Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Timelike form factor for the anomalous process $\gamma^\ast \pi \rightarrow \pi \pi$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 anomalous $\gamma^\ast\pi\to\pi\pi$ form factor rises in the timelike region and is nearly independent of the scattering angle.

desk verdict First timelike DSE/BSE prediction for the anomalous γ*π→ππ form factor is worth referee time, but the headline quantitative rise leans on an unvalidated rescaling that reviewers should press. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20899 v2 pith:AUYROTDY submitted 2025-04-29 hep-ph hep-exnucl-th

Angel S. Miramontes , Gernot Eichmann , Reinhard Alkofer This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-th
keywords anomalousformfactorgamma*pitoDyson-SchwingerequationsBethe-Salpeterchiralanomalyrhomesonresonancetimelikequark-photonvertex
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

This paper calculates the momentum-dependent form factor $F_{3\pi}(s,t,u)$ for the anomalous process $\gamma^\ast \pi \to \pi\pi$, in which a photon and a pion produce two pions. Using Dyson-Schwinger and Bethe-Salpeter equations with pion degrees of freedom added to the quark interaction, it finds that in the timelike region the form factor rises substantially between the soft point and the $\rho$-meson mass, so the predicted cross section grows strongly with energy. It also finds that the form factor is essentially independent of the scattering angle for the kinematics of the small-virtuality Coulomb-field reaction. The soft-point value in the chiral limit is consistent with the chiral anomaly, which anchors the calculation. This matters because upcoming precision measurements of that reaction can test the prediction directly.

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is the $\gamma^\ast \pi \to q\bar q$ vertex $G^\mu(p,Q,P_2)$, which satisfies an inhomogeneous Bethe-Salpeter equation whose inhomogeneous term is the sum of two Born diagrams in which the photon and pion couple to the quark. Solving this vertex resums the gluon-ladder contributions and automatically generates the $s$-, $t$-, and $u$-channel meson poles; $F_{3\pi}$ is then obtained by contracting the vertex with pion amplitudes and summing the three permutations of the final pions. The kernel goes beyond rainbow ladder by adding explicit pion exchange, which gives the $\rho$ its two-pion decay channel in the quark-photon vertex; the two-pion exchange is still omitted in the $\gamma^\ast\pi\to q\bar q$ vertex, so the $\rho$ pole there remains on the real axis, and the paper corrects for this by rescaling with correction factors extracted from the ratio of timelike pion form factors with and without the two-pion exchange.

What would settle it

A fixed-target Coulomb-field measurement of $\gamma^\ast\pi\to\pi\pi$ that extracts $F(s,z)$ for $s$ between $4m_\pi^2$ and $m_\rho^2$ would settle the claim: if $F(s,z)$ varies strongly with $z$, or if the cross section does not grow with $s$, the prediction is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the timelike anomalous form factor $F_{3\pi}(s,t,u)$ for $\gamma^\ast \pi \to \pi\pi$ rises significantly as the squared energy $s$ increases from the soft point $s=3m_\pi^2$ up to moderate values below $m_\rho^2$, and that over the same range it is nearly independent of the scattering angle $z=\cos\Theta$. The calculation reproduces the low-energy chiral-anomaly value at the soft point after extrapolation to the chiral limit, with only a small systematic deviation traced to the omitted two-pion exchange. If the prediction holds, the cross section measured in Coulomb-field scattering will grow markedly from threshold toward the $\rho$ region, and the angular independence means the total cross section is governed by the single value $F(s,0)$.

Load-bearing premise

The correction for the missing two-pion exchange is borrowed from the ratio of the pion electromagnetic form factor with and without that exchange, and the paper assumes the same correction applies to the anomalous form factor; if that transfer fails, the predictions above $s\approx 0.45\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$ are unreliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Between threshold and the $\rho$ mass, the predicted cross section for $\gamma^\ast\pi\to\pi\pi$ rises substantially, so a Coulomb-field experiment should see far more events at moderate $s$ than a flat form factor would give.
  • Because $F(s,z)\approx F(s,0)$, the total cross section can be computed from the single central-angle value, simplifying extraction of the form factor from angular distributions.
  • The soft-point result in the chiral limit matches the low-energy chiral-anomaly theorem, so the same truncation can be used as a controlled starting point for other anomalous processes.
  • Extending the calculation to include the two-pion exchange self-consistently would allow predictions at and beyond the $\rho$ mass and a comparison with vector-meson-dominance models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the angular independence, if it persists at higher $s$, would imply a planar degeneracy in this three-point amplitude that could be tested by computing $F(s,z)$ at fixed $s$ for $z=0$ and $z=\pm1$ in a dispersive or lattice framework.
  • One can test the paper's correction scheme directly by comparing its corrected $F(s,0)$ with an independent dispersive determination over the same $s$ range; disagreement would point to the assumed transferability of the pion-form-factor correction factors.
  • The predicted rise of $F_{3\pi}$ enters dispersion relations used for hadronic light-by-light contributions to the muon's anomalous magnetic moment, so experimental confirmation would sharpen those estimates.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the anomalous form factor F_{3π}(s,t,u) for the process γ*π → ππ in the timelike region using Dyson–Schwinger and Bethe–Salpeter equations in a beyond-rainbow-ladder truncation with explicit pion back-coupling. The authors solve the quark DSE, the pion BSE, and the quark-photon vertex with this kernel, and they obtain the γ*π → q¯q vertex from a truncated inhomogeneous BSE. Because the two-pion exchange is omitted in that vertex, the ρ meson appears as a real pole; the authors correct for this by multiplying the computed F(s,z) by a ratio of the timelike pion form factor evaluated with and without the two-pion exchange. The central results are that F(s,z) rises significantly with s between the soft point and the ρ mass, and that it is nearly independent of the scattering angle. The paper also presents a chiral-limit extrapolation of the soft-point value, which reproduces the WZW anomaly within about 0.5%.

Significance. If the central prediction were robust, it would be a valuable continuum calculation for the COMPASS/AMBER Primakoff program and for the γ*π→ππ contribution to (g−2)μ. The calculation includes a genuine internal consistency check: the chiral-limit soft-point value agrees with the WZW anomaly to about half a percent, which is a nontrivial symmetry test and not simply a consequence of parameter calibration. The paper is also transparent about the truncation limitations. However, the advertised timelike rise is produced by an ad hoc rescaling whose transferability is not demonstrated, and the manuscript's own soft-point analysis shows a 2.8% versus 6.6(1.0)% tension with dispersive estimates for the chiral-limit-to-physical shift. For these reasons the central quantitative claim is not yet supported at the level required for a prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV (correction-factor paragraph)] The central result—the rise of F(s,z) with s between the soft point and the ρ mass—is obtained by applying a correction factor extracted from the ratio of the pion electromagnetic form factor with and without two-pion exchange in its s-channel. This rescaling assumes that the omitted two-pion exchange affects the γ*π→q¯q vertex in exactly the same way as the quark-photon vertex in the pion form factor, including the ρ pole residue and the branch cut. That assumption is not derived or cross-checked. The γ*π→q¯q vertex contains an external pion Bethe–Salpeter amplitude and receives t- and u-channel contributions that have no analogue in the pion form factor, so the relative weight of the s-channel resonance need not match. In addition, the procedure is applied to the symmetrized F(s,z) after the sum in Eq. (12), so it also rescales the t- and u-channel permuted terms. Since the uncorrected result has a real pole at s=m_ρ^2, this correction factor is precisely what controls the shape of the headline prediction for s≳0.45 GeV^2. Please justify the transferability, clarify whether the factor is applied to f(s,t,u) before or after the permutation sum, and provide an independent test—for example a comparison with the dispersive predictions of Refs. [8,71] in the low-s region.
  2. [Sec. III (last paragraph)] The manuscript states that the equations for the γ*π→q¯q vertex, Eq. (10) and Fig. 3, are strictly valid only in rainbow-ladder because the photon can couple to the BSE kernel, and that the resulting discrepancies are very small. The only quantitative evidence offered is the 0.5% overestimate at the soft point in Table II and Fig. 5. That check probes the chiral anomaly at Q^2=0 and does not constrain the s-channel resonance region, where the omitted two-pion exchange is the dominant mechanism converting the ρ pole into a finite-width resonance. A 0.5% effect at the soft point is not evidence that the truncation error is small at s≈m_ρ^2. The authors should either quantify this systematic error in the region of the predicted rise or explicitly state that the timelike prediction is not yet controlled by the calculation.
  3. [Sec. IV (Table II and following discussion)] The paper reports that the normalized soft-point form factor increases by 2.8%±0.5%±0.2%±0.2% from the chiral limit to the physical pion mass, and immediately notes that this is in approximate 2σ tension with the dispersive estimate of 6.6(1.0)% from Refs. [71,74]. This shift is precisely the measure of explicit chiral symmetry breaking that the calculation aims to capture, so the tension indicates a systematic effect in the truncation that is not reflected in the η-variation error bands. Please explain this discrepancy, or discuss how it affects the extrapolation to the physical pion mass used in the Primakoff predictions. Without such an explanation, the error budget for the main result appears incomplete.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4] The label 'predicition' in the top-left panel is a typo for 'prediction'.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (13)] The cross-section formula is introduced with the statement 'With F(s,z)≈F(s,0)', but this z-independence is one of the main results. Please state explicitly that the cross section is computed under this approximation, which is validated only later in the same section.
  3. [Table II caption] The renormalization scale μ=19 GeV for the current-quark mass is mentioned in the text but not in the table caption; please include it there for clarity.
  4. [References] Reference [7] is listed only by arXiv number; please provide the journal or conference information if it has been published.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central s-dependence is a computed consequence of the s-channel vector-meson pole, and the pion-form-factor correction is a stated model assumption rather than an input fitted to F_3pi.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that the anomalous form factor F_3pi(s,z) rises significantly from the soft point toward the rho mass and is nearly independent of the scattering angle, is obtained from a DSE/BSE calculation with a specified beyond-rainbow-ladder kernel. The model parameters (Lambda, eta) are calibrated to the pion mass and decay constant; this is standard practice and does not constitute circularity because the predicted quantities are the timelike s-dependence and z-dependence, which are not used in the calibration. The soft-point and chiral-limit behaviour is checked against the independent WZW anomaly value, and the paper reports a small 0.5% deviation in the chiral limit, showing that the truncation is not engineered to reproduce that constraint. The main potential concern is the correction procedure in Sec. IV, where the ratio of the timelike pion form factor computed with and without two-pion exchange is applied to the calculated F(s,z). This is an explicit model assumption about transferability of the resonance correction, and the paper itself limits its reliability to s below m_rho^2 and acknowledges a ~2 sigma tension with dispersive estimates for the chiral-symmetry-breaking shift. However, this is not circular: the correction factor is not fitted to F_3pi, the raw calculation already exhibits the rise from the s-channel vector-meson pole, and the angle independence is a computed property of the BSE solution rather than an input. Self-citations to prior work on the quark-photon vertex and pion form factor are used as technical building blocks, not as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for the present derivation. The numerical results are generated within this paper, and no step reduces to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation is a model-based DSE/BSE study. It introduces no new particles or forces. The free parameters are the Maris-Tandy model parameters and the current-quark mass, all calibrated to low-energy hadron properties. The main assumptions are the truncation choices for the BSE kernel and the vertex, including the ad hoc correction procedure for the missing two-pion exchange. The axioms listed are the load-bearing premises for the central claim.

free parameters (3)
  • Maris-Tandy interaction strength eta = 1.65 +/- 0.05
    Controls the shape of the effective quark-gluon coupling; varied to reproduce pion mass, decay constant, and rho mass (Sec. IV).
  • Maris-Tandy scale Lambda = 0.78 GeV
    Scale parameter of the effective interaction, set to reproduce hadron properties (Sec. IV).
  • Current u/d quark mass m_u,d = 3.7 MeV at renorm. scale 19 GeV
    Renormalised current-quark mass adjusted to reproduce the physical pion mass (Sec. IV).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption DSE/BSE framework with Landau gauge, Euclidean metric, and analytic continuation via contour deformations to timelike momenta.
    Standard functional QCD approach; relied upon for all timelike results (Sec. III).
  • domain assumption Isospin symmetry, with equal up and down quark masses.
    The paper restricts to the light u/d flavours in the isospin limit (Sec. III).
  • domain assumption The Maris-Tandy effective interaction approximates the dressed gluon propagator and quark-gluon vertex.
    Model is calibrated to pion properties; the form factor prediction is conditional on this model (Sec. III).
  • ad hoc to paper The beyond-rainbow-ladder kernel in Fig. 2 includes only single-pion exchange in the four-point vertex; two-pion exchange is omitted.
    Computational cost prevents a full treatment; the effect is estimated via correction factors (Sec. III).
  • ad hoc to paper The equations for the gamma* pi -> q qbar vertex (Fig. 3) are strictly valid only in rainbow-ladder, but are used with the BRL kernel.
    The authors state this in Sec. III and assume the discrepancy is small without full quantification.
  • ad hoc to paper Correction factors extracted from the pion form factor ratio are transferable to the anomalous form factor.
    Applied without derivation or independent validation (Sec. IV).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Timelike form factor for the anomalous process $\gamma^\ast \pi \rightarrow \pi \pi$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AUYROTDY

@misc{pith2026250420899,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Timelike form factor for the anomalous process $\gamma^\ast \pi \rightarrow \pi \pi$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AUYROTDY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20899}
}
abstract

The form factor $F_{3\pi}(s,t,u)$ for the anomalous process $\gamma^\ast \pi \rightarrow \pi \pi$ is calculated in the isospin limit for several values of the light current-quark mass (i.e., the pion mass) using Dyson-Schwinger and Bethe-Salpeter equations. Beyond a quark interaction kernel representing gluon-mediated interactions, leading beyond-rainbow-ladder effects at low energies are incorporated by back-coupling pions as explicit degrees of freedom. Building upon an earlier calculation of the quark-photon vertex that captures the branch cut associated with the two-pion threshold and the rho meson resonance, the form factor $F_{3\pi}(s,t,u)$ is determined for timelike Mandelstam s. In particular, predictions are made for the kinematics relevant for the Primakoff reaction studied with COMPASS/AMBER at CERN.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20899 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Mandelstam plane for the process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Quark propagator (top) and interaction kernel (bot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Anomalous form factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Normalised anomalous form factor at the soft point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Extracting the chiral anomaly from $e^+e^-\to 3\pi$

    hep-ph 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dispersive fit to e+e−→3π data yields F3π = 33.1(1.7) GeV^-3, consistent with the chiral anomaly prediction at the 5% level.

  2. Getting a handle on correlation functions

    hep-ph 2026-02 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    A pedagogical guide to constructing symmetry-adapted tensor bases and momentum variables for n-point correlation functions in Euclidean quantum field theory.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Precision measurement of the neutral pion lifetime,

    C. Itzykson and J. B. Zuber,Quantum Field Theory. International Series In Pure and Applied Physics. McGraw-Hill New York 1980 [2]PrimEx-IICollaboration: I. Larinet al., “Precision measurement of the neutral pion lifetime,”Science368 (2020) no. 6490, 506–509 [3]COMPASSCollaboration: J. Friedrich, “Chiral symmetry breaking: Current experimental status and p...

    work page 2020

  2. [3]

    PROMETEO

    for up and down quarks, which determines the isospin structure of the vertex. The quark-photon vertex can be expressed in a Lorentz-Dirac tensor basis, which leads to two distinct components: Γ µ(p,Q) = Γ µ T (p,Q) + Γ µ BC(p,Q), where Γµ T depends on eight tensors that are transverse to the photon momentumQ µ and the Ball-Chiu vertex Γµ BC(p,Q) consists ...

    2009

  3. [5]

    Friedrich and D

    J. Friedrich and D. Ecker,private discussion

    work page

  4. [6]

    Investigation ofγ→3πChiral Anomaly During Pion Pair Production by Pions in the Nuclear Coulomb Field,

    Y. M. Antipovet al., “Investigation ofγ→3πChiral Anomaly During Pion Pair Production by Pions in the Nuclear Coulomb Field,”Phys. Rev. D36(1987) 21

    work page 1987

  5. [7]

    Tribute to Henry Primakoff: Tests of Chiral Perturbation Theory via Primakoff Reactions,

    M. Moinester, “Tribute to Henry Primakoff: Tests of Chiral Perturbation Theory via Primakoff Reactions,” 8 2412.03669[hep-ph]•▷

    work page arXiv

  6. [8]

    The γπ→ππanomaly from lattice QCD and dispersion relations,

    M. Niehus, M. Hoferichter, and B. Kubis, “The γπ→ππanomaly from lattice QCD and dispersion relations,”JHEP12(2021) 038•▷

    work page 2021

  7. [9]

    Extracting the chiral anomaly frome +e−→3π,

    M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, and B. Kubis, “Extracting the chiral anomaly frome +e−→3π,” 2504.13827[hep-ph]•▷

    arXiv

  8. [10]

    The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model,

    T. Aoyamaet al., “The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model,”Phys. Rept.887 (2020) 1–166•▷

    work page 2020

Show all 71 references
  1. [11]

    Prospects for precise predictions of aµ in the Standard Model,

    G. Colangeloet al., “Prospects for precise predictions of aµ in the Standard Model,”2203.15810[hep-ph]•▷

    arXiv

  2. [12]

    q anti-q bound states in the Bethe-Salpeter formalism,

    P. Jain and H. J. Munczek, “q anti-q bound states in the Bethe-Salpeter formalism,”Phys. Rev. D48(1993) 5403–5411•▷

    1993

  3. [13]

    Pi- and K meson Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes,

    P. Maris and C. D. Roberts, “Pi- and K meson Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes,”Phys. Rev. C56(1997) 3369–3383•▷

    1997

  4. [14]

    Pion mass and decay constant,

    P. Maris, C. D. Roberts, and P. C. Tandy, “Pion mass and decay constant,”Phys. Lett. B420(1998) 267–273 •▷

    1998

  5. [15]

    The pi, K+, and K0 electromagnetic form-factors,

    P. Maris and P. C. Tandy, “The pi, K+, and K0 electromagnetic form-factors,”Phys. Rev. C62(2000) 055204•▷

    2000

  6. [16]

    The Infrared behavior of QCD Green’s functions: Confinement dynamical symmetry breaking, and hadrons as relativistic bound states,

    R. Alkofer and L. von Smekal, “The Infrared behavior of QCD Green’s functions: Confinement dynamical symmetry breaking, and hadrons as relativistic bound states,”Phys. Rept.353(2001) 281•▷

    2001

  7. [17]

    Mesons in a Poincare covariant Bethe-Salpeter approach,

    R. Alkofer, P. Watson, and H. Weigel, “Mesons in a Poincare covariant Bethe-Salpeter approach,”Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 094026•▷

    2002

  8. [18]

    Beyond the rainbow: Effects from pion back-coupling,

    C. S. Fischer and R. Williams, “Beyond the rainbow: Effects from pion back-coupling,”Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) 074006•▷

    2008

  9. [19]

    Excited mesons in a Bethe-Salpeter approach,

    A. Krassnigg, “Excited mesons in a Bethe-Salpeter approach,”PoSCONFINEMENT8(2008) 075•▷

    2008

  10. [20]

    Interaction model for the gap equation,

    S.-x. Qin, L. Chang, Y.-x. Liu, C. D. Roberts, and D. J. Wilson, “Interaction model for the gap equation,”Phys. Rev. C84(2011) 042202•▷

    2011

  11. [21]

    Bridging a gap between continuum-QCD and ab initio predictions of hadron observables,

    D. Binosi, L. Chang, J. Papavassiliou, and C. D. Roberts, “Bridging a gap between continuum-QCD and ab initio predictions of hadron observables,”Phys. Lett. B742(2015) 183–188•▷

    2015

  12. [22]

    Exciting flavored bound states,

    E. Rojas, B. El-Bennich, and J. P. B. C. de Melo, “Exciting flavored bound states,”Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 074025•▷

    2014

  13. [23]

    Symmetry preserving truncations of the gap and Bethe-Salpeter equations,

    D. Binosi, L. Chang, J. Papavassiliou, S.-X. Qin, and C. D. Roberts, “Symmetry preserving truncations of the gap and Bethe-Salpeter equations,”Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) no. 9, 096010•▷

    2016

  14. [24]

    Excited hadrons and the analytical structure of bound-state interaction kernels,

    B. El-Bennich, G. a. Krein, E. Rojas, and F. E. Serna, “Excited hadrons and the analytical structure of bound-state interaction kernels,”Few Body Syst.57 (2016) no. 10, 955–963•▷

    2016

  15. [25]

    Baryons as relativistic three-quark bound states,

    G. Eichmann, H. Sanchis-Alepuz, R. Williams, R. Alkofer, and C. S. Fischer, “Baryons as relativistic three-quark bound states,”Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.91 (2016) 1–100•▷

    2016

  16. [26]

    Bethe–Salpeter kernel and properties of strange-quark mesons,

    Z.-N. Xu, Z.-Q. Yao, S.-X. Qin, Z.-F. Cui, and C. D. Roberts, “Bethe–Salpeter kernel and properties of strange-quark mesons,”Eur. Phys. J. A59(2023) no. 3, 39•▷

    2023

  17. [27]

    On the effect of resonances in the quark-photon vertex,

    A. S. Miramontes and H. Sanchis-Alepuz, “On the effect of resonances in the quark-photon vertex,”Eur. Phys. J. A55(2019) no. 10, 170•▷

    2019

  18. [28]

    Four-Quark States from Functional Methods,

    G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, W. Heupel, N. Santowsky, and P. C. Wallbott, “Four-Quark States from Functional Methods,”Few Body Syst.61(2020) no. 4, 38•▷

    2020

  19. [29]

    Elucidating the effect of intermediate resonances in the quark interaction kernel on the timelike electromagnetic pion form factor,

    A. S. Miramontes, H. Sanchis Alepuz, and R. Alkofer, “Elucidating the effect of intermediate resonances in the quark interaction kernel on the timelike electromagnetic pion form factor,”Phys. Rev. D103(2021) no. 11, 116006•▷

    2021

  20. [30]

    Spectrum of scalar and pseudoscalar glueballs from functional methods,

    M. Q. Huber, C. S. Fischer, and H. Sanchis-Alepuz, “Spectrum of scalar and pseudoscalar glueballs from functional methods,”Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) no. 11, 1077•▷

    2020

  21. [31]

    Higher spin glueballs from functional methods,

    M. Q. Huber, C. S. Fischer, and H. Sanchis-Alepuz, “Higher spin glueballs from functional methods,”Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) no. 12, 1083•▷

    2021

  22. [32]

    Bound states from the spectral Bethe-Salpeter equation,

    G. Eichmann, A. G´ omez, J. Horak, J. M. Pawlowski, J. Wessely, and N. Wink, “Bound states from the spectral Bethe-Salpeter equation,”Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) no. 9, 096024•▷

    2024

  23. [33]

    Heavy-light mesons from a flavour-dependent interaction,

    F. Gao, A. S. Miramontes, J. Papavassiliou, and J. M. Pawlowski, “Heavy-light mesons from a flavour-dependent interaction,”Phys. Lett. B863 (2025) 139384•▷

    2025

  24. [34]

    On the large-Q 2 behavior of the pion transition form factor,

    G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, E. Weil, and R. Williams, “On the large-Q 2 behavior of the pion transition form factor,”Phys. Lett. B774(2017) 425–429•▷

    2017

  25. [35]

    Electromagnetic decays of the neutral pion,

    E. Weil, G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, and R. Williams, “Electromagnetic decays of the neutral pion,”Phys. Rev. D96(2017) no. 1, 014021•▷

    2017

  26. [36]

    Contribution of neutral pseudoscalar mesons toa HLbL µ within a Schwinger-Dyson equations approach to QCD,

    K. Raya, A. Bashir, and P. Roig, “Contribution of neutral pseudoscalar mesons toa HLbL µ within a Schwinger-Dyson equations approach to QCD,”Phys. Rev. D101(2020) no. 7, 074021•▷

    2020

  27. [37]

    Single pseudoscalar meson pole and pion box contributions to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon,

    G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, E. Weil, and R. Williams, “Single pseudoscalar meson pole and pion box contributions to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon,”Phys. Lett. B797(2019) 134855•▷

    2019

  28. [38]

    Axial-vector and scalar contributions to hadronic light-by-light scattering,

    G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, T. Haeuser, and O. Regenfelder, “Axial-vector and scalar contributions to hadronic light-by-light scattering,” 2411.05652[hep-ph]•▷

    arXiv

  29. [39]

    Calculation of the anomalous gamma pi* –>pi pi form-factor,

    R. Alkofer and C. D. Roberts, “Calculation of the anomalous gamma pi* –>pi pi form-factor,”Phys. Lett. B369(1996) 101–107•▷

    1996

  30. [40]

    Ladder Dyson-Schwinger calculation of the anomalous gamma-3pi form-factor,

    S. R. Cotanch and P. Maris, “Ladder Dyson-Schwinger calculation of the anomalous gamma-3pi form-factor,” Phys. Rev. D68(2003) 036006•▷

    2003

  31. [41]

    Anomalous gamma —> 3 pi amplitude in a bound state approach,

    B. Bistrovic and D. Klabucar, “Anomalous gamma —> 3 pi amplitude in a bound state approach,”Phys. Lett. B 478(2000) 127–136•▷

    2000

  32. [42]

    QCD anomalies in electromagnetic processes: A solution to theγ→3πpuzzle,

    Z. Xing, H. Dang, M. A. Sultan, K. Raya, and L. Chang, “QCD anomalies in electromagnetic processes: A solution to theγ→3πpuzzle,”Phys. Rev. D109(2024) no. 5, 054028•▷

    2024

  33. [43]

    Low Energy Theorem forγ +γ→π +π+π,

    S. L. Adler, B. W. Lee, S. B. Treiman, and A. Zee, “Low Energy Theorem forγ +γ→π +π+π,”Phys. Rev. D4(1971) 3497–3501

    1971

  34. [44]

    Low-energy theorem for gamma –>3 pi,

    R. Aviv and A. Zee, “Low-energy theorem for gamma –>3 pi,”Phys. Rev. D5(1972) 2372

    1972

  35. [45]

    Collective perspective on advances in Dyson-Schwinger Equation QCD,

    A. Bashir, L. Chang, I. C. Cloet, B. El-Bennich, Y.-X. Liu, C. D. Roberts, and P. C. Tandy, “Collective perspective on advances in Dyson-Schwinger Equation QCD,”Commun. Theor. Phys.58(2012) 79–134•▷ 9

    2012

  36. [46]

    Recent developments in bound-state calculations using the Dyson–Schwinger and Bethe–Salpeter equations,

    H. Sanchis-Alepuz and R. Williams, “Recent developments in bound-state calculations using the Dyson–Schwinger and Bethe–Salpeter equations,” Comput. Phys. Commun.232(2018) 1–21•▷

    2018

  37. [47]

    Nonperturbative aspects of the quark - photon vertex,

    M. R. Frank, “Nonperturbative aspects of the quark - photon vertex,”Phys. Rev. C51(1995) 987–998•▷

    1995

  38. [48]

    The Quark photon vertex and the pion charge radius,

    P. Maris and P. C. Tandy, “The Quark photon vertex and the pion charge radius,”Phys. Rev. C61(2000) 045202•▷

    2000

  39. [49]

    Probing nucleons with photons at the quark level,

    G. Eichmann, “Probing nucleons with photons at the quark level,”Acta Phys. Polon. Supp.7(2014) no. 3, 597•▷

    2014

  40. [50]

    Quark-photon vertex from lattice QCD in Landau gauge,

    M. Leutnant and A. Sternbeck, “Quark-photon vertex from lattice QCD in Landau gauge,”PoS Confinement2018(2018) 095•▷

    2018

  41. [51]

    Practical scheme from QCD to phenomena via Dyson-Schwinger equations,

    C. Tang, F. Gao, and Y.-X. Liu, “Practical scheme from QCD to phenomena via Dyson-Schwinger equations,” Phys. Rev. D100(2019) no. 5, 056001•▷

    2019

  42. [52]

    Analytic Properties of the Vertex Function in Gauge Theories. 1.,

    J. S. Ball and T.-W. Chiu, “Analytic Properties of the Vertex Function in Gauge Theories. 1.,”Phys. Rev. D 22(1980) 2542

    1980

  43. [53]

    Hadronic unquenching effects in the quark propagator,

    C. S. Fischer, D. Nickel, and J. Wambach, “Hadronic unquenching effects in the quark propagator,”Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 094009•▷

    2007

  44. [54]

    On Gribov’s supercriticality picture of quark confinement,

    C. S. Fischer, D. Nickel, and R. Williams, “On Gribov’s supercriticality picture of quark confinement,”Eur. Phys. J. C60(2009) 47–61•▷

    2009

  45. [55]

    Vector mesons as dynamical resonances in the Bethe–Salpeter framework,

    R. Williams, “Vector mesons as dynamical resonances in the Bethe–Salpeter framework,”Phys. Lett. B798 (2019) 134943•▷

    2019

  46. [56]

    Elucidating theρ-meson’s role as intermediate resonance in the time-like electromagnetic pion form factor,

    R. Alkofer, A. S. Miramontes, and H. Sanchis-Alepuz, “Elucidating theρ-meson’s role as intermediate resonance in the time-like electromagnetic pion form factor,”EPJ Web Conf.262(2022) 01020•▷

    2022

  47. [57]

    QCD based quark description of pi pi scattering up to the sigma and rho region,

    S. R. Cotanch and P. Maris, “QCD based quark description of pi pi scattering up to the sigma and rho region,”Phys. Rev. D66(2002) 116010•▷

    2002

  48. [58]

    Role of momentum dependent dressing functions and vector meson dominance in hadronic light-by-light contributions to the muong−2,

    T. Goecke, C. S. Fischer, and R. Williams, “Role of momentum dependent dressing functions and vector meson dominance in hadronic light-by-light contributions to the muong−2,”Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) no. 3, 034013•▷

    2013

  49. [59]

    Unified description of hadron-photon and hadron-meson scattering in the Dyson-Schwinger approach,

    G. Eichmann and C. S. Fischer, “Unified description of hadron-photon and hadron-meson scattering in the Dyson-Schwinger approach,”Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 034015•▷

    2012

  50. [60]

    Nucleon Compton scattering in the Dyson-Schwinger approach,

    G. Eichmann and C. S. Fischer, “Nucleon Compton scattering in the Dyson-Schwinger approach,”Phys. Rev. D87(2013) no. 3, 036006•▷

    2013

  51. [61]

    The muon g-2: Dyson-Schwinger status on hadronic light-by-light scattering,

    G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, W. Heupel, and R. Williams, “The muon g-2: Dyson-Schwinger status on hadronic light-by-light scattering,”AIP Conf. Proc. 1701(2016) no. 1, 040004•▷

    2016

  52. [62]

    Review of particle physics,

    D. An, G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, and S. Leupold,in preparation [63]Particle Data GroupCollaboration: S. Navaset al., “Review of particle physics,”Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no. 3, 030001

    2024

  53. [64]

    Three-gluon vertex in landau gauge,

    G. Eichmann, R. Williams, R. Alkofer, and M. Vujinovic, “Three-gluon vertex in landau gauge,” Phys. Rev. D89(2014) no. 10, 105014•▷

    2014

  54. [65]

    Four-point functions and the permutation group s4,

    G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, and W. Heupel, “Four-point functions and the permutation group s4,” Phys. Rev. D92(2015) no. 5, 056006•▷

    2015

  55. [66]

    Lattice three-gluon vertex in extended kinematics: Planar degeneracy,

    F. Pinto-G´ omez, F. De Soto, M. N. Ferreira, J. Papavassiliou, and J. Rodr´ ıguez-Quintero, “Lattice three-gluon vertex in extended kinematics: Planar degeneracy,”Phys. Lett. B838(2023) 137737•▷

    2023

  56. [67]

    Gauge sector dynamics in qcd,

    M. N. Ferreira and J. Papavassiliou, “Gauge sector dynamics in qcd,”Particles6(2023) no. 1, 312–363•▷

    2023

  57. [68]

    Planar degeneracy of the three-gluon vertex,

    A. C. Aguilar, M. N. Ferreira, J. Papavassiliou, and L. R. Santos, “Planar degeneracy of the three-gluon vertex,”Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) no. 6, 549•▷

    2023

  58. [69]

    Four-gluon vertex in collinear kinematics,

    A. C. Aguilar, M. N. Ferreira, J. Papavassiliou, and L. R. Santos, “Four-gluon vertex in collinear kinematics,”Eur. Phys. J. C84(2024) no. 7, 676•▷

    2024

  59. [70]

    The ππ→πγ ⋆ amplitude and the resonantρ→πγ ⋆ transition from lattice QCD,

    R. A. Brice˜ no, J. J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, C. J. Shultz, C. E. Thomas, and D. J. Wilson, “The ππ→πγ ⋆ amplitude and the resonantρ→πγ ⋆ transition from lattice QCD,”Phys. Rev. D93(2016) no. 11, 114508•▷

    2016

  60. [71]

    Extracting the chiral anomaly from gamma pi –>pi pi,

    M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, and D. Sakkas, “Extracting the chiral anomaly from gamma pi –>pi pi,”Phys. Rev. D86(2012) 116009•▷

    2012

  61. [72]

    Radiative resonance couplings inγπ→ππ,

    M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis and M. Zanke, “Radiative resonance couplings inγπ→ππ,”Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 114016•▷

    2017

  62. [73]

    Chiral perturbation theory,

    G. Ecker, “Chiral perturbation theory,”Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.35(1995) 1–80•▷

    1995

  63. [74]

    Three Pseudoscalar Photon Interactions in Chiral Perturbation Theory

    J. Bijnens, A. Bramon and F. Cornet, “Three Pseudoscalar Photon Interactions in Chiral Perturbation Theory”,Phys. Lett. B237 (1990) 488

    1990

Pith tools

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