Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Identify hadron anomalous couplings at colliders

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The WZW box anomaly in $\eta'\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ is an order of magnitude larger than the published BESIII value once vector meson corrections are included.

desk verdict Central claim is not reproducible as written due to a dimensionally inconsistent fit equation, but the parameter-free H+ prediction is a solid result. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14979 v1 pith:5RZXX6IF submitted 2025-04-21 hep-ph hep-ex

Chao-Qiang Geng , Chia-Wei Liu , Yue-Liang Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords Wess-Zumino-Wittenanomalyboxhiddenlocalsymmetryvectormesondominanceeta-primeradiativedecaykaonsemileptonicanomalousformfactors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that the Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) term, the anomalous sector of chiral perturbation theory, can be cleanly identified at electron-positron colliders through $\eta$ and $\eta'$ radiative decays and kaon semileptonic decays. It works in the hidden local symmetry (HLS) framework, which folds vector mesons into the WZW action. The central result is a refit of the BESIII data for $\eta'\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$: treating the anomalous coupling as a free parameter gives $C^{[\pi\pi]}_{\eta'}=(18.2\pm0.1)\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-3}$ and a box-anomaly branching ratio of $(1.70\pm0.05)\%$, about ten times the published $(0.245\pm0.021)\%$. If correct, the box anomaly is a sizable fraction of the $\eta'\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ width, and the experimental 'box' extraction needs to be revisited.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the hidden local symmetry (HLS) extension of the WZW Lagrangian: the meson matrix $U$ is written as $\xi_L^\dagger\xi_R$ so that vector mesons become gauge bosons, and four anomaly counterterms with coefficients $c_1,c_2,c_3,c_4$ are added to the WZW action; in the low-energy limit the vector meson equation of motion reduces the whole HLS action to the original WZW Lagrangian. The identity that does the work is the amplitude $A_{\eta'}=i e C^{[\pi\pi]}_{\eta'} F_V^{[\pi\pi]} \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} p_+^\mu p_-^\nu q^\rho \epsilon^\sigma$, with $F_V^{[\pi\pi]}(s_\pi)=1-\frac{3}{4}(c_3+c_4)\left[\frac{s_\pi}{s_\pi-m_\rho^2}+\delta\frac{s_\pi}{s_\pi-m_\omega^2}\right]$. Since the differential width $d\Gamma/ds_\pi$ is proportional to $|C^{[\pi\pi]}F_V^{[\pi\pi]}|^2$, setting $c_3=c_4=1$ fixes the spectral shape and leaves only the overall normalization $C^{[\pi\pi]}$ to be fit; that normalization then converts directly into the box-anomaly partial width.

What would settle it

Take the public differential data points of the BESIII $\eta'\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ measurement referenced in the paper, fit $d\Gamma/ds_\pi$ with the paper's formula and $c_3=c_4=1$, and read off the normalization; if the fitted coupling comes out near the value that corresponds to the published 0.245\% box branching ratio rather than $C^{[\pi\pi]}_{\eta'}\approx18\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-3}$, the central claim is falsified. A second check is to measure $C^{[\pi\pi]}_{\eta}$ in $\eta\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ at percent precision and compare it with $21.4\pm0.5\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-3}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the WZW box anomaly dominates $\eta\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ and, once vector meson degrees of freedom are included through HLS, accounts for the measured $\eta'\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ rate rather than a small fraction of it. The paper's predicted couplings are $C^{[\pi\pi]}_{\eta}=21.4\pm0.5\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-3}$ and $C^{[\pi\pi]}_{\eta'}=17.9\pm0.3\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-3}$. Fitting the experimental line shape with $c_3=c_4=1$ yields $C^{[\pi\pi]}_{\eta'}(\mathrm{data})=18.2\pm0.1\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-3}$, which reconstructs a box branching ratio of $(1.70\pm0.05)\%$, in close agreement with the theory value $(1.65\pm0.07)\%$ and an order of magnitude above the published $(0.245\pm0.021)\%$. The same machinery predicts the WZW form factor $H$ in $K^+\to\pi^+\pi^-e^+\nu_e$, whose chiral-point value $-2.31$ matches the measured $-2.27\pm0.10$, while intermediate vector mesons shift it by up to 25\% across the Dalitz plot.

Load-bearing premise

The order-of-magnitude comparison rests on treating BESIII's published 'box' branching ratio, 0.245\%, as the same quantity as the paper's $B_{\mathrm{box}}$, namely the partial width obtained with the vector-meson form factor $F_V$ set to unity; if the experimental extraction normalized or subtracted the resonant $\rho$, $\omega$ contribution differently, the factor of ten is a definitional artifact rather than a physics discrepancy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $\eta'\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ box-anomaly branching ratio should be revised to about 1.7\%, an order of magnitude above the published 0.245\%, or the published number must be redefined as a different sub-species of the box contribution.
  • $C^{[\pi\pi]}_{\eta}$ is predicted to be free of vector-meson corrections, so a percent-level measurement at BESIII tests the WZW normalization directly; with $10^7$ events, future facilities could reach $10^{-3}$.
  • The $\eta'\to\pi^+\pi^-\mu^+\mu^-$ Dalitz plot is sensitive to $c_1-c_2$; current BESIII constraints sit $2\sigma$ away from the vector-meson-dominance value $c_1-c_2=1$, so this channel can settle the HLS parameters.
  • The kaon form factor $H$, which receives contributions only from the WZW sector, should be extracted with an explicit $s_\pi$ and $s_\ell$ dependence; ignoring the up-to-25\% vector meson corrections biases the result.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An editorial reading: whether the factor of ten is a genuine discrepancy or a definitional one turns on the experimental definition of 'box' — if BESIII's published value subtracts the resonant $\rho$, $\omega$ pieces at the amplitude level, then the two numbers are not the same observable even though they share the name.
  • If the refit survives contact with the raw data, a natural consequence is a remeasurement of the $\eta'\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ line shape and a revised world-average branching ratio, with the box anomaly becoming a non-negligible contribution rather than a tiny correction.
  • A direct extension of the paper's procedure would be to repeat the same $\chi^2$ fit with alternative parameterizations of the $\rho$-$\omega$ form factor; if the extracted $C$ stays near $18\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-3}$, the claim is robust, and if it moves substantially, the HLS form factor is the source of the discrepancy.
  • Applied to kaon physics, the paper's phase-space-dependent $H$ prediction can be checked by binning existing $K_{\ell 4}$ data in the Dalitz variables instead of assuming constant form factors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the identification of the Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) Lagrangian in hadronic decays within the hidden local symmetry (HLS) framework. The authors compute radiative decays eta(')->gamma-gamma, eta(')->gamma l+ l-, eta(')->pi+ pi- gamma(*), eta(')->pi+ pi- l+ l-, and the kaon semileptonic decays K+ -> pi+ pi- l+ nu_l. The main new claim is that a chi-squared fit to BESIII data for eta' -> pi+ pi- gamma yields C[pi pi]_eta'(data) = (18.2 +/- 0.1) GeV^-3 and a reconstructed box-anomaly branching ratio B_box^exp = (1.70 +/- 0.05)%, about seven times larger than the published BESIII value (0.245 +/- 0.021)%. The paper also reports good agreement with experiment for eta(')->gamma-gamma and for the kaon form factor H+ at the chiral point (H+ = -2.31 versus -2.27 +/- 0.10), and it advocates new measurements of these form factors.

Significance. The claimed factor-of-ten discrepancy, if correct, would be important for the experimental extraction of anomalous couplings and would motivate a re-analysis of BESIII data. Strengths of the paper include a parameter-free chiral-point prediction for H+ that agrees with the measured value, a falsifiable prediction for the precision of C[pi pi]_eta in future STCF measurements, and a systematic HLS treatment of vector-meson contributions. However, the printed central formula used for the fit is dimensionally inconsistent, and the headline numerical claim is not reproducible as written. The kaon-sector results and the framework are of independent value, but the central eta' claim requires a corrected derivation before it can be evaluated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.17)] The formula for dGamma/ds_pi in Eq. (3.17) is dimensionally inconsistent with the stated definition of C[pi pi]_eta' as a quantity of mass dimension -3 (Eq. (3.15)). Since dGamma/ds_pi has dimension GeV^-1, while the right-hand side with C[pi pi]_eta' in GeV^-3, E_gamma in GeV, beta_pi dimensionless, and s_pi in GeV^2 has dimension GeV^-11, the printed equation cannot be the decay-width formula used to produce the fitted values in Eqs. (3.20) and (3.19). A correct integration of the amplitude in Eq. (3.14) gives a factor (m_eta'^2 - s_pi)^3 beta_pi times a polynomial in s_pi and m_pi^2 in the numerator, not 1/(E_gamma^3 beta_pi^3 s_pi). This is load-bearing because the central claim of a factor-of-seven-to-ten discrepancy between B_box^exp = (1.70 +/- 0.05)% and BESIII's (0.245 +/- 0.021)% follows from that fit.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (3.18)-(3.19)] The comparison between B_theory_box and BESIII's B_exp_box assumes that BESIII's 'box' contribution corresponds exactly to the partial width obtained by setting the vector-meson form factor F_V to unity. BESIII's extraction uses a particular resonance treatment; if that treatment normalizes or subtracts the resonant contribution differently, the factor-of-ten discrepancy could be a definitional artifact rather than a physics result. The authors need to demonstrate, or explicitly state, that the two quantities are the same before drawing the headline conclusion.
  3. [Section 3.2, around Eqs. (3.20) and Figure 3] The chi-squared fit is not reproducible from the information given. The text says the fit uses 'the provided experimental data points [11]' but Figure 3 cites Ref. [10]; no binning, covariance matrix, treatment of systematic uncertainties, or fit quality (e.g., chi^2 per degree of freedom) is provided. Given that the central numbers B_box^exp = (1.70 +/- 0.05)% and C[pi pi]_eta'(data) = (18.2 +/- 0.1) GeV^-3 are extracted from this fit, the paper should make the fit inputs and procedure fully explicit, including the HEPData record used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2] The sentence stating that the BESIII results (c1-c2) = 0.01 +/- 0.045 and c3 = 0.98 +/- 0.40 show '2 sigma tension' with the theoretical value c1-c2 = 1 is numerically inconsistent; the deviation is about 22 sigma for c1-c2 and negligible for c3. Please clarify the intended comparison.
  2. [Table 1] The entry for Gamma(eta -> pi+ pi- e+ e-) lists two data values (4.07 +/- 0.22 from [15] and 3.51 +/- 0.14 from [24]) in one cell without explanation; please separate them into distinct rows or add a note describing the discrepancy.
  3. [Section 3.2, Figure 3] The fit description cites Ref. [11] for the data points, while the figure caption cites Ref. [10]; please harmonize the references and state which dataset was used for the fit.
  4. [Abstract and Section 5] The phrase 'approximately ten times larger' overstates the ratio 1.70/0.245 = 6.9; 'seven times larger' or 'an order of magnitude' would be more accurate.
  5. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.17)] The decay-width derivation should be shown explicitly, as the current printed Eq. (3.17) has the wrong momentum dependence and cannot be used to assess the fit or the reconstructed branching ratio even as an approximate formula.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The central 'ten times larger' B_box^exp claim is a fit output, and the 'theoretical' C[pi pi] values use parameters fitted to the same pi+pi- gamma data; the claim is therefore partially circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, after Eq. (3.2), feeding Eq. (3.15)]
    "The above values are obtained by fitting the decays eta(′) → gamma gamma(∗) and pi−pi+gamma(∗) with the formalism described in the following subsections."

    The mixing angle theta_P and decay constants f_eta8, f_eta0 used in Eq. (3.15) are fit to eta(′) → pi+pi−gamma data (in addition to gamma gamma data). Eq. (3.15) then presents C[pi pi]_eta′ = 17.9 ± 0.3 GeV^-3 as a theoretical prediction. The later comparison with the chi^2-extracted C[pi pi]_eta′(data) = 18.2 ± 0.1 GeV^-3 is thus partly an in-sample consistency check of the same fitted parameters re-expressed in a new variable, not an independent prediction confronted with data.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Eqs. (3.18)-(3.20); Abstract]
    "Using the provided experimental data points [11], we perform a chi-squared fit with eq. (3.17) by treating C[pi pi]_eta′ as an unknown while setting c3=c4=1. From the extraction, we found C[pi pi]_eta′(data) = (18.2 ± 0.1) GeV^-3, and the reconstructed B_box^exp to be (1.70 ± 0.05)%, in good accordance with eqs. (3.15) and (3.19)."

    B_box^exp is not a separate experimental measurement: it is the integral of Eq. (3.17) evaluated with the C[pi pi]_eta′ that was just fitted to the same data points, so the 'reconstructed' branching ratio is a fit output by construction. The abstract's claim that the result is 'approximately ten times larger than previously expected experimentally' therefore rests on equating this fitted integral with the BESIII 'box' number in Eq. (3.18), a definitional identification (F_V = 1 versus the experimental extraction) that is not demonstrated.

full rationale

The paper contains a genuinely parameter-free external anchor, the chiral-point H+ prediction in Eq. (4.5) (-2.31 versus -2.27 ± 0.10), which prevents a higher score. The eta → pi+pi−gamma simulation and the kaon form-factor discussion are also not circular. The self-citation to Ref. [4] (Y. L. Wu, an author) merely supports the standard gauge-invariant WZW action and is not load-bearing. However, the headline numerical claim of Section 3.2 is partially circular: the theoretical C[pi pi] values inherit parameters fitted to the same pi+pi−gamma data, and the 'experimental' B_box^exp is the integral of the same fitted curve, not an independent result. The dimensional inconsistency of Eq. (3.17) noted by the skeptic is a correctness issue, not a circularity, and does not affect this score. Overall, score 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard anomalous chiral machinery, but the numerical predictions for eta and eta-prime couplings rely on theta_P, f_eta8, and f_eta0 fitted to the same decay classes under study, and on hand-set HLS coefficients. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The only parameter-free comparison is H+ at the chiral point.

free parameters (6)
  • theta_P (eta-eta' mixing angle) = -(25 +/- 2) degrees
    Fitted in Section 3 to Gamma(eta(')->gamma gamma(*)) and Gamma(eta(')->pi+ pi- gamma(*)); enters C[pi pi]_eta(') in Eq. (3.15).
  • f_eta8 = (1.59 +/- 0.16) f_pi
    Obtained from the same fit; enters the anomalous couplings C_eta, C_eta', and C[pi pi].
  • f_eta0 = (1.05 +/- 0.02) f_pi
    Obtained from the same fit; enters the anomalous couplings.
  • HLS coefficients c3, c4, and c1-c2 = c3=c4=1, c1-c2=1
    Set from vector meson dominance and omega to pi0 pi+ pi-; the central eta' extraction and the kaon H correction depend on them, and BESIII's c1-c2=0.01 +/- 0.045 is in 2 sigma tension.
  • rho-omega mixing parameter delta = Re delta=(-7.5 +/- 0.9)e-3, Im delta=(7.4 +/- 0.8)e-3
    Fitted to the BESIII eta' to pi+ pi- gamma spectrum in Section 3.2; it changes F_V and the reconstructed B_box.
  • extracted C[pi pi]_eta' = (18.2 +/- 0.1) GeV^-3
    Obtained by chi-squared fit to the same BESIII data; the quoted experimental B_box is then computed from it, so agreement with theory is partly a refit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Wess-Zumino-Witten action with N_c=3 is the correct anomalous sector of low-energy QCD.
    Standard chiral perturbation theory result used throughout; all analyzed decays are anomalous processes.
  • domain assumption The hidden local symmetry extension with vector meson fields reduces to WZW at zero vector momentum and is controlled by the coefficients c_i.
    Section 2; the vector meson corrections are model-dependent through these coefficients.
  • domain assumption Eta and eta-prime are single-angle mixtures of eta8 and eta0 with the fitted decay constants.
    Eqs. (3.1) and (3.2); alternative mixing schemes would change the predicted C[pi pi] couplings.
  • domain assumption Only rho0, plus small omega mixing, mediates the resonant part of eta(') to pi+ pi- gamma; G-parity forbids eta to pi+ rho-.
    Section 3.2; used to select the Feynman diagrams included in the fit.
  • domain assumption Quark mass effects and higher-order loop corrections are neglected in the channels considered.
    Stated in Section 2; quoted uncertainties come from other inputs, not from these neglected effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identify hadron anomalous couplings at colliders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5RZXX6IF

@misc{pith2026250414979,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identify hadron anomalous couplings at colliders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5RZXX6IF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14979}
}
abstract

We investigate the identification of the Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) Lagrangian at colliders such as BESIII and the Super-$\tau$-Charm Facility. Our analysis concentrates on the radiative decays of $\eta$ and $\eta'$ mesons, including $\eta^{(\prime)} \to \gamma\gamma$, $\eta^{(\prime)} \to \gamma\ell^+ \ell^-$, $\eta^{(\prime)} \to \pi^+\pi^-\gamma$, and $\eta^{(\prime)} \to \pi^+\pi^-\ell^+\ell^-$, as well as semileptonic kaon decays such as $K^+ \to \pi^+\pi^- e^+ \nu_e$. Employing the hidden local symmetry framework to incorporate vector meson contributions, we compute the decay amplitudes and form factors. For the decay $\eta \to \pi^+\pi^-\gamma$, the box anomaly dominates, and we find that the anomalous coupling can be experimentally determined to percent-level precision at BESIII. In contrast, vector meson contributions are significant in the decay $\eta' \to \pi^+\pi^-\gamma$. Using experimental data for $\eta' \to \pi^+\pi^-\gamma$, we obtain ${\cal B}_{\mathrm{box}}^{\text{exp}} = (1.70 \pm 0.05)\%$, which is approximately ten times larger than previously expected experimentally. We observe good agreement between our calculated anomalous couplings and experimental results. In kaon decays, WZW terms uniquely contribute to the form factor $H$, which can be extracted from parity-conserving decay distributions. While predictions at the chiral point closely match experimental values (e.g., $H^+ = -2.31$ versus $-2.27 \pm 0.10$), we find that intermediate vector meson states introduce substantial corrections, potentially as large as 25%. We strongly advocate for revisiting these experiments to achieve improved precision in form factor extractions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, no.24, 242003 (2018), [arXiv:1712.01525 [hep-ex]]. Explicit data points can be found in https://www.hepdata.net/record/ins1641075

    arXiv 2018

  2. [10]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. D 92, no.1, 012001 (2015), [arXiv:1504.06016 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2015

  3. [1]

    Weinberg, Physica A 96, no.1-2, 327-340 (1979)

    S. Weinberg, Physica A 96, no.1-2, 327-340 (1979)

    work page 1979

  4. [2]

    Wess and B

    J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B 37, 95-97 (1971)

    work page 1971

  5. [3]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 223, 422-432 (1983)

    1983

  6. [4]

    Y. L. Wu, Y. B. Xie and G. Z. Zhou, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 1, 23-27 (1986)

    work page 1986

  7. [5]

    Benayoun, M

    M. Benayoun, M. Feindt, M. Girone, A. Kirk, P. Leruste, J. L. Narjoux and K. Safarik, Z. Phys. C 58, 31-54 (1993)

    work page 1993

  8. [6]

    Petri, [arXiv:1010.2378 [nucl-th]]

    T. Petri, [arXiv:1010.2378 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

Show all 36 references
  1. [7]

    S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. 177, 2426-2438 (1969)

    1969

  2. [8]

    Achasov, X

    M. Achasov, X. C. Ai, R. Aliberti, L. P. An, Q. An, X. Z. Bai, Y. Bai, O. Bakina, A. Barnyakov and V. Blinov, et al. Front. Phys. (Beijing) 19, no.1, 14701 (2024), [arXiv:2303.15790 [hep-ex]]

    2024

  3. [9]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. D 108, no.9, 092002 (2023), [arXiv:2308.13725 [hep-ex]]

    2023

  4. [12]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. D 103, no.7, 072006 (2021), [arXiv:2012.04257 [hep-ex]]. – 15 –

    2021

  5. [13]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], Phys. Rev. D 104, no.9, 092004 (2021), [arXiv:2109.12812 [hep-ex]]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], JHEP 07, 135 (2024), [arXiv:2402.01993 [hep-ex]]

    2024

  7. [15]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. [BESIII], [arXiv:2501.10130 [hep-ex]]

  8. [16]

    Bando, T

    M. Bando, T. Kugo, S. Uehara, K. Yamawaki and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1215 (1985); M. Bando, T. Kugo and K. Yamawaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 73, 1541 (1985); M. Bando, T. Kugo and K. Yamawaki, Nucl. Phys. B 259, 493 (1985); M. Bando, T. Kugo and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rept. ...

    1985

  9. [17]

    Harada and K

    M. Harada and K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rept. 381, 1-233 (2003), [arXiv:hep-ph/0302103 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. J. Sakurai, Annals Phys. 11, 1-48 (1960)

    1960

  11. [19]

    Y. L. Ma, Q. Wang and Y. L. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C 39, 201-208 (2005), [arXiv:hep-ph/0411078 [hep-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Benayoun, P

    M. Benayoun, P. David, L. DelBuono and F. Jegerlehner, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1848 (2012), [arXiv:1106.1315 [hep-ph]]; M. Benayoun, P. David, L. DelBuono and F. Jegerlehner, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2453 (2013), [arXiv:1210.7184 [hep-ph]]; M. Benayoun, L. DelBuono and F. Jegerlehner, ...

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Y. Bai, T. K. Chen, J. Liu and X. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, no.8, 081803 (2025), [arXiv:2406.11948 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Fujiwara, T

    T. Fujiwara, T. Kugo, H. Terao, S. Uehara and K. Yamawaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 73, 926 (1985)

    1985

  15. [23]

    A. M. Bernstein and B. R. Holstein, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 49 (2013), [arXiv:1112.4809 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ambrosino et al

    F. Ambrosino et al. [KLOE], Phys. Lett. B 675, 283-288 (2009), [arXiv:0812.4830 [hep-ex]]

    2009 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Z. Y. Zhang, L. Q. Qin and S. S. Fang, Chin. Phys. C 36, 926-931 (2012), [arXiv:1703.09920 [hep-ex]]

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Navas et al., Particle Data Group, Phys

    S. Navas et al., Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.3, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Hanhart, A

    C. Hanhart, A. Kup´ sc, U. G. Meißner, F. Stollenwerk and A. Wirzba, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, no.12, 2668 (2013) [erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no.6, 242 (2015)], [arXiv:1307.5654 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Picciotto and S

    C. Picciotto and S. Richardson, Phys. Rev. D 48, 3395-3396 (1993)

    1993

  21. [29]

    Y. H. Chen, D. L. Yao and H. Q. Zheng, Commun. Theor. Phys. 69, no.1, 50 (2018), [arXiv:1710.11448 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    K. L. Mitchell and P. C. Tandy, Phys. Rev. C 55, 1477-1491 (1997)

    1997

  23. [31]

    Knochlein, S

    G. Knochlein, S. Scherer and D. Drechsel, Phys. Rev. D 53, 3634-3642 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9601252 [hep-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ametller, J

    L. Ametller, J. Bijnens, A. Bramon and F. Cornet, Phys. Lett. B 303, 140-146 (1993)

    1993

  25. [33]

    J. R. Batley et al. [NA48/2], Eur. Phys. J. C 70, 635-657 (2010),

    2010

  26. [34]

    Bijnens, G

    J. Bijnens, G. Colangelo and J. Gasser, Nucl. Phys. B 427, 427-454 (1994), [arXiv:hep-ph/9403390 [hep-ph]]. – 16 –

    1994 arXiv

  27. [35]

    J. R. Batley et al. [NA48], Phys. Lett. B 595, 75-85 (2004), [arXiv:hep-ex/0405010 [hep-ex]]

    2004 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. R. Batley et al. [NA48/2], Phys. Lett. B 715, 105-115 (2012), [arXiv:1206.7065 [hep-ex]]. – 17 –

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.