1: \documentclass{elsart}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: \usepackage{amssymb}

4: \begin{document}

5: 

6: \begin{frontmatter}

7: \title{Phase-shift analysis of low-energy $\pi^{\pm}p$ elastic-scattering data}

8: \author[EM]{E. Matsinos{$^*$}},

9: \author[WS]{W.S. Woolcock},

10: \author[GC]{G.C. Oades},

11: \author[GR]{G. Rasche},

12: \author[AG]{A. Gashi}

13: \address[EM]{Varian Medical Systems Imaging Laboratory GmbH, T\"{a}fernstrasse 7, CH-5405 Baden-D\"{a}ttwil, Switzerland}

14: \address[WS]{Department of Theoretical Physics, IAS, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia}

15: \address[GC]{Institute of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus University, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark}

16: \address[GR]{Institut f\"{u}r Theoretische Physik der Universit\"{a}t, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 Z\"{u}rich, Switzerland}

17: \address[AG]{Mediscope AG, Alfred Escher-Str. 27, CH-8002 Z\"{u}rich, Switzerland}

18: 

19: \begin{abstract}

20: Using electromagnetic corrections previously calculated by means of a potential model, we have made a phase-shift analysis of the $\pi^\pm p$ 

21: elastic-scattering data up to a pion laboratory kinetic energy of $100$ MeV. The hadronic interaction was assumed to be isospin invariant. We found 

22: that it was possible to obtain self-consistent databases by removing very few measurements. A pion-nucleon model, based on s- and u-channel diagrams 

23: with $N$ and $\Delta$ in the intermediate states, and $\sigma$ and $\rho$ t-channel exchanges, was f\mbox{}itted to the elastic-scattering database 

24: obtained after the removal of the outliers. The model-parameter values showed an impressive stability when the database was subjected to dif\mbox{}ferent 

25: criteria for the rejection of experiments. Our result for the pseudovector $\pi N N$ coupling constant (in the standard form) is $0.0733 \pm 0.0014$. The 

26: six hadronic phase shifts up to $100$ MeV are given in tabulated form. We also give the values of the $s$-wave scattering lengths and the $p$-wave 

27: scattering volumes. Big dif\mbox{}ferences in the $s$-wave part of the interaction were observed when comparing our hadronic phase shifts with those of 

28: the current GWU solution. We demonstrate that the hadronic phase shifts obtained from the analysis of the elastic-scattering data cannot reproduce the 

29: measurements of the $\pi^- p$ charge-exchange reaction, thus corroborating past evidence that the hadronic interaction violates isospin invariance. 

30: Assuming the validity of the result obtained within the framework of chiral perturbation theory, that the mass dif\mbox{}ference between the $u$- and the 

31: $d$-quark has only a very small ef\mbox{}fect on the isospin invariance of the purely hadronic interaction, the isospin-invariance violation revealed by 

32: the data must arise from the fact that we are dealing with a hadronic interaction which still contains residual ef\mbox{}fects of electromagnetic origin.\\

33: \noindent {\it PACS:} 13.75.Gx; 25.80.Dj; 25.80.Gn

34: \end{abstract}

35: \begin{keyword} $\pi N$ elastic scattering; $\pi N$ hadronic phase shifts; $\pi N$ coupling constants; $\pi N$ threshold parameters; $\pi N$ 

36: electromagnetic corrections; isospin-invariance violation

37: \end{keyword}

38: {$^*$}{Corresponding author. E-mail address: evangelos.matsinos@varian.com. Tel.: +41 56 2030460. Fax: +41 56 2030405}

39: \end{frontmatter}

40: 

41: \section{Introduction}

42: 

43: In two previous papers \cite{gmorw,gmorww}, we presented the results of a new evaluation of the electromagnetic (EM) corrections which have to 

44: be applied in a phase-shift analysis (PSA) of the $\pi^\pm p$ elastic-scattering data at low energies (pion laboratory kinetic energy $T \leq 100$ MeV) 

45: in order to extract the hadronic phase shifts. The calculation used relativised Schr{\"o}dinger equations containing the sum of an EM and a hadronic 

46: potential; the hadronic potential was assumed to be isospin invariant. We gave reasons for accepting the new corrections as more reliable than the ones 

47: obtained by the NORDITA group \cite{two} in the late 1970s. For the $\pi^+ p$ scattering data, the corrections $C_{0+}^{+}$, $C_{1-}^{+}$ and 

48: $C_{1+}^{+}$ for the $s$, $p_{1/2}$ and $p_{3/2}$ waves are given in Table 1 of Ref.~\cite{gmorw}. For the $\pi^- p$ scattering data, the corrections 

49: $C^{1/2}$, $C^{3/2}$ and $\Delta{\phi}$ are listed in Tables 1-3 of Ref.~\cite{gmorww}.

50: 

51: In this paper, we present the results of a PSA of the $\pi^\pm p$ elastic-scattering data for $T\leq 100$ MeV which was performed using these new EM 

52: corrections. We have imposed two important restrictions on the experimental data.

53: 

54: First, in contrast to the Karlsruhe analyses \cite{kp} and to the modern GWU (formerly, VPI) solutions \cite{abws}, we have chosen to analyse the 

55: elastic-scattering data separately. There is an important reason for this decision. As pointed out in Refs.~\cite{gmorw,gmorww}, what we called 

56: hadronic potentials (in those papers) are not the purely hadronic potentials which model the hadronic dynamics in the absence of the EM interaction; 

57: they contain residual EM ef\mbox{}fects, and we henceforth call them `electromagnetically modif\mbox{}ied' (em-modif\mbox{}ied, for short) hadronic 

58: potentials. On page $458$ of Ref.~\cite{gmorw} and page $464$ of Ref.~\cite{gmorww}, we explained that we were not attempting to calculate corrections 

59: which would remove these residual ef\mbox{}fects. The corrections calculated in Refs.~\cite{gmorw,gmorww} lead to an em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic 

60: situation, for which there is evidence that isospin invariance is violated \cite{glk,m}. It is known that, provided that this violation is reasonably 

61: small, it is still possible to analyse the $\pi^- p$ elastic-scattering data in a framework of formal isospin invariance, borrowing the $I=3/2$ hadronic 

62: phase shifts from an analysis of $\pi^+ p$ scattering data and then obtaining the $I=1/2$ hadronic phase shifts from an analysis of $\pi^- p$ 

63: elastic-scattering data. In the present paper, we therefore retain the framework of formal isospin invariance of Refs.~\cite{gmorw,gmorww}. This approach 

64: enables us to directly investigate the violation of isospin invariance by using the output of our PSA to examine the reproduction of the experimental data 

65: for the charge-exchange (CX) reaction $\pi^- p\rightarrow \pi^0 n$.

66: 

67: The second important restriction concerns the energy limitation $T \leq 100$ MeV. We think that it is important to analyse this body of data separately, 

68: and \emph{then} to compare the output of the analysis with that of works which use the entire pion-nucleon ($\pi N$) database as input \cite{kp,abws}, 

69: or with the result for the $s$-wave threshold parameter $a^{cc}$ for $\pi^- p$ elastic scattering deduced from pionic hydrogen \cite{ss,henn}. There is 

70: now an abundance of data for $T \leq 100$ MeV from experiments carried out at pion factories, and these data alone are suf\mbox{}f\mbox{}icient to 

71: determine the $s$- and $p$-wave hadronic phase shifts reliably, as well as the low-energy constants characterising the $\pi N$ interaction near threshold. 

72: If data from higher energies are included in an analysis, and scaling (f\mbox{}loating) of the dif\mbox{}ferential-cross-section (DCS) measurements is 

73: allowed, there is the possibility of a systematic rescaling of the low-energy data in order to match the behaviour of the partial-wave amplitudes obtained 

74: from the higher energies, resulting in scale factors for the low-energy experiments whose average is signif\mbox{}icantly dif\mbox{}ferent from the 

75: expected value of $1$. In our work, it has been verif\mbox{}ied that the scale factors are not energy dependent and that their average values (for the 

76: two elastic-scattering processes, separately analysed) are close to $1$.

77: 

78: Implementation of a PSA always involves a decision on where to truncate the partial-wave expansion of the scattering amplitudes. For $T\leq 100$ MeV,

79: it is suf\mbox{}f\mbox{}icient to retain terms up to $l=3$. In this region, the $d$- and $f$-wave hadronic phase shifts are very small and their EM 

80: corrections negligible. Nevertheless, these phase shifts need to be included; although their presence does not improve the quality of the f\mbox{}it, 

81: it induces small changes in the output $s$ and $p$ waves. Since in the GWU analysis \cite{abws}, which incorporates dispersion-relation constraints, the 

82: $d$ and $f$ waves are determined reliably in the region $T > 100$ MeV, we decided to use their solution. As previously mentioned, the sensitivity of the 

83: output $s$- and $p$-wave hadronic phase shifts to a variation of the $d$ and $f$ waves is small; hence, the uncertainties due to the $d$- and $f$-wave 

84: hadronic phase shifts are of no importance when compared to the ones associated with the experimental data being f\mbox{}itted.

85: 

86: Before giving a description of the rest of this paper, we comment on our use of EM corrections which are not complete (stage 1 corrections), but leave 

87: EM ef\mbox{}fects in the hadronic interaction, which require further (stage 2) corrections. Stage 1 corrections, which we have calculated 

88: nonperturbatively using a potential model, are reliable estimates of the ef\mbox{}fects of the Coulomb interaction and, in the case of $\pi^- p$ 

89: scattering, of the external mass dif\mbox{}ferences and the $\gamma n$ channel. They are not superseded by f\mbox{}ield theoretical estimates of the 

90: stage 2 corrections, which take account of diagrams with internal photon lines and of mass dif\mbox{}ferences in intermediate states. The only reliable 

91: calculation of stage 2 corrections has been made in Ref.~\cite{gilmr} for the parameter $a^{cc}$, using chiral perturbation theory (ChPT).

92: 

93: In Ref.~\cite{nu}, a variant version of ChPT is used to take account of the full ef\mbox{}fect of the EM interaction on the analysis of $\pi N$ scattering 

94: data. The authors use only a small amount of experimental data, for $T \lesssim 30$ MeV. Numerical values for EM corrections and $s$-wave scattering 

95: lengths are not given. From the solid curve for the $\pi^- p$ elastic-scattering $s$-wave `phase shift' in Fig.~$5$ of Ref.~\cite{nu}, one can deduce 

96: a value of about $0.046$ fm for $a^{cc}$; this number increases to about $0.088$ fm, if part of the EM correction is not taken into account (dashed 

97: curve in their Fig.~$5$). It is hard to assess what one can learn from these two numbers. To start with, a factor of $2$ hardly represents a correction. 

98: Further, starting from the latest experimental result of Ref.~\cite{henn} on pionic hydrogen, and taking account of the EM correction calculated in 

99: Ref.~\cite{gilmr}, a value of $0.132$ fm is obtained for $a^{cc}$, with an error of about $0.004$ fm. There is clearly a very big disagreement between 

100: this result and that of Ref.~\cite{nu}.

101: 

102: For low-energy $\pi N$ physics, the extension of the work of Ref.~\cite{gilmr} to other threshold parameters and ultimately to the calculation of 

103: stage 2 corrections at nonzero energies is needed. Until such calculations exist, there is no choice but to work with the stage 1 corrections given 

104: in Refs.~\cite{gmorw,gmorww}.

105: 

106: Section 2 sets out the formalism which establishes the connection between the em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic phase shifts and the observables which are 

107: subject to experimentation. This involves a lengthy chain of connections; to avoid constant reference to various sources of equations, we have decided to 

108: keep the formalism largely self-contained.

109: 

110: Section 3 lists the experiments in the databases for $\pi^{\pm}p$ elastic scattering and discusses the treatment of the statistical and normalisation 

111: uncertainties for the various experiments. For both $\pi^+ p$ and $\pi^- p$ elastic scattering, the databases consisted mostly of experimental results

112: for the DCS and the analysing power, measured at a series of angles for energies between $30$ and $100$ MeV. In addition, for $\pi^+ p$, we used 

113: measurements of partial-total and total (called total-nuclear in the past) cross sections at a number of energies. Our aim in this PSA was to reject as 

114: few measurements as possible; whole experiments were removed only when it was beyond doubt that their angular distribution had a shape incompatible 

115: with the bulk of the data. The optimisation method used required, in addition to the statistical errors on the individual data points, the normalisation 

116: error of each data set. In the case of cross sections, the normalisation error arises from uncertainties in the beam f\mbox{}lux and target thickness, 

117: and, in the case of analysing powers, from the uncertainty in the degree of polarisation of the target. There are a few experiments where the 

118: normalisation error has not been properly reported; in order to treat all experiments on an equal basis, it was necessary to assign normalisation errors 

119: to all such experiments.

120: 

121: In Section 4, we discuss the statistical procedure followed and the way in which the outliers were identif\mbox{}ied and removed from the databases. In 

122: order to reject the smallest possible amount of experimental information, simple expansions of the $s$- and $p$-wave $K$-matrix elements were assumed (as 

123: in Ref.~\cite{fm}); these expansions contain three parameters for each $s$-wave and two for each $p$-wave hadronic phase shift, thus making seven 

124: parameters in all for each value of the total isospin $I$. In order to determine the seven parameters corresponding to the $I=3/2$ hadronic phase shifts, 

125: the $\pi^+ p$ elastic-scattering data were f\mbox{}itted f\mbox{}irst. The Arndt-Roper formula \cite{ar} was used in the optimisation. We will explain in 

126: detail how the data sets were tested for bad shape and normalisation. Consistent with our aim of rejecting as few data as possible, a mild $0.27 \%$ was 

127: adopted as the signif\mbox{}icance level for rejection, instead of the more standard (among statisticians) value of $1 \%$. In the statistical sense, 

128: $0.27 \%$ corresponds to a $3 \sigma$ ef\mbox{}fect for the normal distribution. It was necessary to remove only two data sets from the $\pi^+ p$ 

129: database, and to f\mbox{}loat two sets freely (due to their bad normalisation). Two sets could be saved by removing just one point from each set, and a 

130: third one was saved by removing two points. We had to reject just $24$ degrees of freedom out of a total of $364$. After the completion of the analysis 

131: of the $\pi^+ p$ database, the $\pi^- p$ elastic-scattering database was analysed, using the $I=3/2$ hadronic phase shifts obtained from the $\pi^+ p$ 

132: reaction; the seven parameters for the $I=1/2$ hadronic phase shifts were thus obtained. The same tests for bad shape and normalisation were performed. 

133: In this case, just one data set had to be removed, one set was freely f\mbox{}loated, and a single point had to be removed from each of two data sets. 

134: There were just $8$ rejected degrees of freedom out of a total of $336$. After the completion of the two seven-parameter f\mbox{}its and the removal of 

135: the outliers, we combined the two truncated elastic-scattering databases, to form a single database to be used in the rest of our work.

136: 

137: In Section 5, we make use of a low-energy $\pi N$ model which was described in Ref.~\cite{glmbg} and developed further in Ref.~\cite{m}. This model is 

138: based on $N$ and $\Delta$ s- and u-channel graphs, and $\sigma$ and $\rho$ t-channel exchanges. The model incorporates the important constraints imposed 

139: by crossing symmetry. There are now just seven adjustable parameters for f\mbox{}itting the combined truncated elastic-scattering database ($340$ degrees 

140: of freedom in $\pi^+ p$, $328$ in $\pi^- p$). The f\mbox{}it using the model results in $\chi^2/\mathrm{NDF}=1.308$ (NDF stands for the number of degrees 

141: of freedom), compared to $1.214$ for the $14$-parameter f\mbox{}it. One has to remark that even the latter f\mbox{}it is poor by conventional 

142: statistical standards. However, there are two points to make here. One is that the use of the more restrictive $\pi N$ model does not make the f\mbox{}it 

143: much worse. The second is that, in order to obtain what would usually be considered an acceptable f\mbox{}it, the signif\mbox{}icance level for rejection 

144: of points would need to be raised to around $10 \%$, with a consequent drastic reduction of the database from $668$ to $562$ entries. The remarkable 

145: thing, however, is that the output values of the model parameters are very little af\mbox{}fected by this dramatic change in the signif\mbox{}icance 

146: level. This leads to considerable conf\mbox{}idence in the reliability and stability of the model in f\mbox{}itting the combined truncated 

147: elastic-scattering database. It seems to us very likely that, for many of the experiments, there has been a substantial underestimation of both the 

148: statistical and normalisation errors. We therefore think that the best strategy is to work with the low signif\mbox{}icance level of $0.27 \%$, thus 

149: rejecting as few data as possible, and to include the Birge factor $\sqrt{\chi^2/\mathrm{NDF}}$ in the uncertainties obtained for the model parameters, 

150: thus adjusting them for the quality of the f\mbox{}it.

151: 

152: In Section 6, we present our results for the em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic phase shifts (in the form of a table and f\mbox{}igures), as well as for the 

153: $s$-wave scattering lengths and $p$-wave scattering volumes. We shall compare our results with those from the GWU analysis \cite{abws} and point out 

154: where the dif\mbox{}ferences lie. We shall also compare the values of the parameter $a^{cc}$ obtained from the scattering lengths given by our PSA and 

155: from Refs.~\cite{ss,henn}.

156: 

157: In Section 7, we attempt the reproduction of the $\pi^- p$ CX data on the basis of the results obtained in Section 5. The violation of isospin invariance 

158: at the em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic level will be demonstrated. Finally, in Section 8, we shall discuss the signif\mbox{}icance of our results and outline 

159: our understanding of the origin of the isospin-invariance violation in the $\pi N$ system at low energies.

160: 

161: \section{Formalism}

162: 

163: We begin this section by giving, for $\pi^+ p$ elastic scattering, the chain of equations which lead from the em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic phase shifts 

164: $\tilde\delta_{l\pm}^{3/2}$ to the measured DCS and analysing power. The use of the symbol $\tilde\delta^{3/2}$ instead of $\delta^h$ (as in 

165: Ref.~\cite{gmorw}) emphasises that we are dealing with an em-modif\mbox{}ied quantity in a framework of formal isospin invariance. The partial-wave 

166: amplitudes are def\mbox{}ined as

167: \begin{equation} \label{eq:pwa}

168: f^+_{l\pm}=(2iq_c)^{-1}\left\{\exp\left[2i(\tilde{\delta}^{3/2}_{l\pm}+C^+_{l\pm})\right]-1\right\} \, ,

169: \end{equation}

170: $q_c$ being the centre-of-mass (CM) momentum of the $\pi^+ p$ system. The EM corrections $C^+_{l\pm}$ are given in Table 1 of Ref.~\cite{gmorw}, for 

171: $0+$, $1-$ and $1+$, and for $5$ MeV intervals (in $T$) from $10$ to $100$ MeV. The corrections for $l>1$ are very small for $T\leq 100$ MeV and 

172: were ignored.

173: 

174: The no-spin-f\mbox{}lip and spin-f\mbox{}lip amplitudes $f^+$ and $g^+$ for $\pi^+ p$ elastic scattering are given by

175: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:fplus}

176: \lefteqn{ f^+ = f^{pc} + f^{ext}_{1\gamma E} + f^{rel}_{1\gamma E} + f^{vp}+ } \nonumber \\

177: & & + \sum^{\infty}_{l=0} \left\{ (l+1)e^{2i\Sigma_{l+}} f^+_{l+} + le^{2i\Sigma_{l-}} f^+_{l-} \right\} P_{l}(\cos \theta) \, ,

178: \end{eqnarray}

179: \begin{equation} \label{eq:gplus}

180: g^+ = g^{rel}_{1\gamma E} + i\sum_{l=1}^{\infty} \left\{ e^{2i\Sigma _{l+}} f^+_{l+} - e^{2i\Sigma _{l-}} f^+_{l-} \right\}\sin \theta \, P^{'}_{l}(\cos \theta) \, .

181: \end{equation}

182: 

183: The EM phase shifts $\Sigma_{l\pm}$ have the form

184: \begin{equation} \label{eq:sigma}

185: \Sigma_{l\pm} = (\sigma_l-\sigma_0)+\sigma^{ext}_l+\sigma_{l\pm}^{rel}+\sigma_l^{vp} \, ,

186: \end{equation}

187: where

188: \begin{equation} \label{eq:dsigma}

189: \sigma_l-\sigma_0=\sum^{l}_{n=1}\arctan\left(\frac{\eta f_c}{n} \right) \, ,

190: \end{equation}

191: \begin{equation} \label{eq:eta}

192: \eta=\alpha m_c/q_c , \, f_c=\frac{W^2-m_p^2-\mu_c^2}{2m_cW} \, .

193: \end{equation}

194: The quantity $W$ is the total energy in the CM frame, $\mu_c$ and $m_p$ are the masses of $\pi^{\pm}$ and $p$, and $m_c$ is the reduced 

195: mass of the $\pi^+ p$ system.

196: 

197: The remaining phase shifts in Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigma}) are given in Eqs.~(21)-(23) of \cite{gmorw}; they are the partial-wave projections of the EM

198: amplitudes in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:fplus}) and (\ref{eq:gplus}), for which the expressions are

199: \begin{equation} \label{eq:fpc}

200: f^{pc}=\frac{2\alpha m_c f_c}{t}\exp \left\{ -i\eta f_c\ln (\sin^2 \frac{\theta}{2} ) \right\} \, ,

201: \end{equation}

202: \begin{equation} \label{eq:fext}

203: f^{ext}_{1 \gamma E}=\frac{2\alpha m_c f_c}{t} \left( F^{\pi}F_1^p-1 \right) \, ,

204: \end{equation}

205: \begin{equation} \label{eq:frel}

206: f^{rel}_{1 \gamma E}=\frac{\alpha}{2W} \left\{ \frac{W+m_p}{E+m_p}F_1^p + 2\left( W-m_p+ \frac{t}{4(E+m_p)} \right) F_2^p \right\}F^{\pi} \, ,

207: \end{equation}

208: \begin{equation} \label{eq:grel}

209: g^{rel}_{1 \gamma E}=\frac{i\alpha}{2W \tan (\frac{1}{2}\theta)} \left\{ \frac{W+m_p}{E+m_p}F_1^p + 2\left( W+ \frac{t}{4(E+m_p)} \right) F_2^p \right\}F^{\pi} \, ,

210: \end{equation}

211: \begin{equation} \label{eq:fvp}

212: f^{vp}=-\frac{\alpha \eta f_c}{3\pi q_c} (1- \cos \theta)^{-1} F(\cos \theta) \, ,

213: \end{equation}

214: where 

215: \[

216: F(\cos \theta)= -\frac{5}{3}+X+(1-\frac{1}{2}X) \sqrt{1+X} \ln \left\{ \frac{\sqrt{1+X}+1}{\sqrt{1+X}-1} \right\} , \, X=-\frac{4m_e^2}{t}.

217: \]

218: Here, $m_e$ is the electron mass, $t=-2q_c^2(1-\cos\theta)$, $\theta$ denotes the CM scattering angle, $F^{\pi}$ and $F_{1,2}^p$ are the pion and 

219: proton EM form factors, respectively, and $E=\sqrt{m_p^2+q_c^2}$. The form factors used for our PSA were approximated by the dipole forms

220: \begin{equation} \label{eq:F1p}

221: F_1^p= (1-t/\Lambda_p^2)^{-2}, \, F_2^p= \frac{\kappa_p}{2m_p}F_1^p, \, F^{\pi}=(1-t/\Lambda_{\pi}^2)^{-2} \, ,

222: \end{equation}

223: with $\Lambda_p=805$ MeV and $\Lambda_{\pi}=1040$ MeV. Standard notation is used for the quantities $\alpha$ and $\kappa_p$. The ef\mbox{}fect of the 

224: form factors is very small, and there is no need to use more sophisticated parameterisations or to change the values of $\Lambda_p$ and $\Lambda_{\pi}$ 

225: used in Refs.~\cite{gmorw,gmorww}.

226: 

227: The experimental observables (DCS and analysing power) are given in terms of $f^+$ and $g^+$ by Eqs.~(1) and (2) of Ref.~\cite{two}:

228: \begin{equation} \label{eq:dsigmaplus}

229: \left( \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)^+= Z^+(s,t,\Delta E) \left( |f^+|^2+|g^+|^2 \right) \, ,

230: \end{equation}

231: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Aplus}

232: A^+= \frac{2Re(f^+\overline{g}^+)}{|f^+|^2+|g^+|^2} \, .

233: \end{equation}

234: The bar denotes complex conjugation. The factor $Z^+(s,t,\Delta E)$ is associated with the emission of (undetected) soft photons, while $\Delta E$ is 

235: the energy resolution of the experiment and $s$ is the standard Mandelstam variable ($s=W^2$). A detailed discussion of this factor may be found in the 

236: appendix of Ref.~\cite{two}.

237: 

238: For the $\pi^- p$ system, in addition to the hadronic phase shifts $\tilde{\delta}_{l\pm}^{3/2}$, the $I=1/2$ hadronic phase shifts 

239: $\tilde{\delta}_{l\pm}^{1/2}$ are introduced. The partial-wave amplitudes are def\mbox{}ined as

240: \begin{equation} \label{eq:pwfI}

241: f^{I}_{l\pm}=(2iq_c)^{-1} \left\{ \exp \left[ 2i( \tilde{\delta}_{l\pm}^{I} + C^I_{l\pm} ) \right]-1 \right\}, \, I=1/2, 3/2 \,\,\, ,

242: \end{equation}

243: where the EM corrections $C^{1/2}_{l\pm}$, $C^{3/2}_{l\pm}$ are given in Tables 1-3 of Ref.~\cite{gmorww}, for $l\pm=0+, 1-$ and $1+$, at $5$ MeV 

244: intervals from $10$ to $100$ MeV. Also included in those tables are the EM corrections $\Delta \phi_{0+}$, $\Delta \phi_{1-}$ and 

245: $\Delta \phi_{1+}$ to the isospin-invariant mixing angle $\phi_0=\arctan (1/\sqrt{2})$. Denoting the $\pi^- p$ channel by $c$ (and the $\pi^0 n$ 

246: channel by $0$), the partial-wave amplitudes $f^{cc}_{l\pm}$ for $\pi^- p$ elastic scattering have the form

247: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:pwfcc}

248: \lefteqn{ f^{cc}_{l\pm}=\cos^2(\phi_0+\Delta \phi)f^{1/2} + \sin^2(\phi_0+\Delta \phi)f^{3/2}\,\,\,- } \nonumber \\

249: & & - \frac{1}{6iq_c} \left\{

250: 2 \bar{\eta}^1 \exp(2i\tilde{\delta}^{1/2} ) +

251: \bar{\eta}^3 \exp(2i\tilde{\delta}^{3/2} ) +

252: \frac{8}{3} \eta^{13} \exp \left[i (\tilde{\delta}^{1/2}+ \tilde{\delta}^{3/2}) \right]

253: \right\} ,

254: \end{eqnarray}

255: where, for convenience, we have omitted the subscript $l\pm$ on the right-hand side. The third term on the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:pwfcc}) 

256: takes account of the presence of the third coupled channel $\gamma n$. The values of $\bar{\eta}^1$, $\bar{\eta}^3$ and $\eta^{13}$ for the partial 

257: waves with $0+$ and $1+$ are given in Table IV of Ref.~\cite{two}. The values for $1-$ are negligible. We have changed the subscripts in \cite{two} 

258: to superscripts. The numerical values in \cite{two} were derived from known amplitudes for the reactions $\gamma n \rightarrow \pi^- p, \pi^0 n$ using 

259: three-channel unitarity.

260: 

261: The equations for the $\pi^- p$ elastic-scattering observables are

262: \begin{equation} \label{eq:dsigmacc}

263: \left( \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)^{cc}= Z^{cc}(s,t,\Delta E) \left( |f^{cc}|^2+|g^{cc}|^2 \right) \, ,

264: \end{equation}

265: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Acc}

266: A^{cc}= \frac{2Re(f^{cc}\overline{g}^{cc})}{|f^{cc}|^2+|g^{cc}|^2} \, ,

267: \end{equation}

268: where the amplitudes $f^{cc}$ and $g^{cc}$ are

269: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:fcc}

270: \lefteqn { f^{cc} = -\bar{f}^{pc} - f^{ext}_{1\gamma E} - f^{rel}_{1\gamma E} - f^{vp} + } \nonumber \\

271: & & + \sum^{\infty}_{l=0} \left\{ (l+1)e^{-2i\Sigma_{l+}} f^{cc}_{l+} + le^{-2i\Sigma_{l-}} f^{cc}_{l-} \right\} P_{l}(\cos \theta) \, ,

272: \end{eqnarray}

273: \begin{equation} \label{eq:gcc}

274: g^{cc} = -g^{rel}_{1\gamma E} + i\sum_{l=1}^{\infty} \left\{ e^{-2i\Sigma _{l+}} f^{cc}_{l+} - e^{-2i\Sigma_{l-}} f^{cc}_{l-} \right\}\sin \theta \, P^{'}_{l}(\cos \theta) \, .

275: \end{equation}

276: All the quantities on the right-hand sides of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:fcc}) and (\ref{eq:gcc}) have already been def\mbox{}ined. The factor $Z^{cc}$ is related to 

277: $Z^+$ in the manner specif\mbox{}ied in the appendix of Ref.~\cite{two}.

278: 

279: The partial-wave amplitudes $f^{c0}_{l\pm}$ for the CX reaction $\pi^- p \rightarrow \pi^0 n$ have the form

280: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:pwfc0}

281: \lefteqn{ f^{c0}_{l\pm}=\sqrt{\frac{q_c}{q_0}} \sin(\phi_0+\Delta \phi)\cos(\phi_0+\Delta \phi)

282: \left( f^{3/2} -f^{1/2}\right) + } \nonumber \\

283: & & + \frac{1}{2i} \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3\sqrt{q_cq_0}} \nonumber \\

284: & & \mbox{} \left\{

285: \bar{\eta}^1 \exp(2i\tilde{\delta}^{1/2} ) -

286: \bar{\eta}^3 \exp(2i\tilde{\delta}^{3/2} ) -

287: \frac{2}{3} \eta^{13} \exp \left[i (\tilde{\delta}^{1/2}+ \tilde{\delta}^{3/2}) \right]

288: \right\} \, ,

289: \end{eqnarray}

290: where $q_0$ is the CM momentum in the $\pi^0 n$ system; the other quantities on the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:pwfc0}) have the same meaning as in 

291: Eq.~(\ref{eq:pwfcc}). Again, we have omitted the subscript $l\pm$ on the right-hand side; the second term takes account of the presence of the 

292: $\gamma n$ channel. In terms of the amplitudes

293: \begin{equation} \label{eq:fc0}

294: f^{c0} = \sum^{\infty}_{l=0} \left\{ (l+1)e^{-i\Sigma_{l+}} f^{c0}_{l+} + le^{-i\Sigma_{l-}} f^{c0}_{l-} \right\} P_{l}(\cos \theta) \, ,

295: \end{equation}

296: \begin{equation} \label{eq:gc0}

297: g^{c0} =i\sum_{l=1}^{\infty} \left\{ e^{-i\Sigma _{l+}} f^{c0}_{l+} - e^{-i\Sigma _{l-}} f^{c0}_{l-} \right\}\sin \theta \, P^{'}_{l}(\cos \theta) \, ,

298: \end{equation}

299: the DCS for the $\pi^- p$ CX reaction is

300: \begin{equation} \label{eq:dsigmac0}

301: \left( \frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)^{c0}= Z^{c0}(s,\Delta E) \left( \frac{q_0}{q_c} \right) \left( |f^{c0}|^2+|g^{c0}|^2 \right) \, ,

302: \end{equation}

303: while the analysing power is given by an expression analogous to Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Aplus}) and (\ref{eq:Acc}). The factor $Z^{c0}$ in

304: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dsigmac0}) is given in the appendix of Ref.~\cite{two}.

305: 

306: This completes the formalism for the PSA of experiments on low-energy $\pi^{\pm}p$ scattering. The equations leading from em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic 

307: phase shifts $\tilde{\delta}_{l\pm}^{1/2}$ and $\tilde{\delta}_{l\pm}^{3/2}$ to the experimental observables have all been given explicitly. 

308: Reference needs to be made to \cite{gmorw}, for the expressions for the EM phase shifts $\sigma_l^{ext}$, $\sigma_{l\pm}^{rel}$ and $\sigma_l^{vp}$ 

309: (Eqs.~(21)-(23)) and for Table 1 containing the EM corrections $C_{0+}^{+}$, $C_{1-}^{+}$ and $C_{1+}^{+}$. The corrections $C^{1/2}$, $C^{3/2}$ and 

310: $\Delta \phi$ for $0+$, $1-$ and $1+$ are found in Tables 1-3 of \cite{gmorww}. For the factors $Z$, appearing in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dsigmaplus}), 

311: (\ref{eq:dsigmacc}) and (\ref{eq:dsigmac0}), reference needs to be made to the appendix of Ref.~\cite{two}, while the quantities $\bar{\eta}^1$, 

312: $\bar{\eta}^3$ and $\eta^{13}$, appearing in the correction terms in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:pwfcc}) and (\ref{eq:pwfc0}) and taking account of the presence of 

313: the $\gamma n$ channel, are found in Table IV of the same reference. In fact, the factors $Z$ are of minor interest only; we have mentioned them for 

314: completeness. Since the energy resolution of experiments is only rarely reported, we made the same decision as everyone else involved in analyses of 

315: low-energy $\pi N$ data, namely, to put the factors $Z$ to $1$.

316: 

317: \section{The databases for $\pi^{\pm}p$ elastic scattering}

318: 

319: The $\pi^+ p$ database comprises the following measurements: DCS \cite{ega}-\cite{cj}, analysing powers \cite{mes,rw}, partial-total cross sections 

320: \cite{bjk,ef} and total cross sections \cite{cwbbd,ep}. The AULD79 experiment \cite{ega} gave only statistical errors on the data points and did not 

321: report an overall normalisation uncertainty; we assigned a normalisation error of $5.95 \%$ based on a least-squares f\mbox{}it to the quoted 

322: meson-factory normalisation errors for the experiments \cite{bgr}-\cite{cj}. Due to the fact that two dif\mbox{}ferent targets were used, the BRACK88 

323: data \cite{jtbb} were assumed to comprise two independent experiments performed at the same energy ($66.8$ MeV).

324: 

325: The analysing-power experiment of WIESER96 \cite{rw} used two separate targets with dif\mbox{}ferent degrees of polarisation. We therefore separated the 

326: data from this experiment into two data sets, one with three points and one with four. For this experiment (as well as for that of SEVIOR89 \cite{mes}), 

327: a normalisation uncertainty of $7.4 \%$ was assigned; this value represents twice the normalisation error of the recent experiment of PATTERSON02 

328: \cite{jdp} which measured the $\pi^- p$ analysing power. It is hard to decide what to do with experiments for which the normalisation uncertainties were 

329: not properly reported. Rather than discard them, we made a rough judgment that they should be included in the databases, and assigned 

330: normalisation errors which are twice those of comparable modern experiments, to take account of their lack of proper reporting and of the age of the 

331: experiments. As we note later, the exact assignment does not matter.

332: 

333: The partial-total cross sections of KRISS97 \cite{bjk} were obtained at 13 dif\mbox{}ferent energies from $39.5$ to $99.2$ MeV. At each of these 

334: energies, the cross section for scattering into all (laboratory) angles exceeding $30^\circ$ was measured. At two energies ($66.3$ and $66.8$ MeV), 

335: the partial-total cross section for scattering into all angles $\geq 20^\circ$ was also measured, using the same beam and target. We therefore 

336: separated the data into 11 one-point sets and 2 two-point sets, thus giving $13$ data sets in all. The normalisation error on the data points was 

337: assumed to be $3 \%$; this number appeared in the f\mbox{}irst report of the experiment. For the very similar FRIEDMAN99 experiment \cite{ef}, there are 

338: $30^\circ$ data at six energies and, in addition, $20^\circ$ data at three of the energies, obtained with the same beam and target. We thus separated 

339: the data into three one-point sets and three two-point sets, and assigned a normalisation uncertainty of $6 \%$.

340: 

341: The total cross sections of CARTER71 \cite{cwbbd} and PEDRONI78 \cite{ep} were also included in the analysis, each data point being treated as a 

342: one-point set, with a total error obtained by combining in quadrature the reported errors with a normalisation uncertainty of $6 \%$, twice the 

343: corresponding error for the experiment of Ref.~\cite{bjk}. The same remarks apply as for the analysing-power experiments discussed above.

344: 

345: The complete initial $\pi^+ p$ database consisted of $364$ entries; a normalisation uncertainty had to be assigned to $39$ entries in total. The 

346: smallness of this fraction ensures that the output of the analysis is practically insensitive to the precise values of the normalisation uncertainties 

347: assigned to these 39 measurements. There were $54$ data sets within the full database, $26$ for the DCS, $3$ for the analysing power and $25$ (all 

348: one- or two-point sets) for the partial-total and total cross sections.

349: 

350: As already explained in Section 1, for the $\pi^- p$ database we conf\mbox{}ined ourselves to elastic scattering only. The published $\pi^- p$ 

351: partial-total and total cross sections cannot be used, as they contain a large component from CX scattering; the inclusion of these data in any part of 

352: the analysis would have cast doubt on any conclusions about the violation of isospin invariance. Our database therefore consisted of measurements of the 

353: DCS \cite{jsf,jtb}, \cite{uw}-\cite{cj} and \cite{mj}, and of the analysing power \cite{mes}, \cite{jca}-\cite{jdp}. The experiment of JANOUSCH97 

354: \cite{mj} measured the DCS at a single angle ($175^\circ$ in the CM frame) at f\mbox{}ive energies; the data were treated as f\mbox{}ive one-point 

355: experiments. The experiment of JORAM95 \cite{cj} was considered to comprise eight separate data sets. Data was taken at f\mbox{}ive energies, but, at the 

356: energies of $32.7, 45.1$ and $68.6$ MeV, the points at higher angles were obtained using a dif\mbox{}ferent target from the one used for lower angles; the 

357: data obtained with these dif\mbox{}ferent targets were put in separate sets. Only in the case of the analysing-power experiments ALDER83 \cite{jca} and 

358: SEVIOR89 \cite{mes} did we have to assign a normalisation error, namely the $7.4 \%$ value which was used in the case of the two $\pi^+ p$ analysing-power 

359: experiments. Thus, the assignment of a normalisation uncertainty was necessary for only $11$ points out of $336$. In the full database, there were $36$ 

360: data sets ($27$ for the DCS and $9$ for the analysing power).

361: 

362: After our PSA was completed, new experimental data appeared \cite{meier}; this consists of analysing-power measurements at energies between $45.2$ and 

363: $87.2$ MeV, with $25$ data points for $\pi^+ p$ and $3$ for $\pi^- p$ elastic scattering. For these measurements, three dif\mbox{}ferent targets were 

364: used, for each of which there was a determination of the target polarisation; therefore, the measurements must be assigned to just three data sets. In 

365: each of these sets, the measurements correspond to more than one energy, and, in one case, to both $\pi^+ p$ and $\pi^- p$ scattering. Unfortunately, it 

366: has not been possible to include these data in our analysis. Their inclusion would have involved substantial modif\mbox{}ications in our database 

367: structure and analysis software as, at present, our data sets are characterised by a single energy and a single reaction type. Nevertheless, we shall 

368: show (at the end of Section 6) that the data of Ref.~\cite{meier} are well reproduced by the output of our PSA. We shall also give reasons why the 

369: inclusion of these measurements would have made a negligible dif\mbox{}ference to our results.

370: 

371: \section{The statistical method and the identif\mbox{}ication of outliers}

372: 

373: The Arndt-Roper formula \cite{ar} was used in the optimisation; the quantity which was minimised is the standard $\chi^2$, including a term which takes 

374: account of the f\mbox{}loating of each data set. The contribution of the $j^{th}$ data set to the overall $\chi^2$ is

375: \begin{equation} \label{eq:chijsq}

376: \chi_j^2=\sum_{i=1}^{N_j} \left\{ \frac{ z_jy_{ij}^{th}-y_{ij}^{exp} }{\delta y_{ij}^{exp} } \right\}^2 + 

377: \left( \frac{z_j-1}{\delta z_j} \right)^2 \, .

378: \end{equation}

379: In Eq.~(\ref{eq:chijsq}), $y_{ij}^{exp}$ denotes the $i^{th}$ data point in the $j^{th}$ data set, $y_{ij}^{th}$ the corresponding f\mbox{}itted value 

380: (also referred to as theoretical), $\delta y_{ij}^{exp}$ the statistical uncertainty associated with the $y_{ij}^{exp}$ measurement, $z_j$ a 

381: scale factor applying to the entire data set, $\delta z_j$ the relative normalisation error and $N_j$ the number of points in the set. The 

382: f\mbox{}itted values $y_{ij}^{th}$ are generated by means of parameterised forms of the em-modif\mbox{}ied $s$- and $p$-wave amplitudes. The values of 

383: the scale factor $z_j$ are determined for each individual data set in order to minimise the contribution $\chi_j^2$. For each data set, there is a unique 

384: solution for $z_j$:

385: \begin{equation} \label{eq:zj}

386: z_j = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N_j} y_{ij}^{th} y_{ij}^{exp} / (\delta y_{ij}^{exp} )^2 + (\delta z_j)^{-2}} 

387: {\sum_{i=1}^{N_j} (y_{ij}^{th} / \delta y_{ij}^{exp})^2 + (\delta z_j)^{-2}} \, ,

388: \end{equation}

389: which leads to the value

390: \begin{equation} \label{eq:chijsqmin}

391: \left(\chi_j^2\right)_{min} = \sum_{i=1}^{N_j} \frac{ (y_{ij}^{th}-y_{ij}^{exp})^2}{(\delta y_{ij}^{exp})^2 } -

392: \frac {\left\{ \sum_{i=1}^{N_j}y_{ij}^{th}(y_{ij}^{th}-y_{ij}^{exp}) / (\delta y_{ij}^{exp} )^2 \right\}^2}

393: { \sum_{i=1}^{N_j}(y_{ij}^{th}/\delta y_{ij}^{exp})^2 + (\delta z_j)^{-2} } \, .

394: \end{equation}

395: The sum of the values $(\chi_j^2)_{min}$ for all data sets $j$ will be denoted simply by $\chi^2$. This total $\chi^2$ for the whole database is a 

396: function of the parameters which appear in the parameterisation of the $s$- and $p$-wave amplitudes; these parameters were varied until $\chi^2$ 

397: attained its minimum value $\chi^2_{min}$.

398: 

399: Note that, for a one-point set $(N_j=1)$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:chijsqmin}) reduces to

400: \begin{equation} \label{eq:chijsqmin1}

401: \left(\chi_j^2\right)_{min} = \frac{ (y_{j}^{th}-y_{j}^{exp})^2}{(\delta y_{j}^{exp})^2 + (\delta z_j)^2(y_j^{th})^2 } \, .

402: \end{equation}

403: The contribution of a one-point set to the overall $\chi^2$ can therefore be calculated from a total uncertainty obtained by adding in quadrature 

404: the statistical error $\delta y_j^{exp}$ and the normalisation error $(\delta z_j)|y_j^{th}|$. Eqs.~(\ref{eq:chijsqmin}) and (\ref{eq:chijsqmin1}) were 

405: used to calculate the values of $(\chi_j^2)_{min}$ for each data set. The values of the scale factors $z_j$ (Eq.~(\ref{eq:zj})) need to be calculated 

406: only once, at the end of the optimisation.

407: 

408: In order to give the data maximal freedom in the process of identifying the outliers, the two elastic-scattering reactions were analysed separately 

409: using simple expansions of the $s$- and $p$-wave $K$-matrix elements. For $\pi^+ p$ elastic scattering, the $s$-wave phase shift was 

410: parameterised as

411: \begin{equation} \label{eq:delta0+3/2}

412: q_c \cot \tilde{\delta}_{0+}^{3/2}=(\tilde{a}_{0+}^{3/2})^{-1} +b_3\epsilon

413: +c_3\epsilon^2 \, ,

414: \end{equation}

415: where $\epsilon=\sqrt{\mu_c^2+q_c^2}-\mu_c$, while the $p_{1/2}$-wave phase shift was parameterised according to the form

416: \begin{equation} \label{eq:delta1-3/2}

417: \tan \tilde{\delta}_{1-}^{3/2}/q_c=d_{31}\epsilon+e_{31}\epsilon^2 \, .

418: \end{equation}

419: 

420: Since the $p_{3/2}$ wave contains the $\Delta$($1232$) resonance, a resonant piece in Breit-Wigner form was added to the 

421: background term, thus leading to the equation

422: \begin{equation} \label{eq:delta1+3/2}

423: \tan \tilde{\delta}_{1+}^{3/2}/q_c=d_{33}\epsilon+e_{33}\epsilon^2+ \frac{\Gamma_{\Delta}m_{\Delta}^2}{q_{\Delta}^3W} \frac{q_c^2}{m_{\Delta}^2-W^2} \, ,

424: \end{equation}

425: where $q_\Delta$ is the value of $q_c$ at the resonance position. Since in Eq.~(\ref{eq:delta1+3/2}) we are parameterising a real quantity, the phase 

426: factor which appears in the usual expression for the $\Delta$ amplitude is absent. The third term on the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:delta1+3/2}) 

427: is the standard resonance contribution given in Ref.~\cite{ew}. Since we are assuming a framework of formal isospin invariance for hadronic 

428: phase shifts and threshold parameters, we took the average value $m_\Delta=1232$ MeV from Ref.~\cite{pdg}, as well as the width $\Gamma_\Delta=120$ MeV. 

429: As the resonance position is around $T=190$ MeV, the exact resonance parameters are not important; small changes in these parameters will be absorbed by 

430: $d_{33}$ and $e_{33}$. For the PSA of the $\pi^+ p$ elastic-scattering data, the seven parameters in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:delta0+3/2})-(\ref{eq:delta1+3/2}) 

431: were varied until $\chi^2$ was minimised. The parameterisation described in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:delta0+3/2})-(\ref{eq:delta1+3/2}) was f\mbox{}irst introduced 

432: (and successfully applied to $\pi^+ p$ elastic scattering) in Ref.~\cite{fm}.

433: 

434: We pause here to note that, for a data set containing $N_j$ points, there were in fact $(N_j+1)$ measurements made, the extra one relating to the 

435: absolute normalisation of the experiment. When any f\mbox{}it is made using Eq.~(\ref{eq:chijsq}) for $\chi_j^2$, a penalty is imposed for each of the 

436: data points and for the deviation of the scale factor $z_j$ from 1. Since the f\mbox{}it involves the f\mbox{}ixing of each $z_j$ at the value given in 

437: Eq.~(\ref{eq:zj}), the actual number of degrees of freedom associated with the $j^{th}$ data set is just $N_j$. As we shall see in a moment, the shapes 

438: of the data sets were tested by a method in which the scale factors $z_j$ were varied without penalty (free f\mbox{}loating). Furthermore, certain data 

439: sets were found to have a bad normalisation and were freely f\mbox{}loated in the f\mbox{}inal f\mbox{}its. In all these cases of free f\mbox{}loating, 

440: the experimental determination of the normalisation was ignored, with the result that the number of degrees of freedom associated with each such set was 

441: reduced from $N_j$ to $(N_j-1)$.

442: 

443: The use of the parametric forms in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:delta0+3/2})-(\ref{eq:delta1+3/2}), which do not impose any theoretical constraints except for the 

444: known threshold behaviour, ensures that the existence of any outliers in the database cannot be attributed to the inability of the parametric forms to 

445: describe the hadronic phase shifts, but indicates problems with some of the data points. The f\mbox{}irst step was to identify any data sets with a shape 

446: inconsistent with the bulk of the data. To do this, at the end of each iteration in the optimisation scheme, each data set with $N_j>1$ was f\mbox{}loated 

447: freely; this means that the second term on the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:chijsq}) was omitted and $z_j$ was chosen in such a way as to minimise 

448: the f\mbox{}irst term. Its minimum value $(\chi^2_j)_{stat}$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:chijsqmin}), with $(\delta z_j)^{-2}$ removed from the denominator 

449: of the second term on the right-hand side. For each data set, the probability was then calculated that the observed statistical variation 

450: $(\chi^2_j)_{stat}$ for $(N_j-1)$ degrees of freedom could be attributed to random f\mbox{}luctuations. If this probability was below the chosen 

451: signif\mbox{}icance level ($\mathrm{p}_{min}=0.0027$), it was necessary to eliminate data points from the set. In some cases, the removal of either one 

452: or two points with the largest contribution to $(\chi^2_j)_{stat}$ raised the p-value for the remainder of the data set above $\mathrm{p}_{min}$. Such 

453: points were then removed (one at a time) and the analysis was repeated after each removal. In the case of two data sets (BRACK90 \cite{jtbbb} at $66.8$ 

454: MeV and JORAM95 \cite{cj} at $32.7$ MeV), the p-value was still below $\mathrm{p}_{min}$ after the removal of two points; these two sets (with $11$ 

455: points and $7$ points, respectively) were removed from the database. The two removed sets have extremely low p-values and stand out dramatically from the 

456: rest of the $\pi^+ p$ data. In addition, just four individual points needed to be removed, two from JORAM95 at $44.6$ MeV (at $30.74^\circ$ and 

457: $35.40^\circ$), one from JORAM95 at $32.2$ MeV (at $37.40^\circ$) and one from JORAM95 at $45.1$ MeV (at $124.42^\circ$). For the overall consistency 

458: of the analysis, any points with a contribution $>9$ to $(\chi^2_j)_{stat}$ had to be removed (since $\mathrm{p}_{min}$ corresponds to a $3\sigma$ 

459: ef\mbox{}fect for the normal distribution), even though the data set to which they belonged had a p-value greater than $\mathrm{p}_{min}$. This was the 

460: reason for the elimination of two of the four points just mentioned.

461: 

462: The second step was to investigate the normalisation of the data sets. The p-values corresponding to the scaling contribution to $(\chi^2_j)_{min}$ 

463: (the second term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:chijsq}), with $z_j$ set at the value obtained using Eq.~(\ref{eq:zj})) were calculated for all the data sets. The 

464: experiment with the lowest p-value (well below $\mathrm{p}_{min}$) was BRACK86 \cite{jtb} at $66.8$ MeV; this experiment was freely f\mbox{}loated in the 

465: subsequent f\mbox{}its. A second data set, BRACK86 at $86.8$ MeV, also needed to be freely f\mbox{}loated after the PSA was repeated. After that, no more 

466: data sets had to be freely f\mbox{}loated. After the reduction in the number of degrees of freedom by $24$, as described above, we were left with a 

467: $\pi^+ p$ database comprising $52$ data sets with $340$ degrees of freedom. The surviving data sets and the corresponding numbers of degrees of freedom 

468: are listed in Table \ref{tab:1-table}.

469: 

470: Since seven parameters were used to generate the f\mbox{}itted values, the number of degrees of freedom for the initial f\mbox{}it to the full database 

471: was $357$; the minimum value of $\chi^2$ was $673.9$. For the truncated database with $333$ degrees of freedom, the minimum value of $\chi^2$ was $425.2$, 

472: an impressive decrease by $248.7$ units after eliminating a mere $24$ degrees of freedom. At the same time, the p-value of the f\mbox{}it increased by 

473: $17$ orders of magnitude. The f\mbox{}it to the truncated database detailed in Table \ref{tab:1-table} corresponds to a p-value of $4.62\cdot 10^{-4}$, 

474: which may appear to be rather poor. Questions about the quality of the f\mbox{}it and the choice of the criterion for the rejection of data points will be 

475: further discussed in Section 5.

476: 

477: The $I=3/2$ amplitudes were f\mbox{}ixed from the last f\mbox{}it to the $\pi^+ p$ data, made after all the outliers were removed from the database; they 

478: were then imported into the analysis of the full $\pi^- p$ database. For this analysis, another seven parameters were introduced to parameterise the $s$- 

479: and $p$-wave $I=1/2$ components of the scattering amplitude. As for the $\pi^+ p$ case, these parameters were varied in order to f\mbox{}ind the minimum 

480: of the $\chi^2$ function. The same parametric forms were used as in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:delta0+3/2})-(\ref{eq:delta1+3/2}), with the parameters 

481: $\tilde{a}_{0+}^{1/2}$, $b_1$, $c_1$, $d_{11}$, $e_{11}$, $d_{13}$, $e_{13}$. Of course, there is no resonance term in the expression for 

482: $\tilde\delta_{1+}^{1/2}$; instead, it is necessary to add the contribution of the Roper resonance to $\tilde\delta_{1-}^{1/2}$:

483: \begin{equation} \label{eq:delta1-1/2}

484: \tan \tilde{\delta}_{1-}^{1/2}/q_c=d_{11}\epsilon+e_{11}\epsilon^2+ \frac{\Gamma_{N}m_{N}^2}{q_{N}^3W} \frac{q_c^2}{m_{N}^2-W^2} \, ,

485: \end{equation}

486: with $m_N=1440$ MeV, $\Gamma_N=227.5$ MeV and $q_N$ denoting the CM momentum at the Roper-resonance position. As we are dealing with energies below the 

487: pion-production threshold, the value of $\Gamma_N$ is the elastic width. Inspection of the values of $\Gamma_N$, which are considered in the evaluation 

488: performed by the Particle Data Group (PDG) \cite{pdg}, reveals a rather disturbing variation; the numbers quoted there (page 868) range between $135$ 

489: and $545$ MeV. According to the PDG, the best estimate of the $\Gamma_N$ value lies around the centre of this interval; in our work, we used their 

490: recommendation. In fact, the exact value used for $\Gamma_N$ is of no consequence for our purpose. The Roper resonance makes only a very small 

491: contribution, even near $100$ MeV, and any change in $\Gamma_N$ will be compensated by changes in the parameters $d_{11}$ and $e_{11}$.

492: 

493: The $\pi^- p$ database was subjected to the same tests of the shape and normalisation of the data sets. In this case, only one data set (BRACK90 

494: \cite{jtbbb} at $66.8$ MeV, with f\mbox{}ive data points) needed to be removed. Additionally, two single points (the $36.70^\circ$ point of BRACK95 

495: \cite{jtbbbb} at $98.1$ MeV and the $15.55^\circ$ point of WIEDNER89 \cite{uw} at $54.3$ MeV) had to be rejected. The only data set which needed to be 

496: freely f\mbox{}loated because of poor normalisation was that of WIEDNER89. The truncated database for $\pi^- p$ elastic scattering f\mbox{}inally 

497: consisted of $35$ data sets with $328$ degrees of freedom (see Table \ref{tab:2-table}). The number of points in the full $\pi^- p$ elastic-scattering 

498: database was $336$ and the minimum value of $\chi^2$ was $531.9$ for $329$ degrees of freedom. After the removal of the outliers, there was a spectacular 

499: drop of $\chi^2_{min}$ to $373.3$ for $321$ degrees of freedom. The p-value for the f\mbox{}it increased by $9$ orders of magnitude, to a value of 

500: $2.34\cdot 10^{-2}$, indicating a fairly good f\mbox{}it. Interestingly, Table \ref{tab:2-table} shows that the p-values for all the data sets are above 

501: $0.01$. Therefore, increasing $\mathrm{p}_{min}$ from $0.0027$ to $0.01$ would not af\mbox{}fect the $\pi^- p$ elastic-scattering database.

502: 

503: After all the outliers were removed, a f\mbox{}it to the combined truncated elastic-scattering databases (detailed in Tables \ref{tab:1-table} and 

504: \ref{tab:2-table}) was made, using $14$ parameters, in order to examine whether any additional points (or even data sets) had to be removed. None were 

505: identif\mbox{}ied, thus satisfying us that the two truncated elastic-scattering databases are self-consistent and can be used as the starting point for 

506: further analysis. Before proceeding further, three issues need to be addressed.

507: 

508: First, judged solely on the basis of p-values, it appears that the two truncated databases (that is, $\pi^+ p$ and $\pi^- p$) are not of the same 

509: quality. However, there is a proper statistical measure of such a comparison between two quantities following the $\chi^2$ distribution. In order to 

510: prove that the two databases are of dif\mbox{}ferent quality (that is, that they have not been sampled from the same distribution), the ratio

511: \begin{equation} \label{eq:grossF}

512: F=\frac{\chi_+^2/N\!D\!F\!_+}{\chi_-^2/N\!D\!F\!_-}

513: \end{equation}

514: has to be signif\mbox{}icantly dif\mbox{}ferent from $1$. In this formula, the subscripts $+$ and $-$ denote the two scattering reactions. The ratio $F$ 

515: follows Fisher's ($F$) distribution. Using the numbers which come from our optimal f\mbox{}its to the two databases separately, we obtain for $F$ the 

516: value of $1.098$ for $N\!D\!F\!_+=333$ and $N\!D\!F\!_-=321$ degrees of freedom. However, the lowest value of $F$ which would demonstrate a statistically 

517: signif\mbox{}icant ef\mbox{}fect (at the $95 \%$ conf\mbox{}idence level) for the given degrees of freedom is $1.2$, well above the value $1.098$. The 

518: p-value corresponding to this value of $F$ ($1.098$) is about $0.2$, far too large to indicate any signif\mbox{}icance. Thus, there is no evidence that 

519: our two truncated elastic-scattering databases are of dif\mbox{}ferent quality.

520: 

521: The second issue relates to the distribution of the residuals as they come out of the separate f\mbox{}its to the two databases. This is an issue which 

522: has to be carefully investigated in any optimisation procedure. For instance, pathological cases may result in asymmetrical distributions, usually created 

523: by large numbers of outliers or by the inability of the parametric model to account for the input measurements. If this is the case, the optimal values of 

524: the parameters obtained from the f\mbox{}it are bound to be wrong; fortunately, this is not the case in our f\mbox{}its. If, on the other hand, the 

525: distribution of the residuals turns out to be symmetrical, it has to be investigated whether it corresponds to the form of the quantity chosen for the 

526: minimisation; this is a necessary condition for the self-consistency of the optimisation scheme. The choice of $\chi^2$ must yield normal distributions 

527: of the residuals. For each of the databases, we found that the residuals were indeed distributed normally, with a mean of $0$ and almost identical 

528: standard deviations. It is important to understand one subtle point relating to the distribution of the residuals in low-energy $\pi N$ elastic 

529: scattering. In Ref.~\cite{m}, this distribution was found to be lorentzian; in the present work, the distribution of the residuals was normal. One might 

530: then erroneously conclude that the two analyses are in conf\mbox{}lict; in fact, there is none. The point is that no f\mbox{}loating of the data sets was 

531: allowed in Ref.~\cite{m}; for each data point, the normalisation uncertainty was combined in quadrature with the statistical one to yield an overall 

532: error. Had we followed the same strategy in the present work, we would also have found lorentzian distributions. However, the f\mbox{}loating introduced 

533: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:chijsq}) transforms the lorentzian distributions into normal; minimising the quantity def\mbox{}ined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:chijsq}) leads to 

534: better clustering of the residuals because each data set is allowed to f\mbox{}loat as a whole.

535: 

536: The f\mbox{}inal remark concerns the scale factors $z_j$ obtained in the f\mbox{}its, as listed in Tables \ref{tab:1-table} and \ref{tab:2-table}. For a 

537: satisfactory f\mbox{}it, the data sets which have to be scaled `upwards' should (more or less) be balanced by the ones which have to be scaled 

538: `downwards'. Additionally, the energy dependence of the scale factors over the energy range of the analysis should not be signif\mbox{}icant. If these 

539: prerequisites are not fulf\mbox{}illed, the parametric forms used in the f\mbox{}its cannot adequately reproduce the data over the entire energy range 

540: and biases are introduced into the analysis. For both the $\pi^+ p$ and $\pi^- p$ DCS data, the values of $z_j$ which lie above and below $1$ roughly 

541: balance each other and there is no discernible energy dependence. There are too few analysing-power data to make a statement. For the $\pi^+ p$ 

542: partial-total and total cross sections, all the scale factors are above $1$; however, most of them cluster very close to $1$ and there is no 

543: signif\mbox{}icant energy dependence. It is interesting to note that when the p-values of the data sets listed in Tables \ref{tab:1-table} and 

544: \ref{tab:2-table} are plotted as a function of the energy, for $\pi^+ p$ and $\pi^- p$ separately, in neither case is there any evidence of a systematic 

545: behaviour. In other words, there is no subrange of the full $30$ to $100$ MeV energy range for which the data is better or worse f\mbox{}itted than for 

546: the rest of the range. We believe that it is essential for any PSA, over whatever energy range, to address the issues we have just considered in this 

547: section. Having satisf\mbox{}ied ourselves that we have self-consistent $\pi^+ p$ and $\pi^- p$ elastic-scattering databases, no bias in the scale 

548: factors and an appropriate quantity to be minimised, we can proceed to analyse the combined truncated elastic-scattering database in the framework of the 

549: $\pi N$ model of Ref.~\cite{glmbg}.

550: 

551: \section{Model parameterisation of the hadronic phase shifts}

552: 

553: \subsection{$\pi^+ p$ and $\pi^- p$ overall weights}

554: 

555: Since the analysis assumes a framework of formal isospin invariance for the hadronic phase shifts and threshold parameters, it is necessary to give the 

556: two elastic-scattering reactions equal weight. This was achieved by multiplying $(\chi^2_j)_{min}$ (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:chijsq})) for each $\pi^+ p$ data 

557: set by

558: \[

559: w_+=\frac{N\!_+ + N\!_-}{2N\!_+}

560: \]

561: and for each $\pi^- p$ data set by

562: \[

563: w_-=\frac{N\!_+ + N\!_-}{2N\!_-} \, ,

564: \]

565: with $N\!_+=340$ and $N\!_-=328$; we then added these quantities for all the data sets to obtain the overall $\chi^2$ value. The application of the 

566: overall weights for the two reactions was made as a matter of principle; its ef\mbox{}fect on the PSA is very small.

567: 

568: \subsection{The $\pi N$ model}

569: 

570: To extract the hadronic component of the $\pi N$ interaction from experimental data, it is necessary to introduce a way to model the interaction. So 

571: far in this paper, we have used expansions of the hadronic phase shifts in terms of the energy. In a moment, we will use a model based on Feynman 

572: diagrams. Whatever the model, one must then introduce the EM ef\mbox{}fects (as contributions to the hadronic phase shifts and partial-wave amplitudes) 

573: and use an optimisation procedure in which the model parameters are varied to achieve the best f\mbox{}it to the data. Expansions of the hadronic phase 

574: shifts in terms of the energy, taking unitarity into account by using the $K$-matrix formalism, are general, but cannot provide any insight into the 

575: physical processes involved. On the other hand, the use of Feynman diagrams involves a choice of the diagrams to be included in the model, but is able to 

576: yield an understanding of the dynamics of the $\pi N$ interaction.

577: 

578: Models based on Feynman diagrams suf\mbox{}fer from two problems. First, while the diagrams are chosen to include the contributions of the 

579: signif\mbox{}icant processes involved in the interaction, there will always be small contributions which are omitted and are absorbed into the dominant 

580: ones. Second, since the em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic amplitudes are being approximated by forms which respect formal isospin invariance, it is necessary 

581: to assign single masses to each of the hadronic multiplets appearing in the model (in our case, $\pi$, $N$, $\Delta$ and $\rho$). All this means that the 

582: model parameters (coupling constants and vertex factors) become ef\mbox{}fective, and that the amplitudes calculated from such models contain residual 

583: ef\mbox{}fects of EM origin. The former is a reminder that the errors on the parameters derived from a f\mbox{}it to $\pi N$ data will be underestimated. 

584: For the latter, we have already pointed out in Section 1 that the hadronic phase shifts being modelled are modif\mbox{}ied by EM ef\mbox{}fects which are 

585: not included in the calculation of the EM corrections given in Refs.~\cite{gmorw,gmorww}.

586: 

587: In our evaluation of the EM corrections and in the analysis of the $\pi^\pm p$ elastic-scattering data using a $\pi N$ model, we have remained 

588: self-consistent by f\mbox{}ixing the hadronic masses of pions and nucleons at $\mu_c$ and $m_p$, respectively. These are not the true hadronic masses. 

589: The hadronic masses of the pions and nucleons are discussed in Ref.~\cite{nu}. The hadronic masses of $\pi^\pm$ and $\pi^0$ are almost identical, 

590: and dif\mbox{}fer by at most $1$ MeV from the physical mass $\mu_0$ of $\pi^0$. The hadronic mass of the neutron is about $2$ MeV greater than that of 

591: the proton, as a result of the dif\mbox{}ference between the masses of the $u$- and the $d$-quark. It is noteworthy, however, that the work of 

592: Ref.~\cite{gilmr} concludes that, despite this mass dif\mbox{}ference, ChPT for the hadronic $\pi N$ interaction is to a good approximation isospin 

593: invariant, and characterised by single hadronic masses for the pions and nucleons. Ref.~\cite{gilmr} makes the conventional choice of these hadronic 

594: masses as $\mu_c$ and $m_p$. This choice has been made in previous studies of the low-energy $\pi N$ system \cite{gmorw}-\cite{abws} and we have retained 

595: it in the present work. This standard choice envisages what might be called a `partially hadronic world', in which the $\pi N$ interaction is isospin 

596: invariant, but the pion and nucleon masses are $\mu_c$ and $m_p$, respectively. It therefore needs to be borne in mind that the model-derived 

597: hadronic phase shifts given in the rest of this paper are not true hadronic quantities, but contain residual EM contributions, due to the 

598: incompleteness of the EM corrections and to the dif\mbox{}ference between the chosen hadronic masses and the true ones.

599: 

600: Since for the analysis of the $\pi^\pm p$ elastic-scattering data we are using a framework of formal isospin invariance, the em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic 

601: interaction has been modelled by using the parameterisation of Ref.~\cite{glmbg}. This model is isospin invariant and incorporates the important 

602: constraints of crossing symmetry and unitarity. The ability of the model to account for the bulk of the elastic-scattering data at least up to the 

603: $\Delta$ resonance has been convincingly demonstrated. The main diagrams on which the model is based are graphs with scalar-isoscalar ($I=J=0$) and 

604: vector-isovector ($I=J=1$) t-channel exchanges, as well as the $N$ and $\Delta$ s- and u-channel graphs. The main contributions to the partial-wave 

605: amplitudes from these diagrams have been given in detail in Ref.~\cite{glmbg}. The small contributions from the six well-established four-star $s$ and 

606: $p$ higher baryon resonances with masses up to $2$ GeV were also included in the model; in fact, the only such state with a signif\mbox{}icant 

607: contribution is the Roper resonance. The tensor component of the $I=J=0$ t-channel exchange was added in Ref.~\cite{m}.

608: 

609: The $I=J=0$ t-channel contribution to the amplitudes is approximated in the model by a broad $\pi \pi$ resonance, characterised by two parameters, 

610: $G_\sigma$ and $K_\sigma$. Its exact position has practically no ef\mbox{}fect on the description of the $\pi N$ scattering data or on the f\mbox{}itted 

611: values of $G_\sigma$ and $K_\sigma$, and for a long time has been f\mbox{}ixed at $860$ MeV. The $I=J=1$ t-channel contribution is described by the 

612: $\rho$-meson, with $m_\rho=770$ MeV, which introduces two additional parameters, $G_\rho$ and $K_\rho$. The contributions of the s- and u-channel graphs 

613: with an intermediate $N$ involve the $\pi NN$ coupling constant $g_{\pi NN}$ and one further parameter $x$ which represents the pseudoscalar admixture in 

614: the $\pi NN$ vertex; for pure pseudovector coupling, $x=0$. Finally, the contributions of the graphs with an intermediate $\Delta$ introduce the coupling 

615: constant $g_{\pi N \Delta}$ and one additional parameter $Z$ associated with the spin-$1/2$ admixture in the $\Delta$ f\mbox{}ield. The higher baryon 

616: resonances do not introduce any parameters.

617: 

618: When a f\mbox{}it to the data is made using all the eight parameters just described, it turns out that there is a strong correlation between $G_\sigma$, 

619: $G_\rho$ and $x$, which makes it impossible to determine the values of all three quantities. One of the options available is to set $x$ to $0$; this 

620: choice is usually adopted in ef\mbox{}fective f\mbox{}ield-theoretical models of low-energy $\pi N$ scattering. Thus, seven parameters were used in the 

621: f\mbox{}it to the combined truncated elastic-scattering database: $G_\sigma$, $K_\sigma$, $G_\rho$, $K_\rho$, $g_{\pi NN}$, $g_{\pi N \Delta}$ and $Z$.

622: 

623: \subsection{Fits and results}

624: 

625: As described in Section 4, the choice of the probability value below which points are removed from the databases is dif\mbox{}f\mbox{}icult and 

626: subjective. In order to reject as few points as possible, we adopted a very low value of $\mathrm{p}_{min}$ ($0.0027$, the value associated with 

627: $3\sigma$ ef\mbox{}fects). Recognising the arbitrariness in the choice of $\mathrm{p}_{min}$, we consider that, in order to have conf\mbox{}idence 

628: in the reliability of our analysis, it is necessary to check that the f\mbox{}itted values of the seven model parameters remain stable over a 

629: reasonably broad range of $\mathrm{p}_{min}$ values. Thus, in addition to $0.0027$, the analysis was performed with a database reduced by using 

630: $\mathrm{p}_{min}$-value cuts of $0.01$, $0.05$ and $0.10$. The value of $0.05$ is close to a $2\sigma$ ef\mbox{}fect; points rejected on this basis 

631: could reasonably be considered as suf\mbox{}f\mbox{}iciently out-of-line to warrant this treatment. The value of $0.1$ is larger than anyone would 

632: reasonably choose; however, it was interesting to investigate how our results could change in this rather extreme case.

633: 

634: Table \ref{tab:3-table} shows the values of the seven parameters for the f\mbox{}its to databases selected using these four values of $\mathrm{p}_{min}$. 

635: The errors shown correspond to $\mathrm{p}_{min}=0.0027$. In fact, when the errors are calculated with the factor $\sqrt{\chi^2/\mathrm{NDF}}$ 

636: included, they do not vary much with the value of $\mathrm{p}_{min}$. As $\mathrm{p}_{min}$ increases, the database being f\mbox{}itted shrinks and so 

637: the raw errors increase. However, the factor $\sqrt{\chi^2/\mathrm{NDF}}$ decreases as the f\mbox{}it quality improves (despite the decrease in 

638: ${\mathrm{NDF}}$) and the two ef\mbox{}fects largely compensate. Table \ref{tab:3-table} shows clearly the remarkable stability of the f\mbox{}it as the 

639: criterion for the rejection of data points is varied. In the case of $G_\rho$, the variation is approximately equal to the uncertainty in its 

640: determination. In the other six cases, the variation is much smaller than the error. The quality of the f\mbox{}it, judged by standard statistical 

641: criteria, improves considerably as $\mathrm{p}_{min}$ is increased, but at the cost of the loss of many points from the database. For 

642: $\mathrm{p}_{min}=0.0027$, there are $668$ entries, $\chi^2=864.8$ and the p-value associated with this $\chi^2$ value is $1.46 \cdot10^{-7}$. At the 

643: other extreme, for $\mathrm{p}_{min}=0.1$, the database has shrunk to $562$ entries, the value of $\chi^2$ is $591.4$ and the associated p-value is 

644: $0.138$.

645: 

646: Faced with these results, one can conclude that the combined truncated elastic-scattering database, once the exceptionally bad points have been 

647: removed, is self-consistent and very robust when additional pruning is done. The output of the analysis is remarkably stable, which suggests that 

648: nearly all the measurements in the combined truncated elastic-scattering database of $668$ entries are reliable. The apparently poor quality of the 

649: f\mbox{}it does not seem to be the result of the presence of a substantial number of unreliable points, but rather of a general underestimation of the 

650: experimental uncertainties, both statistical and normalisation, particularly in the case of the DCS measurements. Any attempt to alter the quoted 

651: errors would be arbitrary, so we must make judgments on the database as it stands. Our judgment is that it is best to reject as few experimental 

652: points as possible, by using the value $\mathrm{p}_{min}=0.0027$. We then have to live with a rather poor f\mbox{}it, which we have taken into account by 

653: increasing the uncertainties by the factor $\sqrt{\chi^2/\mathrm{NDF}}=1.1438$. All the results henceforth correspond to this f\mbox{}it. Any uneasiness 

654: about this small value of $\mathrm{p}_{min}$ should be put to rest by the observation that, for $\mathrm{p}_{min}=0.01$, the database is very little 

655: reduced (a few $\pi^+ p$ points are removed) and the output is practically unchanged.

656: 

657: The correlation matrix for the seven parameters of the $\pi N$ model is given in Table \ref{tab:4-table}; the numbers correspond to the f\mbox{}it with

658: $\mathrm{p}_{min}=0.0027$. This matrix, together with the errors given in Table \ref{tab:3-table}, enables the correct uncertainties to be assigned 

659: to any quantities calculated from the output of the f\mbox{}it. Table \ref{tab:3-table} shows that the value of $K_\sigma$ is consistent with $0$; the 

660: quality of the f\mbox{}it would deteriorate very little if, in fact, this parameter were set to $0$. The value of $G_\sigma$ is very little correlated 

661: with the values of the other f\mbox{}ive parameters. However, those parameters ($G_\rho$, $K_\rho$, $g_{\pi NN}$, $g_{\pi N \Delta}$ and $Z$) are all 

662: strongly correlated with each other, showing that the contributions of the three processes involved are intimately connected. (As expected, the 

663: correlations among the model parameters are signif\mbox{}icantly smaller when the f\mbox{}loating of the data sets is not allowed in the f\mbox{}it.)

664: 

665: We see from Table \ref{tab:3-table} that the value of $g_{\pi NN}$ is particularly stable; converted to the usual pseudovector coupling 

666: constant\footnote{Some authors redef\mbox{}ine $f_{\pi NN}^2$, absorbing in it the factor $4 \pi$.}, our result is

667: \[

668:  \frac{f_{\pi NN}^2}{4 \pi}= \left( \frac{\mu_c}{2 m_p} \right)^2 \frac{g_{\pi NN}^2}{4 \pi} =0.0733(14) \, .

669: \]

670: As discussed in Section 5.2, the error given may be an underestimate. Until the 1990s, it was generally accepted that the value of $f_{\pi NN}^2/{4\pi}$ 

671: was around $0.080$, and there have been more recent claims for such high value; for example, the value $0.0808(20)$ was obtained in Ref.~\cite{teoe} (the 

672: error corresponds to the linear combination of the two uncertainties given there). However, many signif\mbox{}icantly lower values have also appeared in 

673: the literature. The Nijmegen $NN$ potential uses the value $0.075$; a f\mbox{}it to the deuteron photodisintegration data \cite{jawo} conf\mbox{}irms this 

674: result. Ref.~\cite{rget} gives the value $0.0732(11)$, while Ref.~\cite{bblm} reports a value as low as $0.071(2)$.

675: 

676: Since the $I=J=0$ t-channel exchange is an ef\mbox{}fective interaction, representing a number of diagrams with loops and the exchange of known scalar 

677: mesons, the values of $G_\sigma$ and $K_\sigma$ are unique to this analysis. The value of $K_\rho$ from our f\mbox{}it is problematic. It is quite small, 

678: and considerably larger values come from the study of nucleon form factors, $N N$ scattering and deuteron photodisintegration. This dif\mbox{}ference may 

679: be a ref\mbox{}lection of the strong correlations, already noted, between the contributions of the $N$-, $\Delta$- and $\rho$-exchange processes, or it 

680: may be due to the omission of contributions whose ef\mbox{}fect is mainly compensated by a shift in the value of $K_\rho$. In either case, it is 

681: clear that one must adopt a cautious attitude to the values of ef\mbox{}fective parameters obtained using hadronic models. (The same applies to boson 

682: exchange models of $N N$ scattering.)

683: 

684: For the $\Delta$ contribution, the values of $g_{\pi N \Delta}$ and $Z$ are very stable. Our way of incorporating the spin-$1/2$ contribution has been 

685: used for a long time, and our value $Z = -0.53(6)$ is consistent with the much older value $-0.45(20)$ in Ref.~\cite{oo}. The spin-1/2 contribution can 

686: alternatively be absorbed into contact interactions (see, for example, Ref.~\cite{bhm}), but there would be no advantage in adopting this possibility.

687: 

688: \section{Results for the threshold quantities and hadronic phase shifts}

689: 

690: From the model parameters and their uncertainties given in Table \ref{tab:3-table} for $\mathrm{p}_{min}=0.0027$, as well as the correlation matrix given 

691: in Table \ref{tab:4-table}, we can calculate the isoscalar and isovector $s$-wave scattering lengths and the isoscalar(isovector)-scalar(vector) $p$-wave 

692: scattering volumes. The results are

693: \[

694: \frac{1}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{0+}^{1/2}+\frac{2}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{0+}^{3/2}=0.0022(12)\: \mu_c^{-1} ,

695: \]

696: \[

697: -\frac{1}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{0+}^{1/2}+\frac{1}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{0+}^{3/2}=-0.07742(61)\: \mu_c^{-1} , \]

698: \begin{equation}

699: \frac{1}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{1-}^{1/2}+\frac{2}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{1-}^{3/2}+\frac{2}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{1+}^{1/2}+\frac{4}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{1+}^{3/2}=0.2044(19)\: \mu_c^{-3} ,

700: \label{eq:atildas}

701: \end{equation}

702: \[

703: -\frac{1}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{1-}^{1/2}+\frac{1}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{1-}^{3/2}-\frac{2}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{1+}^{1/2}+\frac{2}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{1+}^{3/2}=0.1738(18)\: \mu_c^{-3} ,

704: \]

705: \[

706: \frac{1}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{1-}^{1/2}+\frac{2}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{1-}^{3/2}-\frac{1}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{1+}^{1/2}-\frac{2}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{1+}^{3/2}=-0.1839(19)\: \mu_c^{-3} ,

707: \]

708: \[

709: -\frac{1}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{1-}^{1/2}+\frac{1}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{1-}^{3/2}+\frac{1}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{1+}^{1/2}-\frac{1}{3}\:\tilde{a}_{1+}^{3/2}=-0.06780(83)\: \mu_c^{-3} .

710: \]

711: 

712: Converting these results to the familiar spin-isospin quantities, we obtain

713: \[

714: \tilde{a}_{0+}^{3/2}=-0.0752(16)\: \mu_c^{-1} ,\qquad \tilde{a}_{0+}^{1/2}=0.1571(13)\: \mu_c^{-1} ,

715: \]

716: \begin{equation}

717: \tilde{a}_{1-}^{3/2}=-0.04176(80)\: \mu_c^{-3} ,\qquad \tilde{a}_{1-}^{1/2}=-0.0799(16)\: \mu_c^{-3} ,

718: \label{eq:atildasvalues}

719: \end{equation}

720: \[

721: \tilde{a}_{1+}^{3/2}=0.2100(20)\: \mu_c^{-3} ,\qquad \tilde{a}_{1+}^{1/2}=-0.03159(67)\: \mu_c^{-3} .

722: \]

723: 

724: Our results for the $s$-wave scattering lengths $\tilde{a}_{0+}^{3/2}$ and $\tilde{a}_{0+}^{1/2}$ in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:atildasvalues}) may seem surprising, 

725: yet they are almost identical to those obtained in Refs.~\cite{fm,m}; these values have been very stable for over ten years. The large quantity of data 

726: below $100$ MeV obtained at pion factories since 1980, when analysed separately, leads to results for the $s$-wave scattering lengths (and hadronic phase 

727: shifts) which are signif\mbox{}icantly dif\mbox{}ferent from those extracted by using dispersion relations and databases extending up to the GeV region. 

728: The dif\mbox{}ferences amount to about $10 \%$, with uncertainties which are much smaller, around $2 \%$ or less. There is another dif\mbox{}ference 

729: which is more serious still. From the results in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:atildasvalues}), one obtains

730: \[

731:  \tilde{a}^{cc} = \frac{2}{3} \, \tilde{a}_{0+}^{1/2} + \frac{1}{3} \, \tilde{a}_{0+}^{3/2} = 0.0797(11)\: \mu_c^{-1} \, .

732: \]

733: On the other hand, the value of $\tilde{a}^{cc}$ derived from the experiment of Ref.~\cite{ss} on pionic hydrogen, using an EM correction obtained from 

734: a potential model, is $0.0883(8)$ $\mu_c^{-1}$. The EM correction used in deriving this result employed simple potential forms, and made only a rough 

735: estimate of the ef\mbox{}fect of the $\gamma n$ channel. A full three-channel calculation \cite{orwmg}, using potentials of the same form as those used 

736: for the corrections of Refs.~\cite{gmorw,gmorww}, results in a change in the EM correction used in Ref.~\cite{ss}, which reduces the value of 

737: $\tilde{a}^{cc}$. However, even with this change, there is still a very large dif\mbox{}ference between the result from the PSA and that from pionic 

738: hydrogen, which cannot be explained by appealing to the violation of isospin invariance in the em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic interaction.

739: 

740: It is dif\mbox{}f\mbox{}icult to account for this discrepancy. If the single value of $\tilde{a}^{cc}$ from pionic hydrogen were to be added to the 

741: combined database of $668$ points, it would be an immediate candidate for rejection. It is therefore necessary to look at possible problems with the 

742: combined elastic-scattering database. We considered whether to follow other $\pi N$ analyses, which took into account only the shapes of the FRANK83 

743: data sets and ignored their absolute normalisations. There was vigorous debate for many years about the reliability of the normalisations of these 

744: eight data sets. However, the experimental group has neither withdrawn its DCS results, nor hinted that its normalisations might be in error. Moreover, 

745: comparison with the normalisation uncertainties quoted for the other DCS experiments listed in Tables \ref{tab:1-table} and \ref{tab:2-table} shows that 

746: the experimental group quoted quite generous uncertainties. Inspection of the scale factors $z_j$ in Tables \ref{tab:1-table} and \ref{tab:2-table} for 

747: the eight data sets shows that a decision to freely f\mbox{}loat the FRANK83 data sets is neither called for nor suggested in our analysis. We therefore 

748: made the decision to accept these data sets at their face value, as we did for all the other elastic-scattering measurements. In fact, when our analysis 

749: is repeated, with the only change being the free f\mbox{}loating of the FRANK83 data sets, the value of $\tilde{a}^{cc}$ changes by only a very small 

750: amount, to $0.0794(11)$ $\mu_c^{-1}$.

751: 

752: We have tested the ef\mbox{}fect of one modif\mbox{}ication to the database. Assuming that the normalisation uncertainties of most of the experiments may 

753: have been underestimated, we doubled them all. However, the f\mbox{}it then became unstable and it was impossible to obtain reliable results. There seems 

754: to be a delicate balance between the statistical and the normalisation errors which makes a stable f\mbox{}it possible. We hope in time to explore more 

755: sophisticated ways of selectively modifying the database, but the def\mbox{}initive resolution of the present discrepancy may require a reappraisal by 

756: experimenters of the whole body of low-energy elastic-scattering data.

757: 

758: Because of the violation of isospin invariance in the em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic interaction (see next section), it is important to give also the results 

759: for the $s$-wave scattering length and $p$-wave scattering volumes obtained from the analysis of the truncated $\pi^+ p$ database alone (Table 

760: \ref{tab:1-table}), using the parametric forms in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:delta0+3/2})-(\ref{eq:delta1+3/2}). For these quantities we shall not use the 

761: superscript $3/2$, since isospin invariance is no longer assumed to hold; we use instead the superscript `$\pi^+ p$'. With this notation, we obtain

762: \begin{equation} \label{eq:atilda+values}

763: \tilde{a}_{0+}^{\pi^+ p}=-0.0751(39)\: \mu_c^{-1},\;

764: \tilde{a}_{1-}^{\pi^+ p}=-0.0526(53)\: \mu_c^{-3},\;

765: \tilde{a}_{1+}^{\pi^+ p}=0.2013(35)\: \mu_c^{-3}.

766: \end{equation}

767: The results in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:atilda+values}) agree well with those of Ref.~\cite{fm}.

768: 

769: The f\mbox{}inal $s$- and $p$-wave em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic phase shifts, from the model f\mbox{}it to the combined truncated elastic-scattering 

770: database, are given in Table \ref{tab:5-table}, in $5$ MeV intervals from $20$ to $100$ MeV. These hadronic phase shifts are also shown in 

771: Figs.~\ref{fig:a}-\ref{fig:f}, together with the current GWU solution \cite{abws} and their four single-energy values (whenever available).

772: 

773: It is evident from Figs.~\ref{fig:a} and \ref{fig:d} that our values of the $s$-wave hadronic phase shifts $\tilde\delta_{0+}^{3/2}$ and 

774: $\tilde\delta_{0+}^{1/2}$ dif\mbox{}fer signif\mbox{}icantly from the GWU results. Our values of $\tilde\delta_{0+}^{3/2}$ are less negative, but 

775: converge towards the GWU values as the energy approaches $100$ MeV. Interestingly, the GWU single-energy results at $30$ and $90$ MeV agree with our 

776: results. For $\tilde\delta_{0+}^{1/2}$, our values are consistently smaller, with a slight convergence towards $100$ MeV. Once again, the GWU 

777: single-energy results at $30$ and $90$ MeV agree with ours, but the ones at $47$ and $66$ MeV do not. For the $p$-wave hadronic phase shifts 

778: $\tilde\delta_{1-}^{3/2}$, $\tilde\delta_{1+}^{3/2}$ and $\tilde\delta_{1+}^{1/2}$, inspection of Figs.~\ref{fig:b}, \ref{fig:c} and \ref{fig:f} 

779: shows that there is good agreement between the two solutions. The signif\mbox{}icant dif\mbox{}ference in the $p$-wave part of the interaction occurs 

780: for $\tilde\delta_{1-}^{1/2}$. Our values are clearly considerably lower at all energies and the single-energy GWU results are a long way from ours 

781: except at $47$ MeV. The dif\mbox{}ferences between our results for the hadronic phase shifts and those of GWU are not due to the improved stage 1 EM 

782: corrections which we have used. In fact, the exact values of the EM corrections used have very little ef\mbox{}fect on the output of the PSA. The 

783: dif\mbox{}ferences are due almost entirely to the method we have used, restricting the data being analysed to $T \leq 100$ MeV and freely f\mbox{}loating 

784: the data from only three experiments, thus respecting as far as possible the measurements as they have been published.

785: 

786: We conclude this section with a discussion of the measurements of Ref.~\cite{meier} which have not been included in our database. Using our phase-shift 

787: output, we have created Monte-Carlo predictions for the analysing power corresponding to each of their $28$ experimental points. For the three 

788: experimental data sets, the resulting values of $\chi^2_{min}$ are $12.72$, $7.41$ and $15.87$, for $12$, $6$ and $10$ degrees of freedom. The values 

789: of the scale factor for the three sets (in the same order) are $1.0079$, $0.9718$ and $1.0360$. It is evident, not only that all the data points satisfy 

790: the acceptance criterion which was applied to the full $\pi^+ p$ and $\pi^- p$ databases (see Section 4), but also that our hadronic phase shifts 

791: reproduce the data of Ref.~\cite{meier} very well; even the data set which is reproduced least well corresponds to a p-value of $0.1035$. Our conclusion 

792: is that, even if the data of Ref.~\cite{meier} were in a form which could easily enable their inclusion in our database, the impact on our results would 

793: have been negligible. For one thing, the data are very well reproduced by our present solution; for another, they correspond to about $4.2 \%$ of the 

794: combined truncated elastic-scattering database which we have used for our analysis.

795: 

796: \section{Analysis of the $\pi^- p$ charge-exchange data and the violation of isospin invariance}

797: 

798: For reasons given in Section 1, our PSA was based on the elastic-scattering data only. The EM corrections of Refs.~\cite{gmorw,gmorww} were applied and 

799: the hadronic part of each scattering amplitude was parameterised in a framework of formal isospin invariance, leading to the extraction of the six $s$- 

800: and $p$-wave em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic phase shifts $\tilde\delta$. Because of the residual EM ef\mbox{}fects, it is not very surprising that there is 

801: evidence for the violation of isospin invariance at the em-modif\mbox{}ied level \cite{glk,m}. In Ref.~\cite{glk}, it was shown that the violation of 

802: isospin invariance appears mainly in the $s$-wave amplitude, with some ef\mbox{}fect also present in the no-spin-f\mbox{}lip $p$ wave. We will now 

803: strengthen the evidence in Refs.~\cite{glk,m}, by using the output of our PSA of the elastic-scattering data to attempt to reproduce the measurements 

804: on the CX reaction $\pi^- p \to \pi^0 n$.

805: 

806: There is an extensive database of CX measurements below $100$ MeV. The modern measurements of the DCS come from four experiments, namely FITZGERALD86 

807: \cite{dhf}, FRLE{\v Z}98 \cite{efr}, ISENHOWER99 \cite{ldi} and SADLER04 \cite{mesa}. The FITZGERALD86 data comprise measurements of the DCS close to 

808: $0^\circ$ at seven energies, from $32.5$ to $63.2$ MeV; only their direct measurements were used here (their extrapolated values to $0^\circ$ were not 

809: taken into account). FRLE{\v Z}98 measured the DCS at $27.5$ MeV, at six angles between $4.7^\circ$ and $50.9^\circ$. ISENHOWER99 measured the DCS at 

810: $10.6$, $20.6$ and $39.4$ MeV; the groups of points near $0^\circ$, $90^\circ$ and $180^\circ$ have independent beam normalisations, thus leading to 

811: eight independent data sets. SADLER04 made detailed measurements of the DCS at $63.9$, $83.5$ and $94.6$ MeV. These four experiments share a common 

812: characteristic: they all measured the CX DCS in the forward hemisphere. We will now explain why they are expected to be more conclusive than the rest 

813: of the experiments on the issue of isospin invariance. The main contributions to the CX scattering amplitude in the low-energy region come from the 

814: real parts of the $s$ and $p$ waves. Taking into account the opposite signs of these contributions, the two main components of the scattering amplitude 

815: almost cancel each other in the forward direction around $40$ MeV, thus enabling small ef\mbox{}fects to show up. The destructive-interference phenomenon 

816: acts like a magnifying glass, probing the smaller components in the $\pi N$ dynamics. Note that the two studies \cite{glk,m} of the isospin-invariance 

817: violation did not have the results in Refs.~\cite{efr}-\cite{mesa} available to them. 

818: 

819: There are a number of additional CX data sets which, for various reasons, are not expected to contribute to the discussion of the isospin-invariance 

820: violation. a) The experiment of DUCLOS73 \cite{duc} measured the DCS near $180^\circ$ at $22.6$, $32.9$ and $42.6$ MeV. Apart from the large statistical 

821: uncertainties of these three data points (which, according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:zj}), bring the scale factors closer to $1$), the contributions of the $s$ and 

822: $p$ waves {\it add} in the backward hemisphere (constructive interference), thus masking any small ef\mbox{}fects which might be present in the $\pi N$ 

823: dynamics at these energies. b) There are two similar experiments, SALOMON84 \cite{smpr} and BAGHERI88 \cite{bagh}, whose output consisted of the 

824: f\mbox{}irst three coef\mbox{}f\mbox{}icients in a Legendre expansion of the DCS at six energies between $27.4$ and $91.7$ MeV. Even if the correlation 

825: matrices, corresponding to the dif\mbox{}ferent energies where the measurements were taken, could be found in these papers, the raw DCS data could not be 

826: reconstructed; one could obtain only the f\mbox{}itted values, but no knowledge of how these f\mbox{}itted values compare with the measured values of the 

827: DCS. c) There is a measurement of the total cross section for the CX reaction at $90.9$ MeV from the experiment of BUGG71 \cite{bbdscw}. d) Finally, there 

828: are measurements of the analysing power at $100$ MeV (STA{\v S}KO93 \cite{stasko}) and $98.1$ MeV (GAULARD99 \cite{gaul}). In cases (c) and (d) above, the 

829: energy used was high; additionally, in case (d), the sensitivity of the analysing power to the ef\mbox{}fect being investigated in this section is 

830: questionable.

831: 

832: The full database for the CX reaction consists of $31$ data sets, containing $159$ data points. In cases where a normalisation uncertainty was not 

833: properly reported, we had to assign realistic normalisation errors by comparison with those quoted for other experiments. The precise details are not 

834: important.

835: 

836: The f\mbox{}irst step was to check the consistency of the CX data in the same way as we have done for the $\pi^- p$ elastic-scattering database. The 

837: $I=3/2$ amplitudes were f\mbox{}ixed from the f\mbox{}inal f\mbox{}it to the $\pi^+ p$ database of Table \ref{tab:1-table} and the seven parameters for 

838: the $I=1/2$ amplitudes were varied in order to optimise the description of the CX data via the minimisation of the Arndt-Roper function. The minimum value 

839: of $\chi^2$ was $154.9$ for $152$ degrees of freedom (with p-value equal to $0.42$); no doubtful data sets or individual data points could be found. On 

840: the other hand, when we attempted to reproduce the CX database using the output of the f\mbox{}it to the combined truncated elastic-scattering data, the 

841: value of $\chi^2$ jumped to an enormous $508.9$. The DCS of Refs.~\cite{dhf}-\cite{duc} and the total cross section of Ref.~\cite{bbdscw}, $131$ data 

842: points in total, contribute $471.2$ units to the overall $\chi^2$; as previously mentioned, it is in the DCS measurements in the forward hemisphere that 

843: the ef\mbox{}fect is expected to show up best. The analysing-power measurements of Refs.~\cite{stasko,gaul} are reproduced well. With the exception of the 

844: data set at $45.6$ MeV, the indirect data of Refs.~\cite{smpr,bagh} are also well reproduced.

845: 

846: The conclusion is that the CX database cannot be satisfactorily reproduced from the PSA of the $\pi^\pm p$ elastic-scattering data which used a framework 

847: of formal isospin invariance. This is conclusive evidence that isospin invariance is violated at the em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic level, thus corroborating 

848: the f\mbox{}indings of Refs.~\cite{glk,m} which were based on a signif\mbox{}icantly smaller CX database. The predictions, based on the output from the 

849: PSA of the elastic-scattering data, seriously underestimate the measured CX cross sections.

850: 

851: We content ourselves here with this clear evidence for the violation of isospin invariance at the em-modif\mbox{}ied level. What is still needed is a new 

852: PSA, of the combined $\pi^+ p$ elastic-scattering and $\pi^- p$ CX databases, using the same model as before. The output will consist of $I = 3/2$ 

853: hadronic phase shifts, which one expects to be very close to those given in Section 6, and new `I = 1/2' hadronic phase shifts, which will be 

854: substantially dif\mbox{}ferent from those given in Section 6. The dif\mbox{}ferences will be able to make more precise the conclusions of 

855: Ref.~\cite{glk}, on the size of the violation of isospin invariance in the $s$ wave and the two $p$ waves. Further, comparison of the values of the 

856: $s$-wave threshold parameter for $\pi^-p$ CX scattering, obtained from the new PSA and from the width of the $1s$ level of pionic hydrogen, will provide 

857: further information on the reliability of the $\pi^+ p$ elastic-scattering and $\pi^- p$ CX databases.

858: 

859: \section{Discussion}

860: 

861: In the present paper, we have reported the results of a PSA of the $\pi^\pm p$ elastic-scattering data for $T\leq 100$ MeV using the recently obtained 

862: EM corrections of Refs.~\cite{gmorw,gmorww}; the analysis was performed with a hadronic interaction described within a framework of formal isospin 

863: invariance. We found that it was possible to obtain self-consistent databases by removing the measurements of only two $\pi^+ p$ data sets and one 

864: $\pi^- p$ set, as well as a very small number of single data points; the removal of these outliers resulted in enormous reductions in the minimum value 

865: of $\chi^2$ for the separate f\mbox{}its to the two elastic-scattering databases.

866: 

867: The $\pi N$ model of Ref.~\cite{glmbg}, based on s- and u-channel diagrams with $N$ and $\Delta$ in the intermediate states, and $\sigma$ and $\rho$ 

868: t-channel exchanges, was subsequently f\mbox{}itted to the elastic-scattering database obtained after the removal of the outliers. The model-parameter 

869: values showed an impressive stability when subjected to dif\mbox{}ferent criteria for the rejection of experiments (see Table \ref{tab:3-table}); we 

870: f\mbox{}inally adopted the criterion which removes the smallest amount of experimental data, and adjusted the output uncertainties in such a way as to 

871: take account of the quality of the f\mbox{}it. Our f\mbox{}inal result for the pseudovector $\pi N N$ coupling constant is $0.0733 \pm 0.0014$. Our $s$- 

872: and $p$-wave em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic phase shifts are given in Table \ref{tab:5-table}. Big dif\mbox{}ferences in the $s$-wave part of the interaction 

873: were found when comparing our hadronic phase shifts with the current GWU solution \cite{abws} (see Figs.~\ref{fig:a} and \ref{fig:d}); there is general 

874: agreement in the $p$ waves, except for the $\tilde\delta_{1-}^{1/2}$ hadronic phase shift. We observed that these dif\mbox{}ferences come from our 

875: decision to restrict the analysis to data for $T \leq 100$ MeV, and pointed out the apparent mismatch between this data and data at higher energies. We 

876: also showed that there is a serious discrepancy between our $s$-wave scattering lengths and the value of the $s$-wave threshold parameter for $\pi^- p$ 

877: elastic scattering obtained from pionic hydrogen. There is no simple way to account for these dif\mbox{}ferences, and serious questions about the 

878: low-energy elastic-scattering database remain unanswered.

879: 

880: We showed that the experimental results for the CX reaction $\pi^- p \to \pi^0 n$ cannot be reproduced using the output from the PSA of the 

881: elastic-scattering data; this inability corroborates the f\mbox{}indings of Refs.~\cite{glk,m} concerning the violation of isospin invariance in the 

882: em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic $\pi N$ interaction at low energies. We pointed out in Section 1 the need for stage 2 EM corrections (to remove the EM 

883: ef\mbox{}fects in the hadronic interaction) to be calculated, f\mbox{}irst for all threshold parameters, and subsequently for the analysis of scattering 

884: data at nonzero energies for all three reaction types. Until such corrections exist, it is necessary to use the existing stage 1 corrections to 

885: analyse the available scattering data, as we have done.

886: 

887: \begin{ack}

888: One of us (E.M.) acknowledges a helpful discussion with H.J. Leisi.

889: \end{ack}

890: 

891: \section*{Note added in proof}

892: 

893: While this work was being reviewed, additional CX data appeared \cite{breit}, namely values of the total cross section at eighteen energies, nine of them 

894: below $100$ MeV. The measurements below $100$ MeV are reproduced very well by our phase-shift solution.

895: 

896: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

897: 

898: \bibitem{gmorw} A. Gashi, E. Matsinos, G.C. Oades, G. Rasche, W.S. Woolcock, Nucl. Phys. A 686 (2001) 447.

899: \bibitem{gmorww} A. Gashi, E. Matsinos, G.C. Oades, G. Rasche, W.S. Woolcock, Nucl. Phys. A 686 (2001) 463.

900: \bibitem{two} B. Tromborg, S. Waldenstr{\o}m, I. {\O}verb{\o}, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 725.

901: \bibitem{kp} R. Koch, E. Pietarinen, Nucl. Phys. A336 (1980) 331; R. Koch, Nucl. Phys. A 448 (1986) 707.

902: \bibitem{abws} R.A. Arndt, W.J. Briscoe, R.L. Workman, I.I. Strakovsky, SAID on-line program, at http://gwdac.phys.gwu.edu [status: 27.06.05].

903: \bibitem{glk} W.R. Gibbs, Li Ai, W.B. Kaufmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 3740.

904: \bibitem{m} E. Matsinos, Phys. Rev. C 56 (1997) 3014.

905: \bibitem{ss} H.-Ch. Schr{\"o}der {\it et al.}, Eur. Phys. J. C 21 (2001) 473.

906: \bibitem{henn} M. Hennebach, Ph.D. dissertation, Universit\"{a}t zu K\"{o}ln, 2003.

907: \bibitem{gilmr} J. Gasser, M.A. Ivanov, E. Lipartia, M. Moj{\v z}i{\v s} and A. Rusetsky, Eur. Phys. J. C26 (2002) 13.

908: \bibitem{nu} N. Fettes, U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner, Nucl. Phys. A 693 (2001) 693.

909: \bibitem{fm} N. Fettes, E. Matsinos, Phys. Rev. C 55 (1997) 464.

910: \bibitem{ar} R.A. Arndt, L.D. Roper, Nucl. Phys. B 50 (1972) 285.

911: \bibitem{glmbg} P.F.A. Goudsmit, H.J. Leisi, E. Matsinos, B.L. Birbrair, A.B. Gridnev, Nucl. Phys. A 575 (1994) 673; more references on the 

912: development of the model may be found at http://people.web.psi.ch/matsinos/0\_home.htm.

913: \bibitem{ega} E.G. Auld {\it et al.}, Can. J. Phys. 57 (1979) 73.

914: \bibitem{bgr} B.G. Ritchie {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B 125 (1983) 128.

915: \bibitem{jsf} J.S. Frank {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 1569.

916: \bibitem{jtb} J.T. Brack {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C 34 (1986) 1771.

917: \bibitem{jtbb} J.T. Brack {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C 38 (1988) 2427.

918: \bibitem{uw} U. Wiedner {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989) 3568.

919: \bibitem{jtbbb} J.T. Brack {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C 41 (1990) 2202.

920: \bibitem{jtbbbb} J.T. Brack {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C 51 (1995) 929.

921: \bibitem{cj} Ch. Joram {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C 51 (1995) 2144; Ch. Joram {\it et al.}, {\it ibid.} C 51 (1995) 2159.

922: \bibitem{mes} M.E. Sevior {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C 40 (1989) 2780.

923: \bibitem{rw} R. Wieser {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C 54 (1996) 1930.

924: \bibitem{bjk} B.J. Kriss {\it et al.}, $\pi N$ Newsletter 12 (1997) 20; B.J. Kriss {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C 59 (1999) 1480.

925: \bibitem{ef} E. Friedman, $\pi N$ Newsletter 15 (1999) 37.

926: \bibitem{cwbbd} A.A. Carter, J.R. Williams, D.V. Bugg, P.J. Bussey, D.R. Dance, Nucl. Phys. B 26 (1971) 445.

927: \bibitem{ep} E. Pedroni {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. A 300 (1978) 321.

928: \bibitem{mj} M. Janousch {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B 414 (1997) 237.

929: \bibitem{jca} J.C. Alder {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983) 1040.

930: \bibitem{gjh} G.J. Hofman {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) 3484.

931: \bibitem{jdp} J.D. Patterson {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C 66 (2002) 025207.

932: \bibitem{meier} R. Meier {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B 588 (2004) 155.

933: \bibitem{ew} T.E.O. Ericson, W. Weise, {\it Pions and Nuclei} (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988), p. 31.

934: \bibitem{pdg} S. Eidelman {\it et al.} (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. B 592 (2004) 1.

935: \bibitem{teoe} T.E.O. Ericson {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1046.

936: \bibitem{jawo} W. Jaus, W.S. Woolcock, Nucl. Phys. A 608 (1996) 389.

937: \bibitem{rget} R. Timmermans, Th.A. Rijken, J.J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. C 50 (1994) 48.

938: \bibitem{bblm} F. Bradamante, A. Bressan, M. Lamanna, A. Martin, Phys. Lett. B 343 (1995) 431.

939: \bibitem{oo} M.G. Olsson, E.T. Osypowski, Nucl. Phys. B 101 (1975) 136.

940: \bibitem{bhm} V. Bernard, T.R. Hemmert, U.-G. Mei{\ss}ner, Phys. Lett. B 565 (2003) 137.

941: \bibitem{orwmg} G.C. Oades, G. Rasche, W.S. Woolcock, E. Matsinos, A. Gashi, in preparation.

942: \bibitem{dhf} D.H. Fitzgerald {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C 34 (1986) 619.

943: \bibitem{efr} E. Frle{\v z} {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C 57 (1998) 3144.

944: \bibitem{ldi} L.D. Isenhower {\it et al.}, $\pi N$ Newsletter 15 (1999) 292.

945: \bibitem{mesa} M.E. Sadler {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C 69 (2004) 055206.

946: \bibitem{duc} J. Duclos {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B 43 (1973) 245.

947: \bibitem{smpr} M. Salomon, D.F. Measday, J-M. Poutissou, B.C. Robertson, Nucl. Phys. A 414 (1984) 493.

948: \bibitem{bagh} A. Bagheri {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C 38 (1988) 885.

949: \bibitem{bbdscw} D.V. Bugg {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B 26 (1971) 588.

950: \bibitem{stasko} J.C. Sta{\v s}ko, Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico, 1993.

951: \bibitem{gaul} C.V. Gaulard {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 024604.

952: \bibitem{breit} J. Breitschopf {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B, in print; preprint nucl-ex/0605017.

953: 

954: \end{thebibliography}

955: 

956: \newpage

957: \begin{table}[h!]

958: {\bf \caption{\label{tab:1-table}}}The data sets comprising the truncated database for $\pi^+ p$ elastic scattering, the pion laboratory kinetic

959: energy $T$ (in MeV), the number of degrees of freedom $(NDF)_j$ for each set, the scale factor $z_j$ which minimises $\chi_j^2$, the values of

960: $(\chi_j^2)_{min}$ and the p-value for each set.

961: \vspace{0.2cm}

962: \begin{center}

963: \begin{tabular}{|l|lrlll|l|}

964: \hline

965: Data set & $T$ & $(NDF)_j$ & $z_j$ & $\chi_j^2$ & $p$ & Comments \\

966: \hline

967: AULD79 & 47.9 & 11 & 1.0101 & 16.4245 & 0.1261 & \\

968: RITCHIE83 & 65.0 & 8 & 1.0443 & 17.4019 & 0.0262 & \\

969: RITCHIE83 & 72.5 & 10 & 1.0061 & 4.7745 & 0.9057 & \\

970: RITCHIE83 & 80.0 & 10 & 1.0297 & 19.3025 & 0.0366 & \\

971: RITCHIE83 & 95.0 & 10 & 1.0315 & 12.4143 & 0.2583 & \\

972: FRANK83 & 29.4 & 28 & 0.9982 & 17.4970 & 0.9381 & \\

973: FRANK83 & 49.5 & 28 & 1.0402 & 34.3544 & 0.1894 & \\

974: FRANK83 & 69.6 & 27 & 0.9290 & 23.3002 & 0.6688 & \\

975: FRANK83 & 89.6 & 27 & 0.8618 & 29.1920 & 0.3517 & \\

976: BRACK86 & 66.8 & 4 & 0.8914 & 2.5020 & 0.6443 & freely f\mbox{}loated \\

977: BRACK86 & 86.8 & 8 & 0.9387 & 16.6304 & 0.0342 & freely f\mbox{}loated \\

978: BRACK86 & 91.7 & 5 & 0.9734 & 11.9985 & 0.0348 & \\

979: BRACK86 & 97.9 & 5 & 0.9714 & 7.5379 & 0.1836 & \\

980: BRACK88 & 66.8 & 6 & 0.9469 & 11.2438 & 0.0811 & \\

981: BRACK88 & 66.8 & 6 & 0.9561 & 9.8897 & 0.1294 & \\

982: WIEDNER89 & 54.3 & 19 & 0.9851 & 14.7822 & 0.7363 & \\

983: BRACK90 & 30.0 & 6 & 1.0946 & 17.7535 & 0.0069 & \\

984: BRACK90 & 45.0 & 8 & 1.0055 & 7.8935 & 0.4439 & \\

985: BRACK95 & 87.1 & 8 & 0.9733 & 13.3922 & 0.0991 & \\

986: BRACK95 & 98.1 & 8 & 0.9820 & 14.8872 & 0.0614 & \\

987: JORAM95 & 45.1 & 9 & 0.9548 & 22.2169 & 0.0082 & one point removed \\

988: JORAM95 & 68.6 & 9 & 1.0503 & 8.8506 & 0.4512 & \\

989: JORAM95 & 32.2 & 19 & 1.0087 & 23.7410 & 0.2063 & one point removed \\

990: JORAM95 & 44.6 & 18 & 0.9503 & 29.8018 & 0.0394 & two points removed \\

991: SEVIOR89 & 98.0 & 6 & 1.0178 & 5.3726 & 0.4970& \\

992: \hline

993: \end{tabular}

994: \end{center}

995: \end{table}

996: 

997: \newpage

998: \begin{table*}

999: {\bf Table 1 continued}

1000: \vspace{0.2cm}

1001: \begin{center}

1002: \begin{tabular}{|l|lrlll|l|}

1003: \hline

1004: Data set & $T$ & $(NDF)_j$ & $z_j$ & $\chi_j^2$ & $p$ & Comments \\

1005: \hline

1006: WIESER96 & 68.34 & 3 & 0.8945 & 2.4732 & 0.4802 & \\

1007: WIESER96 & 68.34 & 4 & 0.9252 & 3.6315 & 0.4582 & \\

1008: KRISS97 & 39.8 & 1 & 1.0121 & 1.7222 & 0.1894 & \\

1009: KRISS97 & 40.5 & 1 & 1.0017 & 0.1400 & 0.7083 & \\

1010: KRISS97 & 44.7 & 1 & 1.0020 & 0.0415 & 0.8385 & \\

1011: KRISS97 & 45.3 & 1 & 1.0025 & 0.0518 & 0.8200 & \\

1012: KRISS97 & 51.1 & 1 & 1.0240 & 3.3209 & 0.0684 & \\

1013: KRISS97 & 51.7 & 1 & 1.0024 & 0.0397 & 0.8421 & \\

1014: KRISS97 & 54.8 & 1 & 1.0068 & 0.1376 & 0.7107 & \\

1015: KRISS97 & 59.3 & 1 & 1.0252 & 1.2497 & 0.2636 & \\

1016: KRISS97 & 66.3 & 2 & 1.0501 & 4.0858 & 0.1297 & \\

1017: KRISS97 & 66.8 & 2 & 1.0075 & 0.5897 & 0.7446 & \\

1018: KRISS97 & 80.0 & 1 & 1.0142 & 0.3704 & 0.5428 & \\

1019: KRISS97 & 89.3 & 1 & 1.0079 & 0.2849 & 0.5935 & \\

1020: KRISS97 & 99.2 & 1 & 1.0550 & 4.1084 & 0.0427 & \\

1021: FRIEDMAN99 & 45.0 & 1 & 1.0423 & 2.1509 & 0.1425 & \\

1022: FRIEDMAN99 & 52.1 & 1 & 1.0172 & 0.2461 & 0.6198 & \\

1023: FRIEDMAN99 & 63.1 & 1 & 1.0364 & 0.4918 & 0.4831 & \\

1024: FRIEDMAN99 & 67.45 & 2 & 1.0524 & 1.2636 & 0.5316 & \\

1025: FRIEDMAN99 & 71.5 & 2 & 1.0501 & 0.8458 & 0.6551 & \\

1026: FRIEDMAN99 & 92.5 & 2 & 1.0429 & 0.5860 & 0.7460 & \\

1027: CARTER71 & 71.6 & 1 & 1.0933 & 2.7422 & 0.0977 & \\

1028: CARTER71 & 97.4 & 1 & 1.0495 & 0.6856 & 0.4077 & \\

1029: PEDRONI78 & 72.5 & 1 & 1.0125 & 0.1416 & 0.7067 & \\

1030: PEDRONI78 & 84.8 & 1 & 1.0319 & 0.3443 & 0.5574 & \\

1031: PEDRONI78 & 95.1 & 1 & 1.0230 & 0.2024 & 0.6528 & \\

1032: PEDRONI78 & 96.9 & 1 & 1.0166 & 0.1305 & 0.7179 & \\

1033: \hline

1034: \end{tabular}

1035: \end{center}

1036: \end{table*}

1037: 

1038: \newpage

1039: \begin{table}%[h!]

1040: {\bf \caption{\label{tab:2-table}}}The data sets comprising the truncated database for $\pi^- p$ elastic scattering, the pion laboratory kinetic

1041: energy $T$ (in MeV), the number of degrees of freedom $(NDF)_j$ for each set, the scale factor $z_j$ which minimises $\chi_j^2$, the values of

1042: $(\chi_j^2)_{min}$ and the p-value for each set.

1043: \vspace{0.2cm}

1044: \begin{center}

1045: \begin{tabular}{|l|lrlll|l|}

1046: \hline

1047: Data set & $T$ & $(NDF)_j$ & $z_j$ & $\chi_j^2$ & $p$ & Comments \\

1048: \hline

1049: FRANK83 & 29.4 & 28 & 0.9828 & 31.1504 & 0.3104 & \\

1050: FRANK83 & 49.5 & 28 & 1.1015 & 29.4325 & 0.3908 & \\

1051: FRANK83 & 69.6 & 27 & 1.0931 & 27.0824 & 0.4594 & \\

1052: FRANK83 & 89.6 & 27 & 0.9467 & 24.7108 & 0.5907 & \\

1053: BRACK86 & 66.8 & 5 & 0.9965 & 14.3569 & 0.0135 & \\

1054: BRACK86 & 86.8 & 5 & 1.0032 & 1.3478 & 0.9299 & \\

1055: BRACK86 & 91.7 & 5 & 0.9964 & 3.0272 & 0.6958 & \\

1056: BRACK86 & 97.9 & 5 & 1.0003 & 5.8335 & 0.3228 & \\

1057: WIEDNER89& 54.3& 18 & 1.1563 & 23.5094 & 0.1718 & one point removed, freely f\mbox{}loated\\

1058: BRACK90 & 30.0 & 5 & 1.0215 & 5.2577 & 0.3853 & \\

1059: BRACK90 & 45.0 & 9 & 1.0541 & 12.2642 & 0.1988 & \\

1060: BRACK95 & 87.5 & 6 & 0.9816 & 10.7547 & 0.0963 & \\

1061: BRACK95 & 98.1 & 7 & 1.0067 & 8.8236 & 0.2656 & one point removed\\

1062: JORAM95 & 32.7 & 4 & 0.9937 & 3.7670 & 0.4385 & \\

1063: JORAM95 & 32.7 & 2 & 0.9533 & 5.6487 & 0.0593 & \\

1064: JORAM95 & 45.1 & 4 & 0.9562 & 12.0551 & 0.0169 & \\

1065: JORAM95 & 45.1 & 3 & 0.9459 & 9.4574 & 0.0238 & \\

1066: JORAM95 & 68.6 & 7 & 1.0841 & 14.8484 & 0.0380 & \\

1067: JORAM95 & 68.6 & 3 & 1.0281 & 2.3391 & 0.5051 & \\

1068: JORAM95 & 32.2 & 20 & 1.0587 & 20.8026 & 0.4088 & \\

1069: JORAM95 & 44.6 & 20 & 0.9421 & 30.5855 & 0.0609 & \\

1070: JANOUSCH97& 43.6 & 1 & 1.0427 & 0.1745 & 0.6762 & \\

1071: JANOUSCH97& 50.3 & 1 & 1.0348 & 0.1418 & 0.7065 & \\

1072: JANOUSCH97& 57.3 & 1 & 1.0830 & 4.5260 & 0.0334 & \\

1073: JANOUSCH97& 64.5 & 1 & 1.0152 & 0.0153 & 0.9015 & \\

1074: JANOUSCH97& 72.0 & 1 & 1.3059 & 4.8803 & 0.0272 & \\

1075: \hline

1076: \end{tabular}

1077: \end{center}

1078: \end{table}

1079: 

1080: \newpage

1081: \begin{table*}

1082: {\bf Table 2 continued}

1083: \vspace{0.2cm}

1084: \begin{center}

1085: \begin{tabular}{|l|lrlll|l|}

1086: \hline

1087: Data set & $T$ & $(NDF)_j$ & $z_j$ & $\chi_j^2$ & $p$ & Comments \\

1088: \hline

1089: ALDER83 & 98.0 & 6 & 1.0338 & 5.1831 & 0.5206 & \\

1090: SEVIOR89 & 98.0 & 5 & 0.9890 & 1.6659 & 0.8932 & \\

1091: HOFMAN98 & 86.8 & 11 & 1.0015 & 6.0355 & 0.8710 & \\

1092: PATTERSON02 & 57.0 & 10 & 0.9377 & 11.2510 & 0.3383 & \\

1093: PATTERSON02 & 66.9 & 9 & 0.9986 & 4.5388 & 0.8725 & \\

1094: PATTERSON02 & 66.9 & 10 & 0.9502 & 17.0121 & 0.0741 & \\

1095: PATTERSON02 & 87.2 & 11 & 0.9827 & 8.5353 & 0.6647 & \\

1096: PATTERSON02 & 87.2 & 11 & 0.9932 & 5.2523 & 0.9183 & \\

1097: PATTERSON02 & 98.0 & 12 & 0.9964 & 7.0659 & 0.8532 & \\

1098: \hline

1099: \end{tabular}

1100: \end{center}

1101: \end{table*}

1102: 

1103: \vspace{0.5cm}

1104: \begin{table}%[h!]

1105: {\bf \caption{\label{tab:3-table}}}The values of the seven parameters of the $\pi N$ model obtained from f\mbox{}its to the combined truncated 

1106: elastic-scattering database, chosen using four dif\mbox{}ferent values of $\mathrm{p}_{min}$ (the signif\mbox{}icance level for rejection of data 

1107: points). The uncertainties correspond to the f\mbox{}it with $\mathrm{p}_{min}=0.0027$. 

1108: \vspace{0.2cm}

1109: \begin{center}

1110: \begin{tabular}{|r|rrrr|r|}

1111: \hline

1112:  & 0.0027 & 0.01 & 0.05 & 0.10 & error \\

1113: \hline

1114: $G_{\sigma}(GeV^{-2})$ & 26.76 & 26.72 & 26.72 & 27.04 & 0.85 \\

1115: $K_{\sigma}$ & 0.011 & 0.009 & 0.013 & 0.020 & 0.036 \\

1116: $G_{\rho}(GeV^{-2})$ & 55.07 & 55.04 & 55.05 & 55.69 & 0.61 \\

1117: $K_{\rho}$ & 0.68 & 0.62 & 0.63 & 0.84 & 0.40 \\

1118: $g_{\pi NN}$ & 12.91 & 12.90 & 12.90 & 12.94 & 0.12 \\

1119: $g_{\pi N \Delta}$ & 29.70 & 29.71 & 29.60 & 29.64 & 0.27 \\

1120: $Z$ & -0.528 & -0.530 & -0.521 & -0.510 & 0.059 \\

1121: \hline

1122: \end{tabular}

1123: \end{center}

1124: \end{table}

1125: 

1126: \newpage

1127: \begin{table}%[h!]

1128: {\bf \caption{\label{tab:4-table}}}The correlation matrix for the seven parameters of the $\pi N$ model, for the f\mbox{}it to the combined truncated 

1129: elastic-scattering database corresponding to $\mathrm{p}_{min}=0.0027$.

1130: \vspace{0.2cm}

1131: \begin{center}

1132: \begin{tabular}{|r|rrrrrrr|}

1133: \hline

1134:  & $G_{\sigma}$ & $K_{\sigma}$ & $G_{\rho}$ & $K_{\rho}$ & $g_{\pi NN}$ & $g_{\pi N \Delta}$ &$Z$ \\

1135: \hline

1136: $G_{\sigma}$ & 1.0000 & 0.4762 & -0.0903& -0.0288 & 0.1036 & -0.1606 &-0.1928 \\

1137: $K_{\sigma}$ & 0.4762 & 1.0000 & 0.7539 & 0.8226 & 0.9011 & -0.9343 & 0.7502 \\

1138: $G_{\rho}$ &-0.0903 & 0.7539 & 1.0000 & 0.9051 & 0.9058 & -0.8507 & 0.9002 \\

1139: $K_{\rho}$ &-0.0288 &0.8226 &0.9051 &1.0000 &0.9529 &-0.9290 &0.9510 \\

1140: $g_{\pi NN}$ &0.1036 &0.9011 &0.9058 &0.9529 &1.0000 &-0.9499 &0.9239 \\

1141: $g_{\pi N \Delta}$&-0.1606 &-0.9343 &-0.8507 &-0.9290 &-0.9499 &1.0000 &-0.9031 \\

1142: $Z$ &-0.1928 &0.7502 &0.9002 &0.9510 &0.9239 &-0.9031 &1.0000 \\

1143: \hline

1144: \end{tabular}

1145: \end{center}

1146: \end{table}

1147: \vspace{0.5cm}

1148: 

1149: \newpage

1150: \begin{table}%[h!]

1151: {\bf \caption{\label{tab:5-table}}}The values of the six $s$- and $p$-wave em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic phase shifts (in degrees) from the PSA of the

1152: combined truncated elastic-scattering database.

1153: \vspace{0.2cm}

1154: \begin{center}

1155: \begin{tabular}{|l|llllll|}

1156: \hline

1157: $T(MeV)$ & $\tilde{\delta}_{0+}^{3/2}$ & $\tilde{\delta}_{1-}^{3/2}$ & $\tilde{\delta}_{1+}^{3/2}$ & $\tilde{\delta}_{0+}^{1/2}$ & $\tilde{\delta}_{1-}^{1/2}$ & $\tilde{\delta}_{1+}^{1/2}$ \\

1158: \hline

1159: 20 & -2.41(3) & -0.23(0) & 1.28(1) & 4.19(3) & -0.37(1) & -0.16(0)\\

1160: 25 & -2.80(4) & -0.31(1) & 1.82(1) & 4.67(3) & -0.49(1) & -0.22(1)\\

1161: 30 & -3.19(4) & -0.40(1) & 2.44(2) & 5.11(3) & -0.60(1) & -0.28(1)\\

1162: 35 & -3.58(4) & -0.50(1) & 3.13(2) & 5.50(3) & -0.71(2) & -0.34(1)\\

1163: 40 & -3.98(4) & -0.61(1) & 3.90(2) & 5.86(3) & -0.81(2) & -0.41(1)\\

1164: 45 & -4.37(4) & -0.71(2) & 4.76(2) & 6.19(3) & -0.91(2) & -0.47(1)\\

1165: 50 & -4.77(4) & -0.82(2) & 5.70(2) & 6.49(4) & -0.99(3) & -0.54(2)\\

1166: 55 & -5.17(4) & -0.94(2) & 6.73(3) & 6.78(4) & -1.07(3) & -0.60(2)\\

1167: 60 & -5.57(4) & -1.06(3) & 7.86(3) & 7.04(4) & -1.13(3) & -0.67(2)\\

1168: 65 & -5.98(4) & -1.18(3) & 9.10(3) & 7.28(5) & -1.18(4) & -0.73(2)\\

1169: 70 & -6.40(4) & -1.30(3) & 10.45(3) & 7.50(5) & -1.21(4) & -0.79(3)\\

1170: 75 & -6.82(5) & -1.43(4) & 11.92(3) & 7.71(6) & -1.23(5) & -0.86(3)\\

1171: 80 & -7.24(5) & -1.56(4) & 13.53(4) & 7.90(6) & -1.24(5) & -0.92(3)\\

1172: 85 & -7.67(6) & -1.69(5) & 15.29(5) & 8.07(7) & -1.22(6) & -0.98(4)\\

1173: 90 & -8.10(7) & -1.82(5) & 17.20(6) & 8.23(7) & -1.20(6) & -1.04(4)\\

1174: 95 & -8.54(8) & -1.96(6) & 19.29(7) & 8.38(8) & -1.15(7) & -1.10(4)\\

1175: 100& -8.98(8) & -2.10(6) & 21.56(9) & 8.51(9) & -1.09(7) & -1.16(5)\\

1176: \hline

1177: \end{tabular}

1178: \end{center}

1179: \end{table}

1180: 

1181: \clearpage

1182: % ============= FIGUREa

1183: \begin{figure}

1184: \begin{center}

1185: \includegraphics [width=15.5cm] {s31.eps}

1186: %\vspace{-6cm}

1187: \caption{\label{fig:a}The em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic phase shift $\tilde\delta_{0+}^{3/2}$} from the present work (solid curve) and from the current 

1188: GWU solution \cite{abws} (dashed curve). The four single-energy points of Ref.~\cite{abws}, at $30, 47, 66$ and $90$ MeV, are also shown.

1189: \end{center}

1190: \end{figure}

1191: 

1192: %\clearpage

1193: % ============= FIGUREb

1194: \begin{figure}

1195: \begin{center}

1196: \includegraphics [width=15.5cm] {p31.eps}

1197: %\vspace{-6cm}

1198: \caption{\label{fig:b}The em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic phase shift $\tilde\delta_{1-}^{3/2}$} from the present work (solid curve) and from the current 

1199: GWU solution \cite{abws}

1200: (dashed curve).

1201: \end{center}

1202: \end{figure}

1203: 

1204: \clearpage

1205: % ============= FIGUREc

1206: \begin{figure}

1207: \begin{center}

1208: \includegraphics [width=15.5cm] {p33.eps}

1209: %\vspace{-6cm}

1210: \caption{\label{fig:c}The em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic phase shift $\tilde\delta_{1+}^{3/2}$} from the present work (solid curve) and from the current 

1211: GWU solution \cite{abws} (dashed curve). The four single-energy points of Ref.~\cite{abws}, at $30, 47, 66$ and $90$ MeV, are also shown.

1212: \end{center}

1213: \end{figure}

1214: 

1215: %\clearpage

1216: % ============= FIGUREd

1217: \begin{figure}

1218: \begin{center}

1219: \includegraphics [width=15.5cm] {s11.eps}

1220: %\vspace{-6cm}

1221: \caption{\label{fig:d}The em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic phase shift $\tilde\delta_{0+}^{1/2}$} from the present work (solid curve) and from the current 

1222: GWU solution \cite{abws} (dashed curve). The four single-energy points of Ref.~\cite{abws}, at $30, 47, 66$ and $90$ MeV, are also shown.

1223: \end{center}

1224: \end{figure}

1225: 

1226: \clearpage

1227: % ============= FIGUREe

1228: \begin{figure}

1229: \begin{center}

1230: \includegraphics [width=15.5cm] {p11.eps}

1231: %\vspace{-6cm}

1232: \caption{\label{fig:e}The em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic phase shift $\tilde\delta_{1-}^{1/2}$} from the present work (solid curve) and from the current 

1233: GWU solution \cite{abws} (dashed curve). The four single-energy points of Ref.~\cite{abws}, at $30, 47, 66$ and $90$ MeV, are also shown.

1234: \end{center}

1235: \end{figure}

1236: 

1237: %\clearpage

1238: % ============= FIGUREf

1239: \begin{figure}

1240: \begin{center}

1241: \includegraphics [width=15.5cm] {p13.eps}

1242: %\vspace{-6cm}

1243: \caption{\label{fig:f}The em-modif\mbox{}ied hadronic phase shift $\tilde\delta_{1+}^{1/2}$} from the present work (solid curve) and from the current 

1244: GWU solution \cite{abws} (dashed curve).

1245: \end{center}

1246: \end{figure}

1247: 

1248: \end{document}

1249: