Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Isospin-violating vacuum polarization in the muon $(g-2)$ with SU(3) flavour symmetry from lattice QCD

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports a first-principles lattice QCD computation of the isospin-violating hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment, yielding $2 a_\mu^{\mathrm{HVP},38} =…

desk verdict First lattice determination of the (3,8) HVP piece at the SU(3) point; the method is sound but the central number leans on the R38K tail model and needs a robustness check. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24344 v2 pith:EZ33TQIT submitted 2025-05-30 hep-lat

Dominik Erb , Antoine Gérardin , Harvey B. Meyer , Julian Parrino , Volodymyr Biloshytskyi , Vladimir Pascalutsa This is my paper
classification hep-lat
keywords muong-2hadronicvacuumpolarizationisospinbreakinglatticeQCDPauli-VillarsregularizationSU(3)flavoursymmetrykaonmasssplitting
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 sets out to establish the size of the isospin-violating part of the hadronic vacuum polarization (HVP) that contributes to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, a correction that vanishes in isospin-symmetric QCD. The calculation is done in lattice QCD at the SU(3)-flavour-symmetric point, where the pion and kaon masses are both about $416$ MeV, using a photon that is regularized with a Pauli-Villars cutoff that is decoupled from the lattice spacing. The result is $2 a_\mu^{\mathrm{HVP},38} = 21.8(2.8)_{\mathrm{stat}}(1.4)_{\mathrm{syst}} \times 10^{-11}$, obtained by adding a small bare electromagnetic contribution to a counterterm fixed by the experimental kaon mass splitting. Because the current experimental uncertainty on the direct muon $g-2$ measurement is about $22 \times 10^{-11}$, this correction is large enough to matter for the precision program, and the authors argue that the same method can be extended to physical quark masses.

What carries the argument

The carrying device is the isospin-violating correlator $\langle j^3_\mu(x) j^8_\nu(0)\rangle$ between the isovector and isoscalar parts of the electromagnetic current, which vanishes in isospin-symmetric QCD and is expanded to first order in $\alpha$. The bare electromagnetic term is computed with a Pauli-Villars-regulated photon propagator whose cutoff $\Lambda$ is much smaller than the lattice cutoff, so all continuum-extrapolated quantities at fixed $\Lambda$ can be defined and cross-checked. The counterterm is fixed by the kaon mass splitting: $\mathrm{CT}(\Lambda) = (\Delta M_K^{\mathrm{phys}} - \Delta M_K^{\mathrm{em}}(\Lambda)) R_{38K}$, where $\Delta M_K^{\mathrm{em}}(\Lambda)$ is the lattice-computed electromagnetic kaon mass splitting and $R_{38K} = \frac{1}{2} \, \partial a_\mu^{\mathrm{HVP}}/\partial \Delta M_K$ is a scheme-independent, renormalization-group-invariant response coefficient that controls the size of the whole correction. At the SU(3)$_{\mathrm{f}}$ point only two connected quark contractions and one disconnected diagram contribute; the connected diagrams use the covariant coordinate-space (CCS) representation of the HVP kernel, while the disconnected contribution is taken from a companion calculation.

What would settle it

Compute the light-quark-mass derivative of the HVP on the same five ensembles with the three-point function evaluated directly at all distances (rather than substituted by the single-state ansatz beyond 1 fm), and compare the resulting $R_{38K}$; a shift larger than the quoted uncertainty would change the central value proportionally.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the SU(3)$_{\mathrm{f}}$-symmetric point, the isospin-violating HVP contribution is written as $a_\mu^{\mathrm{HVP},38} = a_{\mu,\mathrm{em}}^{\mathrm{HVP},38}(\Lambda) + \mathrm{CT}(\Lambda)$, where the bare electromagnetic part is evaluated in coordinate space with a Pauli-Villars-regulated photon propagator and the counterterm is fixed by the condition $\mathrm{CT}(\Lambda) = (\Delta M_K^{\mathrm{phys}} - \Delta M_K^{\mathrm{em}}(\Lambda)) R_{38K}$, using the experimental kaon mass splitting as input. The response coefficient $R_{38K}$, which gives the change of the HVP with respect to the kaon mass splitting, is computed from lattice correlation functions and extrapolated to the continuum and infinite volume. The connected and disconnected electromagnetic diagrams turn out to be small and individually consistent with zero, so the counterterm dominates the result. The paper's central result is $2 a_\mu^{\mathrm{HVP},38} = 21.8(2.8)_{\mathrm{stat}}(1.4)_{\mathrm{syst}} \times 10^{-11}$ at $M_\pi = M_K \simeq 416$ MeV, with a hadronic-model estimate giving $2 a_\mu^{\mathrm{HVP},38} = 32(8) \times 10^{-11}$ at physical pion and kaon masses.

Load-bearing premise

The final value is proportional to $R_{38K}$, which is extracted by replacing the three-point function with a single-state exponential-plus-linear ansatz beyond $x_0 = 1$ fm; if that approximation is biased on any of the five ensembles, the central result shifts proportionally.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the SU(3)$_{\mathrm{f}}$-symmetric point the isospin-violating correction is about $22 \times 10^{-11}$, comparable to the current experimental precision of the direct muon $g-2$ measurement, so it must be included in any lattice-based prediction aiming at the two-permille level.
  • The connected and disconnected bare electromagnetic diagrams are individually tiny, so the size of the correction is set by the counterterm; improving $R_{38K}$ is therefore the most direct way to reduce the uncertainty.
  • Because the photon cutoff is decoupled from the lattice cutoff, intermediate quantities such as the bare electromagnetic part and the electromagnetic kaon mass splitting have continuum limits that do not depend on the lattice action, making them reusable for cross-checks by other calculations.
  • Extending the calculation to physical pion and kaon masses is deemed promising; the hadronic model used for comparison yields $2 a_\mu^{\mathrm{HVP},38} = 32(8) \times 10^{-11}$ at the physical point.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the central value survives a direct full-distance computation of $R_{38K}$, the isospin-violating HVP correction becomes a controlled ingredient in the lattice-based Standard Model prediction, removing one of the larger systematics in the comparison with experiment.
  • The same Pauli-Villars scheme could become a common standard for other QED corrections on the lattice, since the decoupling of $\Lambda$ from $1/a$ gives other groups well-defined intermediate numbers to reuse or improve.
  • At physical masses the disconnected diagrams and the $\rho \to \pi\pi$ continuum are expected to contribute, so a lattice determination of $R_{38K}$ at the physical point would be a sharp test of both the model estimate and the standard scheme for separating strong from electromagnetic isospin breaking.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. Using five CLS Nf=3 ensembles at the SU(3)-flavour-symmetric point (Mπ=MK≈416 MeV), the paper computes the leading isospin-violating part of the hadronic vacuum polarization, aμ^HVP,38, by expanding the (3,8) component of the electromagnetic current correlator to first order in α. All internal-photon diagrams are evaluated with a Pauli-Villars-regulated photon propagator at cutoff Λ, decoupled from the lattice spacing. The connected diagrams are computed in coordinate space, the disconnected (2+2)a contribution is taken from Ref. [15], and the counterterm (mu−md) is fixed by the experimental kaon mass splitting. Combining the continuum-extrapolated bare electromagnetic contribution, the lattice e.m. kaon mass splitting ΔM_K^em(Λ), and the ratio R38K, the authors obtain Eq. (7.1): 2aμ^HVP,38 = 21.8(2.8)_stat(1.4)_syst × 10^-11. The result is dominated by the counterterm, and the paper includes a gluonless QED crosscheck of the connected diagrams, an OPE check of the Λ-dependence of ΔM_K^em(Λ), and a comparison with hadronic-model estimates.

Significance. If the result is correct, this is one of the first direct lattice determinations of a previously uncalculated isospin-violating HVP contribution, with a size that is a few percent of the total aμ^HVP and hence relevant at the current precision of the muon g−2 experiments. The paper's strengths are methodological: the Pauli-Villars prescription cleanly separates the photon cutoff from the lattice cutoff, the gluonless ensembles provide a non-trivial continuum-QED validation of the two-loop coordinate-space technique, and the OPE-based fit for ΔM_K^em(Λ) adds a useful consistency check. The central claim, however, rests on the extraction of R38K, whose systematic uncertainty is not yet fully quantified; this is the main reason the manuscript needs revision before the quoted error budget can be considered complete.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 6.3, Eqs. (6.36)-(6.37), Fig. 17b] The hybrid extraction of R38K replaces the three-point function G3pt(x0) by the single-state ansatz (A'−B'x0)e^{−Mx0} for x0>1 fm, with coefficients from a linear fit to G3pt/G2pt over a range extending to 2 fm. On the smaller-volume ensembles H200 (L=2.1 fm) and B450 (L=2.4 fm) this ansatz covers a large fraction of the available distance, and Fig. 17b shows that the direct three-point data become noisy precisely for x0≳1 fm, so agreement at shorter distances does not establish that the tail is unbiased. Since Eq. (2.12) makes aμ^HVP,38 proportional to R38K, a 10% bias in R38K shifts Eq. (7.1) by about 2×10^-11, comparable to the quoted total uncertainty. The systematic error quoted in Eq. (6.40) covers the volume-extrapolation ansätze but does not appear to include the single-state modelling of the x0>1 fm tail. Please add an explicit estimate of this systematic, for example by varying the switch point, including a second exponential state, or using the direct G3pt data alone in the tail, and justify the 1 fm choice on each ensemble.
  2. [Section 6.4, Table 10] The central value and error of aμ^HVP,38(Λ) are obtained by combining the continuum-extrapolated quantities ΔM_K^em(Λ) and R38K, both computed on the same five gauge ensembles. The quoted errors in Table 10 appear to be propagated as if these quantities were independent, but they are measured on correlated gauge configurations, and the continuum extrapolations of the two quantities also share information from the same ensembles. Since the counterterm CT(Λ) dominates the final result, a non-negligible correlation between ΔM_K^em(Λ) and R38K could change the error of Eq. (7.1). Please either propagate the joint covariance (e.g., by a jackknife over ensembles or by estimating the cross-correlation at the level of the Euclidean-time integrands) or justify quantitatively why the correlation can be neglected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2] The text contains a typo: 'signal-to-noise ration' should read 'signal-to-noise ratio'.
  2. [Section 5, Eq. (5.5)] The disconnected contribution is taken from Ref. [15] rather than computed here; please state explicitly which analysis choices of Ref. [15] (e.g., tail fitting, continuum extrapolation form) are inherited, and confirm that the charge normalization f_Q^{(2+2)a}=1/12 is consistent with the quoted value −0.53(17)×10^-11.
  3. [Section 6.1.3] The linear extrapolation used to handle the z0=0 short-distance artifact in the K2 diagram is described only qualitatively; please specify the fit range and show the stability of ΔM_K^em(Λ) when this correction is instead excluded from the analysis.
  4. [Section 6.3.1] The infinite-volume correction to R38K, quoted as −0.006(60)×10^-11 MeV^-1, is said to be computed in scalar QED, but no details are given in the main text; a brief description or a pointer to an appendix would help the reader judge the size of this correction.
  5. [Section 6.1.5, Eq. (6.25)] The fit to ΔM_K^em(Λ) assumes a correlation of 0.9 between all PV-mass points; please specify how this value was obtained for the continuum-extrapolated points, especially since the correlation may be different for the largest Λ values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the isospin-violating HVP result is assembled from independent lattice inputs; self-citations are methodological and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central result Eq. (7.1) is obtained from Eq. (2.10) as aHVP,38(Λ) = aHVP,38_em(Λ) + CT(Λ), with the counterterm fixed by Eq. (2.12), CT(Λ) = (ΔM_K^phys − ΔM_K^em(Λ)) R38K. Each factor is either computed on the lattice or taken as an external renormalization condition; none is defined in terms of the target quantity aHVP,38. ΔM_K^em(Λ) is a lattice calculation in Sec. 6.1, R38K is a lattice ratio of the HVP and kaon-mass derivatives in Secs. 6.2–6.3, and ΔM_K^phys is the experimental kaon mass splitting used only to fix the bare quark-mass difference via Eq. (A.1). The final value is therefore not forced by construction. The hybrid ansatz of Eqs. (6.36)–(6.37) for the tail of G3pt(x0) is a modelling approximation and a potential systematic bias, but it is not circular: the coefficients come from fits to lattice two- and three-point functions, not from the published value of aHVP,38. Citations to the authors' earlier work (Refs. [15,22,36]) supply methodology, the PV-regulated framework, and the small disconnected contribution; none of these citations is the source of the counterterm chain or the quoted central uncertainty. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input.

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

The final aµ^{HVP,38} is dominated by the counterterm CT = (∆M^phys_K − ∆M^em_K(Λ)) R38K; hence the physical kaon mass splitting, the VMD-modeled elastic tail of ∆M^em_K, and the lattice-extracted R38K are the effective inputs. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • (m_u - m_d)(Λ) counterterm = not quoted; fixed by ∆M_K^phys = -3.934(20) MeV
    The bare quark-mass difference is the renormalization condition in Eq. (A.1); its value is chosen so that the lattice kaon mass splitting reproduces the experimental one. It is the dominant input to CT in Eq. (2.12).
  • M_VMD (per ensemble) = 921, 942, 979, 952, 1001 MeV (Table 1)
    Vector-meson-dominance mass used in the elastic tail of the kaon mass splitting; taken from previous fits to the pion transition form factor [36], not fit in this paper.
  • tc = 1 fm
    Cutoff time separating the lattice and analytic-elastic parts of the kaon mass splitting (Section 6.1.4); chosen by hand and stated to be stable under small variations.
  • hybrid-method switch x0=1 fm = 1 fm
    For R38K, the three-point function is used for x0<1 fm and the two-point-derived approximation for larger x0 (Section 6.3); the switch point is a modeling choice.
  • volume extrapolation ansatz set = e^{-mπL/2}, 1/(mπL), 1/(mπL)^2 (Table 9)
    For R38K, three functional forms are tried; the mean of the resulting values is used with the spread as a systematic. Choice of ansatze is a model selection step.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption First-order expansion in α and (m_u-m_d) around the SU(3) symmetric point is valid
    Eqs. (2.8), (A.1)-(A.3) expand the kaon mass and aµ in small parameters; this is the standard RM123 treatment, but the neglect of O(α^2) and O((m_u-m_d)^2) terms is an assumption.
  • domain assumption Pauli-Villars regulator with double subtraction (Eq. 2.9) is a valid photon regularization with the counterterm structure of Ref. [22]
    The scheme decouples Λ from 1/a and requires a specific counterterm; the paper relies on Ref. [22] for this framework.
  • standard math OPE prediction for the large-Λ behavior of ∆M^em_K (Eqs. 6.21-6.24)
    Used to fix the log coefficient C≈0.12 MeV in the fit of ∆M^em_K(Λ).
  • domain assumption Vector-meson-dominance form factor F_VMD(-Q^2)=1/(1+Q^2/M^2_VMD) for the kaon in the elastic tail
    Eq. (6.16), used in Eq. (6.15); validated only on H101, with deviations at high Q^2 (Appendix C).
  • domain assumption Only the (4)a, (4)b and (2+2)a diagrams contribute at the SU(3) point; the bottom-row diagrams of Fig. 3 vanish due to charge cancellation
    Section 2, after Fig. 3; relies on Tr(Q(3)Q(em)Q(em)Q(8)) cancellations at the SU(3) symmetric point.
  • domain assumption The physical kaon mass splitting ∆M^phys_K = -3.934(20) MeV is the renormalization condition for (m_u-m_d)
    Eq. (A.1); assumes the leading-order formula is exact enough at the SU(3) point.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Isospin-violating vacuum polarization in the muon $(g-2)$ with SU(3) flavour symmetry from lattice QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EZ33TQIT

@misc{pith2026250524344,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Isospin-violating vacuum polarization in the muon $(g-2)$ with SU(3) flavour symmetry from lattice QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EZ33TQIT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24344}
}
abstract

We compute the isospin-violating part $a_\mu^{\text{HVP}, 38}$ of the hadronic-vacuum-polarization (HVP) contribution to the muon $(g-2)$ in lattice QCD at the SU$(3)_{\rm f}$-symmetric point where $M_\pi=M_K\simeq 416$ MeV. All diagrams involving internal photons are evaluated in coordinate space, employing a Pauli-Villars-regulated photon propagator with a cutoff scale $\Lambda$ well below the lattice cutoff. The counterterm $(m_u-m_d)$, whose $\Lambda$ dependence is consistent with the expected logarithmic behaviour, is calibrated using the experimental kaon mass splitting as input. The bare electromagnetic contribution at fixed $\Lambda$ is compared to a phenomenological estimate based on the kaon-loop and pseudoscalar-pole contributions to the forward light-by-light amplitude. An extension of these calculations to physical pion and kaon masses appears promising.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. The running of the electroweak gauge couplings from first principles

    hep-lat 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Lattice QCD plus pQCD matching yields Δα_had^(5)(M_Z²)=0.027821(34)lat(35)pQCD at 0.17% precision and a up-to-7σ tension with e+e- data near 1 GeV².

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [15]

    Parrino, V

    J. Parrino, V. Biloshytskyi, E.-H. Chao, H.B. Meyer and V. Pascalutsa, Computing the UV-finite electromagnetic corrections to the hadronic vacuum polarization in the muon (g − 2) from lattice QCD , 2501.03192

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Aguillard, T

    D. Aguillard, T. Albahri, D. Allspach, A. Anisenkov, K. Badgley, S. Baeßler et al., Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.20 ppm , Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    Muon g-2collaboration, Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 141801 [ 2104.03281]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [3]

    Muon g-2collaboration, Final Report of the Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL , Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 072003 [ hep-ex/0602035]

    arXiv 2006

  5. [4]

    Aoyama et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model , Phys

    T. Aoyama et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model , Phys. Rept. 887 (2020) 1 [ 2006.04822]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [5]

    Aliberti et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update, 2505.21476

    R. Aliberti et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update, 2505.21476

    arXiv

  7. [6]

    Cottingham, The neutron proton mass difference and electron scattering experiments , Annals Phys

    W.N. Cottingham, The neutron proton mass difference and electron scattering experiments , Annals Phys. 25 (1963) 424

    work page 1963

  8. [7]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Implications of Scaling for the Proton - Neutron Mass Difference, Nucl. Phys. B 94 (1975) 269

    work page 1975

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    Cirigliano, G

    V. Cirigliano, G. Ecker and H. Neufeld, Radiative tau decay and the magnetic moment of the muon, JHEP 08 (2002) 002 [ hep-ph/0207310]

    2002 arXiv

  2. [9]

    RM123 collaboration, Leading isospin breaking effects on the lattice , Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 114505 [1303.4896]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [10]

    RBC, UKQCDcollaboration, Calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 022003 [1801.07224]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    ETM collaboration, Electromagnetic and strong isospin-breaking corrections to the muon g − 2 from Lattice QCD+QED, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 114502 [ 1901.10462]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Borsanyi et al., Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD, Nature 593 (2021) 51 [ 2002.12347]

    S. Borsanyi et al., Leading hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD, Nature 593 (2021) 51 [ 2002.12347]. – 43 –

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Ray et al., Calculating the QED correction to the hadronic vacuum polarisation on the lattice, PoS LA TTICE2022(2023) 329 [ 2212.12031]

    G. Ray et al., Calculating the QED correction to the hadronic vacuum polarisation on the lattice, PoS LA TTICE2022(2023) 329 [ 2212.12031]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Djukanovic, G

    D. Djukanovic, G. von Hippel, S. Kuberski, H.B. Meyer, N. Miller, K. Ottnad et al., The hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g − 2 at long distances , JHEP 04 (2025) 098 [ 2411.07969]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. Altherr et al., Update on the isospin breaking corrections to the HVP with C-periodic boundary conditions, in 41st International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory , 2, 2025 [2502.14845]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    RBC, UKQCDcollaboration, Hadronic light-by-light contribution to the muon anomaly from lattice QCD with infinite volume QED at physical pion mass , Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) 014501 [2304.04423]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Chao, R.J

    E.-H. Chao, R.J. Hudspith, A. G´ erardin, J.R. Green, H.B. Meyer and K. Ottnad, Hadronic light-by-light contribution to (g − 2)µ from lattice QCD: a complete calculation , Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 651 [ 2104.02632]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Fodor, A

    Z. Fodor, A. Gerardin, L. Lellouch, K.K. Szabo, B.C. Toth and C. Zimmermann, Hadronic light-by-light scattering contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon at the physical pion mass , 2411.11719

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Kalntis, G

    N. Kalntis, G. Kanwar, M. Petschlies, S. Romiti and U. Wenger, Hadronic light-by-light contribution to the muon g − 2 using twisted-mass fermions , 2412.12320

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Knecht, The Anomalous magnetic moment of the muon: A Theoretical introduction , Lect

    M. Knecht, The Anomalous magnetic moment of the muon: A Theoretical introduction , Lect. Notes Phys. 629 (2004) 37 [ hep-ph/0307239]

    2004 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Biloshytskyi, E.-H

    V. Biloshytskyi, E.-H. Chao, A. G´ erardin, J.R. Green, F. Hagelstein, H.B. Meyer et al., Forward light-by-light scattering and electromagnetic correction to hadronic vacuum polarization, JHEP 03 (2023) 194 [ 2209.02149]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Hayakawa and S

    M. Hayakawa and S. Uno, QED in finite volume and finite size scaling effect on electromagnetic properties of hadrons, Prog. Theor. Phys. 120 (2008) 413 [ 0804.2044]

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bijnens, J

    J. Bijnens, J. Harrison, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, T. Janowski, A. J¨ uttner and A. Portelli, Electromagnetic finite-size effects to the hadronic vacuum polarization , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 014508 [ 1903.10591]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Meyer, Lorentz-covariant coordinate-space representation of the leading hadronic contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon , Eur

    H.B. Meyer, Lorentz-covariant coordinate-space representation of the leading hadronic contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 616 [1706.01139]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bruno et al., Simulation of QCD with N f = 2 + 1 flavors of non-perturbatively improved Wilson fermions , JHEP 02 (2015) 043 [ 1411.3982]

    M. Bruno et al., Simulation of QCD with N f = 2 + 1 flavors of non-perturbatively improved Wilson fermions , JHEP 02 (2015) 043 [ 1411.3982]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Chao, H.B

    E.-H. Chao, H.B. Meyer and J. Parrino, Coordinate-space calculation of the window observable for the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to (g-2) µ, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 054505 [ 2211.15581]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bernecker and H.B

    D. Bernecker and H.B. Meyer, Vector Correlators in Lattice QCD: Methods and applications , Eur. Phys. J. A 47 (2011) 148 [ 1107.4388]. – 44 –

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    M. C` e, A. G´ erardin, K. Ottnad and H.B. Meyer,The leading hadronic contribution to the running of the Weinberg angle using covariant coordinate-space methods , PoS LA TTICE2018(2018) 137 [ 1811.08669]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bruno, T

    M. Bruno, T. Korzec and S. Schaefer, Setting the scale for the CLS 2 + 1 flavor ensembles , Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 074504 [ 1608.08900]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Strassberger et al., Scale setting for CLS 2+1 simulations , PoS LA TTICE2021(2022) 135 [2112.06696]

    B. Strassberger et al., Scale setting for CLS 2+1 simulations , PoS LA TTICE2021(2022) 135 [2112.06696]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    RQCD collaboration, Scale setting and the light baryon spectrum in N f = 2 + 1 QCD with Wilson fermions , JHEP 05 (2023) 035 [ 2211.03744]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S.N. et al. (Particle Data Group) Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 030001

    2024

  26. [34]

    RQCD collaboration, Lattice simulations with Nf = 2 + 1 improved Wilson fermions at a fixed strange quark mass , Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 074501 [ 1606.09039]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    C` e et al.,Window observable for the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g-2 from lattice QCD , Phys

    M. C` e et al.,Window observable for the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g-2 from lattice QCD , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 114502 [ 2206.06582]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    E.-H. Chao, A. G´ erardin, J.R. Green, R.J. Hudspith and H.B. Meyer, Hadronic light-by-light contribution to (g − 2)µ from lattice QCD with SU(3) flavor symmetry , Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 869 [ 2006.16224]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    G´ erardin, T

    A. G´ erardin, T. Harris and H.B. Meyer, Nonperturbative renormalization and O(a)-improvement of the nonsinglet vector current with Nf = 2 + 1 Wilson fermions and tree-level Symanzik improved gauge action , Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 014519

    2019

  30. [38]

    Feng and L

    X. Feng and L. Jin, QED self energies from lattice QCD without power-law finite-volume errors, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 094509 [ 1812.09817]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Maiani, G

    L. Maiani, G. Martinelli, M.L. Paciello and B. Taglienti, Scalar Densities and Baryon Mass Differences in Lattice QCD With Wilson Fermions , Nucl. Phys. B 293 (1987) 420

    1987

  32. [40]

    Stamen, D

    D. Stamen, D. Hariharan, M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis and P. Stoffer, Kaon electromagnetic form factors in dispersion theory , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 432 [ 2202.11106]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Koponen, D

    J. Koponen, D. Djukanovic, G. von Hippel, H.B. Meyer, K. Ottnad, T. Schulz et al., Isovector Axial Form Factor of the Nucleon from Lattice QCD , in 39th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory , 12, 2022 [ 2212.01208]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Bhattacharya, R

    T. Bhattacharya, R. Gupta, W. Lee, S.R. Sharpe and J.M.S. Wu, Improved bilinears in lattice QCD with non-degenerate quarks , Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 034504 [hep-lat/0511014]

    2006 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Heitger, F

    J. Heitger, F. Joswig, P.L.J. Petrak and A. Vladikas, Ratio of flavour non-singlet and singlet scalar density renormalisation parameters in Nf = 3 QCD with Wilson quarks , Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 606 [ 2101.10969]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Della Morte, A

    M. Della Morte, A. Francis, V. G¨ ulpers, G. Herdo ´ ıza, G. von Hippel, H. Horch et al.,The hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g − 2 from lattice QCD , JHEP 10 (2017) 020 [ 1705.01775]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Bozdogan, Model selection and akaike’s information criterion (aic): The general theory and its analytical extensions , Psychometrika 52 (1987) 345–370

    H. Bozdogan, Model selection and akaike’s information criterion (aic): The general theory and its analytical extensions , Psychometrika 52 (1987) 345–370

    1987

  38. [46]

    Kimura and H

    K. Kimura and H. Waki, Minimization of akaike’s information criterion in linear regression analysis via mixed integer nonlinear program , Optimization Methods and Software 33 (2017) 633–649. – 45 –

    2017

  39. [47]

    Flavour Lattice A veraging Group (FLAG)collaboration, FLAG Review 2024 , 2411.04268

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    James, R

    C.L. James, R. Lewis and K. Maltman, ChPT estimate of the strong-isospin-breaking contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 053010 [2109.13729]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Colangelo, M

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis and P. Stoffer, Isospin-breaking effects in the two-pion contribution to hadronic vacuum polarization , JHEP 10 (2022) 032 [ 2208.08993]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    G´ erardin, H.B

    A. G´ erardin, H.B. Meyer and A. Nyffeler, Lattice calculation of the pion transition form factor with Nf = 2 + 1 Wilson quarks , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 034520 [ 1903.09471]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Sakurai, Remarkable Regularity in the Lepton - Pair Widths of Vector Mesons , Physica A 96 (1979) 300

    J.J. Sakurai, Remarkable Regularity in the Lepton - Pair Widths of Vector Mesons , Physica A 96 (1979) 300

    1979

  44. [52]

    Lehner and A.S

    C. Lehner and A.S. Meyer, Consistency of hadronic vacuum polarization between lattice QCD and the R-ratio , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 074515 [ 2003.04177]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Hoferichter, G

    M. Hoferichter, G. Colangelo, B.-L. Hoid, B. Kubis, J.R. de Elvira, D. Schuh et al., Phenomenological Estimate of Isospin Breaking in Hadronic Vacuum Polarization , Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 161905 [ 2307.02532]. – 46 –

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.