${{\boldsymbol \pi}^{\pm}}$ CHARGE RADIUS INSPIRE search

The charge radius of the pion $\sqrt {\langle r{}^{2}_{{{\mathit \pi}}}\rangle }$ is defined in relation to the form factor of the pion electromagnetic vertex, called vector form factor VFF, F${}^{V}_{{{\mathit \pi}}}$. The VFF is a function of the squared four-momentum transfer $\mathit t$, or of the squared c.m. energy $\mathit s$, depending on the channel in which the photon exchange takes place. In both cases, it is related to the slope of the VFF at zero, namely
  $\langle $r${}^{2}_{{{\mathit \pi}}}\rangle $ = 6 ${d F{}^{V}_{{{\mathit \pi}}}(\mathit q)\over d\mathit q}(\mathit q$=0) where $\mathit q$ = $\mathit t$, $\mathit s$.
The quantity cannot be measured directly. It can be extracted from the cross sections of three processes: pion electroproduction, ${{\mathit e}}$ ${{\mathit N}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit e}}{{\mathit N}}{{\mathit \pi}}$ , and pion electron scattering ${{\mathit e}}$ ${{\mathit \pi}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit e}}{{\mathit \pi}}$ , for the $\mathit t$ channel, and positron electron annihilation into two charged pions, ${{\mathit e}^{+}}$ ${{\mathit e}^{-}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ , for the $\mathit s$ channel. We encode all measurements, but we do not use electroproduction data in averaging because the extraction of the pion radius involves, in this case, theoretical uncertainties that cannot be controlled at the needed level of accuracy. In case of analyses based on the same data set, as ANANTHANARAYAN 2017 and COLANGELO 2019 , which cannot be averaged, we combine the results into a common value, with the uncertainty range chosen to cover both analyses. Note that for consistency the form factor needs to be defined in both channels with the vacuum polarisation removed. For details see COLANGELO 2019 or Appendix B of ANANTHANARAYAN 2016A.
VALUE (fm) DOCUMENT ID TECN  COMMENT
$\bf{ 0.659 \pm0.004}$ OUR AVERAGE
$0.656$ $\pm0.005$ 1
PDG
2019
FIT
$0.65$ $\pm0.05$ $\pm0.06$
ESCHRICH
2001
CNTR ${{\mathit \pi}}$ ${{\mathit e}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \pi}}{{\mathit e}}$
$0.663$ $\pm0.006$
AMENDOLIA
1986
CNTR ${{\mathit \pi}}$ ${{\mathit e}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \pi}}{{\mathit e}}$
$0.663$ $\pm0.023$
DALLY
1982
CNTR ${{\mathit \pi}}$ ${{\mathit e}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \pi}}{{\mathit e}}$
• • • We do not use the following data for averages, fits, limits, etc. • • •
$0.655$ $\pm0.004$ 2
COLANGELO
2019
FIT Fit existing data
$0.657$ $\pm0.003$ 3
ANANTHANARAYA..
2017
FIT Fit existing data
$0.6603$ $\pm0.0005$ $\pm0.0004$ 4
HANHART
2017
FIT Fit existing data
$0.740$ $\pm0.031$ 5
LIESENFELD
1999
CNTR ${{\mathit e}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit e}}{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit n}}$
$0.661$ $\pm0.012$ 6
BIJNENS
1998
CNTR ${{\mathit \chi}}$PT extraction
$0.660$ $\pm0.024$
AMENDOLIA
1984
CNTR ${{\mathit \pi}}$ ${{\mathit e}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \pi}}{{\mathit e}}$
$0.711$ $\pm0.009$ $\pm0.016$ 5
BEBEK
1978
CNTR ${{\mathit e}}$ ${{\mathit N}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit e}}{{\mathit \pi}}{{\mathit N}}$
$0.678$ $\pm0.004$ $\pm0.008$ 7
QUENZER
1978
CNTR ${{\mathit e}^{+}}$ ${{\mathit e}^{-}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$
$0.78$ ${}^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$
ADYLOV
1977
CNTR ${{\mathit \pi}}$ ${{\mathit e}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \pi}}{{\mathit e}}$
$0.74$ ${}^{+0.11}_{-0.13}$
BARDIN
1977
CNTR ${{\mathit e}}$ ${{\mathit p}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit e}}{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit n}}$
$0.56$ $\pm0.04$
DALLY
1977
CNTR ${{\mathit \pi}}$ ${{\mathit e}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \pi}}{{\mathit e}}$
1  This value combines the measurements of ANANTHANARAYAN 2017 and COLANGELO 2019 which are based on the same data set. The uncertainty range is chosen to cover both results.
2  COLANGELO 2019 fit existing F$_{V}$ data, using an extended Omnes dispersive representation. This analysis is based on the same data set of ANANTHANARAYAN 2017 . Accordingly, they cannot be averaged. We combine the results into a common value, with the uncertainty range chosen to cover the uncertainty ranges of both analyses.
3  ANANTHANARAYAN 2017 fit existing F$_{V}$ data, using a mixed phase-modulus dispersive representation. This analysis is based on the same data set of COLANGELO 2019 . Accordingly, they cannot be averaged. We combine the results into a common value, with the uncertainty range chosen to cover the uncertainty ranges of both analyses.
4  According to the authors the uncertainty could be underestimated. The value quoted omits the BaBar data AUBERT 2009 .
5  The extractions could contain an additional theoretical uncertainty which cannot be sufficiently quantified.
6  BIJNENS 1998 fits existing data.
7  The extraction is based on a parametrization that does not have correct analytic properties.
  References:
COLANGELO 2019
JHEP 1902 006 Two-pion contribution to hadronic vacuum polarization
PDG 2019
RPP 2019 at pdg.lbl.gov Review of Particle Physics 2019
ANANTHANARAYAN 2017
PRL 119 132002 Electromagnetic Charge Radius of the Pion at High Precision
HANHART 2017
EPJ C77 98 The Branching Ratio ${{\mathit \omega}}$ $\rightarrow$ ${{\mathit \pi}^{+}}{{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ Revisited
ESCHRICH 2001
PL B522 233 Measurement of the ${{\mathit \Sigma}^{-}}$ Charge Radius by ${{\mathit \Sigma}^{-}}$ Electron Elastic Scattering
LIESENFELD 1999
PL B468 20 A Measurement of the Axial Form-factor of the Nucleon by the ${{\mathit p}}$ (${{\mathit e}}$, ${{\mathit e}^{\,'}}{{\mathit \pi}^{+}}$) ${{\mathit N}}$ Reaction at W = 1125 MeV
BIJNENS 1998
JHEP 9805 014 The Vector and Scalar Formfactors of the Pion to Two Loops
AMENDOLIA 1986
NP B277 168 A Measurement of the Space-like Pion Electromagnetic Formfactor
AMENDOLIA 1984
PL 146B 116 A Measurement of the Pion Charge Radius
DALLY 1982
PRL 48 375 Elastic Scattering Measurement of the Negative Pion Radius
BEBEK 1978
PR D17 1693 Electroproduction of Single Pions at Low ${{\mathit \epsilon}}$ and a Measurement of the Pion Form-factor up to Q${}^{2}$ = 10 GeV${}^{2}$
QUENZER 1978
PL 76B 512 Pion Formfactor from 480 to 1100 MeV
ADYLOV 1977
NP B128 461 A Measurement of the Electromagnetic Size of the Pion from Direct Elastic Pion Scattering Data at 50 ${\mathrm {GeV/}}\mathit c$
BARDIN 1977
NP B120 45 A Transverse and Longitudinal Cross Section Separation in a ${{\mathit \pi}^{+}}$ Electroproduction Coincidence Experiment and the Pion Radius
DALLY 1977
PRL 39 1176 Direct Measurement of the ${{\mathit \pi}^{-}}$ Form-factor