cite{AKERLOF}& 9.7 13.7 19.4& 0.075 0.075 0.07& 1.5 1.9 1.9& 7\%& 21 35 35\\\hline
1035: 1404&\cite{APOKIN}& 9.0 10.0& 0.0019& 0.043 0.050& 1.1\%& 20 18\\\hline
1036: 1408&\cite{ASAD}& 9.7& 0.75 & 7.0& 15\%& 23\\\hline
1037: 1407&\cite{AYRES}& 9.7 11.5& 0.038 & 0.70 0.65 & 3\%& 16 16\\
1038: && 13.7 16.2 18.2& 0.075 0.075 0.038& 0.75 0.70 0.75& & 13 16 17\\\hline
1039: 1415&\cite{BARTH}& 11.5& 0.090 & 0.98& {\it 2.6\%}\footnote{From the error on the topological cross section used to normalise the data.} & 36\\\hline
1040: 1411&\cite{BRICK}& 16.6& 0.02 & 0.56& {\it 2\%}$^{\ref{brick}}$ & 10\\\hline
1041: 1402&\cite{BRANDENBURG}& 4.5 5.2& 0.023& 1.5& 2\%& 97 97\\\hline
1042: 1409&\cite{COOL}& 13.7& 0.045 & 0.095& {\it 0.8\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 6\\\hline
1043: 1405&\cite{BRUNETON}& 9.2& 0.16 & 1.25& 2\%$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 13\\\hline
1044: 1401&\cite{LEWIN}& 7.8& 0.09 & 1.4& {\it 2\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 48\\\hline
1045: 1410&\cite{RUBINSTEIN}& 13.7 19.4& 0.55 0.95& 2.1 2.4& 15\%& 16 12\\
1046: 1403&& 5.2& 0.75 & 2.2& 10\%& 12\\\hline
1047: \end{longtable}
1048: \centerline{\large $K^- p\rightarrow K^- p$}
1049: \begin{longtable}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1050: \hline
1051: set&ref.&$\sqrt{s}$&$|t|_{min}$&$|t|_{max}$&syst.&number \\
1052: & & (GeV) & (GeV$^2$) & (GeV$^2$) && of points\\\hline\hline
1053: 1508&\cite{ANTIPOV}& 7.0 8.7& 0.075 & 0.78& 5\%& 38 38\\
1054: 1513&& 8.7& 0.19 & 1.3& 10\%& 28\\
1055: \hline
1056: 1507&\cite{ASAD}& 6.2& 0.65 & 4.25& 15\%& 16\\\hline
1057: 1511&\cite{AYRES}& 9.7 11.5 13.7& 0.075 0.0375 0.0375& 0.75 0.45 0.75& 3\%& 14 12 16\\
1058: && 16.2 18.2& 0.075 & 0.6 0.75& & 13 15\\\hline
1059: 1510&\cite{AKERLOF}& 9.7 13.7 19.4& 0.070 & 1.4 1.7 1.0&7\%& 26 42 17\\\hline
1060: 1501&\cite{BERGLUND}& 4.5& 0.19 & 2.3& 5\%& 49\\\hline
1061: 1503&\cite{BRANDENBURG}& 4.5 5.2& 0.023 & 1.5& 2\%& 97 97\\\hline
1062: 1502&\cite{CAMPBELL}& 4.5& 0.0070 & 2.1& {\it 1.8\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 42\\\hline
1063: 1505&\cite{DEBOER}& 5.3& 0.010 & 2.4& {\it 2\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 27\\\hline
1064: 1506&\cite{DREVILLON}& 5.3& 0.045 & 1.9& {\it 2\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 62\\\hline
1065: 1509&\cite{BRUNETON}& 8.6& 0.17 & 2.0& {\it 2\%}$^{\ref{opt}}$ & 13\\\hline
1066: 1504&\cite{MILLER}& 5.3& 0.035 & 1.3& 3\%& 41\\\hline
1067: 1512&\cite{RUBINSTEIN}& 13.7 19.4& 0.55 0.95 & 2.5 2.2& 15\%& 20 8\\\hline
1068: \end{longtable}
1069: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1070: \bibitem{clms}J.~R.~Cudell, E.~Martynov, O.~Selyugin and A.~Lengyel,
1071: %``The hard pomeron in soft data,''
1072: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 587}, 78 (2004)
1073: [arXiv:hep-ph/0310198];
1074: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310198;%%
1075: J.~R.~Cudell, A.~Lengyel, E.~Martynov and O.~V.~Selyugin,
1076: %``A review of the hard pomeron in soft diffraction,''
1077: Nucl. Phys. A {\bf 755}, 587 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0501288];
1078: arXiv:hep-ph/0408332; in
1079: 11th International Conference on Quantum Chromodynamics
1080: (QCD 04), Montpellier, France, 2004 (to be published).
1081: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408332;%%
1082: \bibitem{COMPETE}J.~R.~Cudell {\it et al.},
1083: %``Hadronic scattering amplitudes: Medium-energy constraints on asymptotic
1084: %behaviour,''
1085: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 074024 (2002)
1086: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107219].
1087: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107219;%%
1088: \bibitem{t0set}Review of Particle Physics, S. Eidelman et al., Phys. Lett. B
1089: {\bf 592}, 1 (2004). Encoded data files are available at
1090: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/hadronic-xsections/hadron.html.
1091: \bibitem{DLsig}A.~Donnachie and P.~V.~Landshoff,
1092: %``Does the hard pomeron obey Regge factorisation?,''
1093: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 595}, 393 (2004)
1094: [arXiv:hep-ph/0402081].
1095: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402081;%%
1096: \bibitem{precompete}J.~R.~Cudell, V.~Ezhela, K.~Kang, S.~Lugovsky and N.~Tkachenko,
1097: %``High-energy forward scattering and the pomeron: Simple pole versus
1098: %unitarized models,''
1099: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 034019 (2000)
1100: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 63}, 059901 (2001)]
1101: [arXiv:hep-ph/9908218].
1102: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908218;%%
1103: \bibitem{DisL}A.~Donnachie and P.~V.~Landshoff,
1104: %``New data and the hard pomeron,''
1105: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 518}, 63 (2001)
1106: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105088];
1107: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105088;%%
1108: %``Small x: Two pomerons!,''
1109: {\it ibid.} {\bf 437}, 408 (1998)
1110: [arXiv:hep-ph/9806344].
1111: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806344;%%
1112: \bibitem{DppL}A.~Donnachie and P.~V.~Landshoff,
1113: %``Exclusive vector photoproduction: Confirmation of Regge theory,''
1114: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 478}, 146 (2000)
1115: [arXiv:hep-ph/9912312].
1116: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912312;%%
1117: \bibitem{HEPDATA}Durham Database Group (UK), M.R. Whalley et al.,\hfill\break
1118: http://durpdg.dur.ac.uk/hepdata/reac.html.
1119: \bibitem{overlap}L.~A.~Fajardo {\it et al.},
1120: %``The Real Part Of The Forward Elastic Nuclear Amplitude For P P, Anti-P P, Pi+
1121: %P, Pi- P, K+ P, And K- P Scattering Between 70-Gev/C And 200-Gev/C,''
1122: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 24}, 46 (1981);
1123: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D24,46;%%
1124: J.~Kontros and A.~Lengyel,
1125: %``Oscillations in the slope parameter,''
1126: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=4350219}{SPIRES entry}
1127: {in the proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Soft Physics: Strong Interaction at Large Distances (Hadrons 94), Uzhgorod, Ukraine, 7-11 Sept.
1128: 1994, p. 104,
1129: edited by G.Bugrij, L.Jenkovszky and E.Martynov, (Bogolyubov
1130: Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kiev: 1994)};
1131: P.~Desgrolard, J.~Kontros, A.~I.~Lengyel and E.~S.~Martynov,
1132: %``Local nuclear slope and curvature in high energy p p and anti-p p elastic
1133: %scattering,''
1134: Nuovo Cim.\ A {\bf 110}, 615 (1997)
1135: [arXiv:hep-ph/9707258].
1136: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707258;%%
1137: \bibitem{dgmp} P.~Desgrolard, M.~Giffon, E.~Martynov and E.~Predazzi,
1138: %``Exchange-degenerate Regge trajectories: A fresh look from resonance and
1139: %forward scattering regions,''
1140: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 18}, 555 (2001)
1141: [arXiv:hep-ph/0006244].
1142: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006244;%%
1143: \bibitem{CKK} J.~R.~Cudell, K.~Kang and S.~K.~Kim,
1144: %``Simple Pole Fits to pp and pbar p Total Cross Sections and Real Parts,''
1145: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 395}, 311 (1997)
1146: [arXiv:hep-ph/9601336].
1147: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9601336;%%
1148: \bibitem{ABE}F.~Abe {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 5518 (1994).
1149: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D50,5518;%%
1150: %
1151: \bibitem{ADAMUS} M.~Adamus {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 186}, 223 (1987), Yad. Fiz.
1152: {\bf 47}, 722 (1988) [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 47}, 722 (1988)].
1153: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B186,223;%%
1154: %
1155: \bibitem{AKERLOF} C.~W.~Akerlof {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 14}, 2864 (1976).
1156: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D14,2864;%%
1157: %
1158: \bibitem{ALBROW}M.~G.~Albrow {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 108}, 1 (1976),
1159: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B108,1;%%
1160: {\it ibid.} {\bf 23}, 445 (1970).
1161: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B23,445;%%
1162: %
1163: \bibitem{ALLABY} J.~V.~Allaby {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 52}, 316 (1973),
1164: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B52,316;%%
1165: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 28}, 67 (1968),
1166: {\it ibid.} {\bf 27}, 9 (1968).
1167: %
1168: \bibitem{AMALDI} U.~Amaldi and K.~R.~Schubert, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 166}, 301 (1980).
1169: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B166,301;%%
1170: %
1171: \bibitem{AMBROSIO} M.~Ambrosio {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 115}, 495 (1982).
1172: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B115,495;%%
1173: %
1174: \bibitem{AMOS} N.~Amos {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 262}, 689 (1985),
1175: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B262,689;%%
1176: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 247}, 127 (1990).
1177: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B247,127;%%
1178: %
1179: \bibitem{ANTIPOV} Y.~M.~Antipov {\it et al.},
1180: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 48}, 138 (1988)
1181: [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 48}, 85 (1988)].
1182: %%CITATION = SJNCA,48,85;%%
1183: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 57}, 333 (1973).
1184: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B57,333;%%
1185: %
1186: \bibitem{APOKIN} V.~D.~Apokin {\it et al.}, Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 25}, 94 (1977),
1187: %%CITATION = YAFIA,25,94;%%
1188: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 106}, 413 (1976),
1189: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B106,413;%%
1190: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 28}, 1529 (1978)
1191: [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 28}, 786 (1978)].
1192: %%CITATION = SJNCA,28,786;%%
1193: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 21}, 1240 (1975) [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 21}, 640 (1975)].
1194: %%CITATION = YAFIA,21,1240;%%
1195: %
1196: \bibitem{ARMITAGE}
1197: J.~C.~M.~Armitage {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 132}, 365 (1978).
1198: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B132,365;%%
1199: %
1200: \bibitem{ASAD} Z.~Asad {\it et al.},
1201: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 255}, 273 (1985),
1202: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B255,273;%%
1203: %
1204: \bibitem{ARNISON} G.~Arnison {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 128}, 336 (1983).
1205: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B128,336;%%
1206: %
1207: \bibitem{AYRES} D.~S.~Ayres {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 15}, 3105 (1977).
1208: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D15,3105;%%
1209: %
1210: \bibitem{AZHINENKO} I.~V.~Azhinenko {\it et al.},
1211: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 31}, 648 (1980)
1212: [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 31}, 337 (1980)].
1213: %%CITATION = SJNCA,31,337;%%
1214: %
1215: %%BBBBBB
1216: \bibitem{BAGLIN} C.~Baglin {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 216}, 1 (1983),
1217: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B216,1;%%
1218: {\it ibid.} {\bf 98}, 365 (1975).
1219: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B98,365;%%
1220: %
1221: \bibitem{BARTH} M.~Barth {\it et al.}, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 16}, 111 (1982).
1222: %CITATION = ZEPYA,C16,111;%
1223: %
1224: \bibitem{BATYUNYA} B.~V.~Batyunya {\it et al.},
1225: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 44}, 1489 (1986)
1226: [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 44}, 969 (1986)].
1227: %%CITATION = SJNCA,44,969;%%
1228: %
1229: \bibitem{BERGLUND} A.~Berglund {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 176}, 346 (1980).
1230: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B176,346;%%
1231: %
1232: \bibitem{BERNARD} D.~Bernard {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 198}, 583 (1987),
1233: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B198,583;%%
1234: {\it ibid.} {\bf 171}, 142 (1986).
1235: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B171,142;%%
1236: %
1237: \bibitem{BEZNOGIKH} G.~G.~Beznogikh {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 54}, 78 (1973).
1238: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B54,78;%%
1239: %
1240: \bibitem{BIRNBAUM} D.~Birnbaum {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 23}, 663 (1969).
1241: %%CITATION = PRLTA,23,663;%%
1242: %
1243: \bibitem{BOGOLYUBSKY} M.~Y.~Bogolyubsky {\it et al.},
1244: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 41}, 1210 (1985)
1245: [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 41}, 773 (1985)].
1246: %%CITATION = SJNCA,41,773;%%
1247: %
1248: \bibitem{BOZZO} M.~Bozzo {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 155}, 197 (1985),
1249: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B155,197;%%
1250: {\it ibid.} {\bf 147}, 385 (1984).
1251: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B147,385;%%
1252: %
1253: \bibitem{BRANDENBURG} G.~W.~Brandenburg {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 58}, 367 (1975).
1254: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B58,367;%%
1255: %
1256: \bibitem{BREAKSTONE} A.~Breakstone {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 248}, 253 (1984),
1257: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B248,253;%%
1258: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 54}, 2180 (1985).
1259: %%CITATION = PRLTA,54,2180;%%
1260: %
1261: \bibitem{BRICK}D.~Brick {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 25}, 2794 (1982).
1262: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D25,2794;%%
1263: %
1264: \bibitem{BRUNETON} C.~Bruneton {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 124}, 391 (1977);
1265: %CITATION = NUPHA,B124,391;%%
1266: %
1267: \bibitem{BURQ} J.~P.~Burq {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 217}, 285 (1983);
1268: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B217,285;%%
1269: %
1270: \bibitem{CAMPBELL}J.~R.~Campbell {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 64}, 1 (1973);
1271: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B64,1;%%
1272: %
1273: \bibitem{CHAPIN} T.~J.~Chapin {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 31}, 17 (1985).
1274: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D31,17;%%
1275: %
1276: \bibitem{COOL} R.~L.~Cool {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 24}, 2821 (1981).
1277: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D24,2821;%%
1278: %
1279: \bibitem{CONETTI} S.~Conetti {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 41}, 924 (1978).
1280: %%CITATION = PRLTA,41,924;%%
1281: %
1282: \bibitem{CORNILLON} P.~Cornillon {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 30}, 403 (1973).
1283: %%CITATION = PRLTA,30,403;%%
1284: %
1285: \bibitem{DALKHAZHAV} N. Dalkhazav {\it et al.}, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 8}, 342 (1968) [Sov. J. Nucl.
1286: Phys. {\bf 8}, 196 (1969)]; L.~F.~Kirillova {\it et al.}, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 1}, 533 (1965)
1287: [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 1}, 379 (1965)].
1288: %
1289: \bibitem{DEBOER} R.~J.~De Boer {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 106}, 125 (1976).
1290: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B106,125;%%
1291: %
1292: \bibitem{DEVENSKI} P.~A.~Devenski {\it et al.}, Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 14}, 367 (1971)
1293: [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 14}, 206 (1971)].
1294: %%CITATION = YAFIA,14,367;%%
1295: %
1296: \bibitem{DIDDENS} A. N. Diddens {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 9 }, 108 (1962).
1297: %
1298: \bibitem{DEREVSHCHIKO} A.~A.~Derevshchikov {\it et al.},
1299: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 80}, 442 (1974),
1300: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B80,442;%%
1301: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 48}, 367 (1974).
1302: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B48,367;%%
1303: %
1304: \bibitem{DREVILLON}B.~Drevillon {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 97}, 392 (1975);
1305: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B97,392;%%
1306: %
1307: \bibitem{DZIERBA}A.~R.~Dzierba {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 7}, 725 (1973);
1308: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D7,725;%%
1309: %
1310: \bibitem{EDELSTEIN} R.~M.~Edelstein {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 5}, 1073 (1972);
1311: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D5,1073;%%
1312: %
1313: \bibitem{ERHAN} S.~Erhan {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 152}, 131 (1985).
1314: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B152,131;%%
1315: %%FFFF
1316: \bibitem{FAISSLER} W.~Faissler {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23}, 33 (1981);
1317: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,33;%%
1318: %
1319: \bibitem{FIDECARO} G.~Fidecaro {\it et al.},
1320: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 173}, 513 (1980).
1321: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B173,513;%%
1322: %
1323: \bibitem{FOLEY} K. J. Foley {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 15}, 45 (1965),
1324: {\it ibid.} {\bf 11}, 425, 503 (1963).
1325: %
1326: %%GGGGGGGG
1327: \bibitem{GESHKOV} I.~M.~Geshkov, N.~L.~Ikov, P.~K.~Markov and R.~K.~Trayanov, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 13}, 1846 (1976).
1328: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D13,1846;%%
1329: %
1330: \bibitem{RUSACK} R.~Rusack {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 41}, 1632 (1978);
1331: %%CITATION = PRLTA,41,1632;%%
1332: %%HHHHHH
1333: \bibitem{HARTING} D. Harting, Nuov. Cim. {\bf 38}, 60 (1965);
1334: %
1335: %%JJJJ
1336: \bibitem{JENKINS} K.~A.~Jenkins {\it et al.},
1337: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 40}, 425,
1338: %%CITATION = PRLTA,40,425;%%
1339: 429 (1978).
1340: %%CITATION = PRLTA,40,429;%%
1341: %
1342: \bibitem{JENNI} P.~Jenni, P.~Baillon, Y.~Declais, M.~Ferro-Luzzi, J.~M.~Perreau, J.~Seguinot and T.~Ypsilantis, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 129}, 232 (1977).
1343: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B129,232;%%
1344: %
1345: %
1346: \bibitem{KUZNETSOV} A.~A.~Kuznetsov {\it et al.}, Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 33}, 142 (1981) [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 33}, 74 (1981)];
1347: %%CITATION = SJNCA,33,74;%%
1348: %
1349: \bibitem{LEWIN} C.~Lewin {\it et al.}, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 3}, 275 (1979);
1350: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C3,275;%%
1351: %
1352: %%MMMMMMMM
1353: \bibitem{MILLER} R.~J.~Miller {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 34}, 230 (1971);
1354: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B34,230;%%
1355: %
1356: %%NNNNN
1357: \bibitem{NAGY} E.~Nagy {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 150}, 221 (1979).
1358: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B150,221;%%
1359: %
1360: \bibitem{OREAR} J. Orear {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf 152}, 1162 (1966).
1361: %
1362: \bibitem{OWEN} D.~P.~Owen {\it et al.},
1363: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 181}, 1794 (1969).
1364: %%CITATION = PHRVA,181,1794;%%
1365: %
1366: %%PPPP
1367: \bibitem{RUBINSTEIN} R.~Rubinstein {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 30}, 1413 (1984),
1368: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D30,1413;%%
1369: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 30}, 1010 (1973).
1370: %CITATION = PRLTA,30,1010;%
1371: %
1372: \bibitem{RUSS} J.~S.~Russ {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 15}, 3139 (1977);
1373: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D15,3139;%%
1374: %
1375: \bibitem{SCHIZ} A.~Schiz {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 24}, 26 (1981);
1376: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D24,26;%%
1377: \bibitem{Edata} The dataset
1378: is available at the address http://www.theo.phys.ulg.ac.be/$\sim$cudell/data.
1379: \bibitem{DLel}A.~Donnachie and P.~V.~Landshoff,
1380: %``High-Energy Elastic Scattering And Total Cross-Sections,''
1381: Part.\ World {\bf 2}, 7 (1991),
1382: %%CITATION = PARWE,2,7;%%
1383: %``Dynamics Of Elastic Scattering,''
1384: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 267}, 690 (1986),
1385: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B267,690;%%
1386: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 231}, 189 (1984).
1387: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B231,189;%%
1388: \bibitem{crossovers}
1389: M.~Davier and H.~Harari,
1390: %``Elastic K+- P Scattering And A Dual Absorptive Model,''
1391: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 35}, 239 (1971);
1392: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B35,239;%%
1393: H.~Harari,
1394: %``Pomeranchuk Trajectory And Its Relation To Low-Energy Scattering
1395: %Amplitudes,''
1396: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 20}, 1395 (1968);
1397: %%CITATION = PRLTA,20,1395;%%
1398: H.~A.~Gordon, K.~W.~Lai and F.~E.~Paige,
1399: %``Comparison Of Elastic (Anti-P P, P P), (K- P, K+ P), And (Pi- P, Pi+ P)
1400: %Scatterings At Approximately 8 And 16 Gev/C,''
1401: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 5}, 1113 (1972);
1402: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D5,1113;%%
1403: I.~K.~Potashnikova,
1404: %``Regge Analysis Of The Differential Cross-Sections For Elastic Scattering At
1405: %Large Momentum Transfer,''
1406: Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 26}, 127 (1975)
1407: [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 26}, 674 (1977)];
1408: %%CITATION = SJNCA,26,674;%%
1409: R.~L.~Anderson {\it et al.},
1410: %``Elastic Scattering Crossovers From 50-Gev To 175-Gev,''
1411: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 37}, 1025 (1976);
1412: %%CITATION = PRLTA,37,1025;%%
1413: B.~Schrempp and F.~Schrempp,
1414: %``High-Energy Reactions Seen From The $S$ Channel: A Complex Pole In The Impact
1415: %Parameter Plane,''
1416: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 54}, 525 (1973);
1417: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B54,525;%%
1418: P.~D.~B.~Collins,
1419: ``An Introduction To Regge Theory And High-Energy Physics,''
1420: Cambridge University Press (1977).
1421: \end{thebibliography}
1422: \end{document}
1423: % ----------------------------------------------------------------
1424: