Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Chiral perturbation theory for baryon-number-violating nucleon decay into a vector meson

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs a consistent leading-order chiral perturbation theory for baryon-number-violating nucleon decays into vector mesons, and shows these modes sharpen limits.

desk verdict A useful and plausible first ChPT framework for BNV nucleon decays into vector mesons, but the claimed completeness of the LO operator basis is asserted rather than proven and the numerics lean heavily on unquantified NDA estimates. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05052 v2 pith:3FKKVHG5 submitted 2025-06-05 hep-ph

classification hep-ph
keywords baryonnumberviolationnucleondecaychiralperturbationtheoryvectormesonstriple-quarkoperatorslow-energyconstantsdimension-sixproton
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

Nucleon decay—proton or neutron turning into a lighter meson plus a lepton—is the cleanest experimental probe of baryon-number violation, but until now only decays into pseudoscalar mesons had a consistent low-energy theoretical treatment. This paper supplies the missing piece: a leading-order chiral Lagrangian for decays into the octet vector mesons ($\rho$, $K^*$, $\omega$, $\phi$), obtained by matching every possible triple-light-quark baryon-number-violating operator onto hadronic fields. With that Lagrangian, vector-meson and pseudoscalar decay rates are predicted from the same Wilson coefficients, so combining the two types of modes breaks degeneracies that pseudoscalar data alone leave as bands or cones. As an illustration, the paper derives indirect lower bounds on vector-meson-mode lifetimes from existing pseudoscalar limits that are stronger than the direct experimental bounds by two to six orders of magnitude for most channels.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the matter-field chiral realization of the octet vector meson $V_\mu$, which transforms as $V_\mu \to h V_\mu h^\dagger$ under the nonlinear realization of $SU(3)_L \times SU(3)_R$, together with the spurion fields $P$ that carry the flavor and chirality of the triple-quark operators. Lorentz projectors $\Gamma_{L,R}^{\mu\nu}$ and $\hat{\Gamma}_{L,R}^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$ extract the correct spin components from the $6\otimes\bar{3}$ and $10\otimes 1$ quark structures. Equation (9) assembles these into the leading-order baryon-number-violating Lagrangian; the decay-width formula (12) then combines the baryon-number-violating vertex with standard baryon–vector and baryon–pseudoscalar couplings ($D$, $F$, $g_d$, $g_f$) through the two pole diagrams of Fig. 2.

What would settle it

A lattice calculation of the ratio $d_2/d_1$ would settle the degeneracy-breaking claim: if $d_2/d_1$ equals $c_2/c_1$, the $p \to \bar\nu \rho^+$ and $p \to \bar\nu \pi^+$ modes no longer cut the Wilson-coefficient plane into a small closed region. On the experimental side, a discovery of $n \to e^- K^{*+}$ with a partial lifetime below $3.1 \times 10^{33}$ yr—or of any vector-meson mode with a rate above the Table I bound—would directly contradict the single-operator-dominance, long-distance picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Eq. (9): the leading-order chiral Lagrangian for single-baryon, single-vector-meson baryon-number-violating interactions, built from the four symmetry classes of triple-quark operators—$(8,1)$, $(\bar{3},3)$, $(6,\bar{3})$, $(10,1)$ under $SU(3)_L \times SU(3)_R$, together with their chirality partners. The vector mesons are treated as matter fields that transform homogeneously under the nonlinear chiral realization, and the new low-energy constants $d_1$, $d'_1$, $d_2$, $d'_2$, $d_3$, $d'_3$, $d''_3$, $d_4$ are estimated by naive dimensional analysis at about $0.115$ GeV$^2$. The paper argues that an older vector-meson formalism, obtained by replacing the baryon field in the pseudoscalar Lagrangian with $i\gamma^\mu D_\mu B$, double-counts the pseudoscalar contributions and misses operators involving derivatives, whereas Eq. (9) is the complete leading-order result. Applied to $p \to \bar\nu \rho^+$ and $p \to \bar\nu \pi^+$, the Lagrangian shows that the two modes weight the Wilson coefficients differently, so the vector mode cuts the pseudoscalar band down to a closed region; applied to the full set of kinematically allowed two-body modes, it yields indirect lifetime bounds that beat current direct limits for most channels.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative results rest on the untested estimate that the new constants $d_i$ are all about $0.115$ GeV$^2$ (and on the additional choice in Table I to set them to zero under single-operator dominance); if their true values differ, the derived bounds and the shape of the allowed regions change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All $\Delta B = 1$ two-body nucleon decays into vector mesons can now be computed at leading order from the same dimension-six LEFT operators that govern pseudoscalar modes, so the two channels are no longer treated by separate formalisms.
  • Where the new low-energy constants are known, combining a pseudoscalar mode with its vector counterpart confines the Wilson-coefficient space to a closed region instead of a one-dimensional band.
  • For most kinematically allowed vector-meson modes, the indirect bounds derived from pseudoscalar limits improve on direct experimental lifetime limits by two to six orders of magnitude.
  • The same Lagrangian also covers scenarios with light final-state particles, baryon-number-violating tau decays, and decays of heavier hyperons, so the formalism extends beyond proton decay.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A lattice determination of $d_1$ and $d_2$ (or at least their ratio) would turn the illustrative degeneracy-breaking plot into a quantitative prediction; until then, the closed regions in Fig. 3 should be read as indicative, since $d_1 = 0.115$ GeV$^2$ and $r_{12} = 1, 0, -1$ are benchmarks, not measurements.
  • If $d_2/d_1$ turns out to equal $c_2/c_1$ for the $p \to \bar\nu \pi^+$ / $p \to \bar\nu \rho^+$ pair, the specific complementarity demonstrated there would disappear, though the general framework would survive; this is a sharp, testable consequence of the ratio structure.
  • Because the indirect bounds in Table I assume single-operator dominance and neglect the $d_i$ low-energy constants, any future signal in a vector-meson channel could be used to extract those constants rather than to confirm or refute the underlying operators—so the bounds and the constants should not be confused.
  • The same spurion construction could be extended to next-to-leading order or to include electromagnetic corrections, which would be needed if next-generation experiments reach the predicted sensitivity.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a leading-order chiral Lagrangian for ΔB=1 interactions that couple one octet baryon, one octet vector meson, and any number of pseudoscalars, starting from the four SU(3)_L × SU(3)_R irreps of triple-quark operators identified in the authors' preceding work. The central result, Eq. (9), lists the operators with LECs d_i, and the paper applies this Lagrangian to two-body nucleon decays into vector mesons, derives a general width formula, demonstrates with p → ν̄π+ versus p → ν̄ρ+ that vector-meson channels can break degeneracies in the Wilson-coefficient plane, and derives indirect bounds on vector-meson modes from existing pseudoscalar bounds under stated simplifying assumptions. The Supplemental Material contains the explicit spurion matrices, the NDA estimate of the new LECs, and the full vertex tables needed for the decay calculations.

Significance. If Eq. (9) is indeed complete at leading order, this is a timely and useful contribution: it supplies a chiral framework for an experimentally active set of nucleon-decay channels that has been missing from the literature, and it does so with an explicit matter-field formalism and detailed matching to the triple-quark LEFT operators. The comparison with the 1984 massive-Yang-Mills treatment is informative, and the width formulas and vertex tables in the Supplemental Material are explicit enough to be reused by other groups. The paper is also transparent about the main assumptions behind its numerical illustrations. The significance is moderated, however, by the fact that the quantitative applications rely on NDA estimates without uncertainty and on the neglect of the new LECs, so the derived bounds are conditional rather than definitive predictions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Chiral matching, Eq. (9)] The claim that Eq. (9) is the complete set of leading-order operators is asserted rather than demonstrated. The text states that, except for the 10⊗1 irrep, there is more than one LO chiral realization, and then lists d1,d1′,d2,d2′,d3,d3′,d3′′, but no counting argument or group-theoretic enumeration is given for the 3̄⊗3, 8⊗1, and 6⊗3 irreps. For the 10⊗1 irrep, uniqueness is stated without explaining why a contraction built directly from B and V with a γ matrix is absent; chirality and power counting may indeed exclude such a term, but the reader cannot verify this from the text. Since Eq. (9) is the basis for Fig. 3 and Table I, a missing independent operator would directly change the phenomenology, not merely the formal presentation. Please supply a proof of completeness, or a precise reference containing the enumeration, in the Supplemental Material.
  2. [Nucleon decays into a vector meson / Table I] The indirect bounds in Table I are obtained after explicitly setting the new LECs d_i to zero and assuming single-operator dominance. These assumptions are stated in the text, but the table and the surrounding discussion present the numbers as 'derived new bounds' without a quantitative caveat. Because the d_i are only estimated by NDA (d_i ~ 0.115 GeV²) and carry no uncertainty, the choice d_i = 0 is not a controlled limit: the g_f-mediated contributions used in the table could be partially cancelled or overwhelmed by d_i-dependent terms of comparable size. Please either present Table I explicitly as conditional on d_i = 0 and quantify the sensitivity to realistic d_i values, or supplement the NDA estimates with a range and propagate that range through the table.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Chiral matching, Eq. (9)] In the d3 terms, the contraction of the free flavor indices y,z,w with the ε symbol is not explained; a short index diagram or a sentence describing the symmetry of the 6⊗3 spurion would make the operator list easier to check.
  2. [Nucleon decays into a vector meson, Eq. (10)] The constants gd and gf are introduced without defining the normalization convention; the later statement gf = g/√2 is helpful, but the sign and normalization conventions should be aligned with Ref. [43] explicitly.
  3. [Table I] The entries marked with a cross and 'weak/5-quark operators' (p → e+ K̄*0 and n → e+ K*−) are not explained in the main text; a one-sentence remark on the suppression mechanism would improve readability.
  4. [Fig. 3] The caption and the surrounding text should state explicitly that the plotted regions are illustrative because d1 and d2 are not determined; the text does say this for the LECs, but the figure itself gives no indication that r12 = 1, 0, −1 are benchmarks rather than constraints.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: Eq. (9) is constructed by spurion matching from quark-level operators, and the Table I vector-meson bounds are explicitly derived from pseudoscalar limits rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The central object of the paper, Eq. (9), is a chiral Lagrangian built by spurion matching from the triple-quark BNV operators in Eq. (6). It is a construction, not a fit, and the low-energy constants d_i are estimated by NDA from reduced couplings in the Supplemental Material ('By identifying C1-4 = Cq, we ultimately obtain d_i ∼ Λχ^2/(4π)'), rather than fitted to any nucleon-decay rate that Eq. (9) is later used to compute. There is therefore no fitted-input-called-prediction loop. The Table I bounds are presented as derived, not as new experimental predictions: the paper says 'we neglect the unknown LECs d_i and derive bounds on the vector meson modes by leveraging the experimental limits on the pseudoscalar modes,' which is an honest constraint transfer under single-operator dominance, not a circular identification of input with output. The only self-citation, Ref. [16], supplies the operator/irrep classification and the pseudoscalar-sector LECs c_i; this is the paper's stated starting point and is parameter-free group-theoretic content that does not incorporate the vector-meson result being claimed, so it is not load-bearing in a circular sense. Formal caveats remain, including the unproven exhaustiveness of the operator list in Eq. (9) — the paper itself notes 'except for the irreps 10⊗1 all other irreps have more than one chiral realizations at each of their LO' without a full enumeration proof — and the NDA/d_i=0 assumptions used in Fig. 3 and Table I. These are genuine uncertainties and completeness risks, but they are not circularity: no equation in the paper reduces to itself or to a fitted parameter by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces eight new LECs d_i estimated by NDA and relies on several domain assumptions about vector-meson ChPT. The quantitative bounds further lean on single-operator dominance and the neglect of d_i. No new particles or fields are introduced.

free parameters (12)
  • d1 = ~0.115 GeV^2 (NDA)
    LEC in Eq. (9) for 333/888 vector-meson couplings; estimated by NDA, not fitted to data.
  • d1' = ~0.115 GeV^2 (NDA)
    LEC in Eq. (9) for 333/888 vector-meson couplings; estimated by NDA.
  • d2 = ~0.115 GeV^2 (NDA)
    LEC in Eq. (9) for 888/111 vector-meson couplings; estimated by NDA.
  • d2' = ~0.115 GeV^2 (NDA)
    LEC in Eq. (9) for 888/111 vector-meson couplings; estimated by NDA.
  • d3 = ~0.115 GeV^2 (NDA)
    LEC in Eq. (9) for 666/333 vector-meson couplings; estimated by NDA.
  • d3' = ~0.115 GeV^2 (NDA)
    LEC in Eq. (9) for 666/333 vector-meson couplings; estimated by NDA.
  • d3'' = ~0.115 GeV^2 (NDA)
    LEC in Eq. (9) for 666/333 vector-meson couplings; estimated by NDA.
  • d4 = ~0.115 GeV^2 (NDA)
    LEC in Eq. (9) for 101010/111 vector-meson couplings; estimated by NDA.
  • c1 = -0.01257(111) GeV^3
    LEC for pseudoscalar-baryon BNV couplings from lattice QCD [38]; used in vector-meson width relations.
  • c2 = 0.01269(107) GeV^3
    LEC for pseudoscalar-baryon BNV couplings from lattice QCD [38]; used in vector-meson width relations.
  • c3 = ~0.011 GeV^3 (NDA)
    LEC for 666 operators; NDA estimate from prior work.
  • c4 = ~0.007 GeV^3 (NDA)
    LEC for 101010 operators; NDA estimate from prior work.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The nonlinear realization of chiral symmetry with the coset field ξ and matter fields transforming under the unbroken subgroup is the correct LO description of Goldstone bosons and baryons.
    Standard ChPT setup invoked in Section 'Chiral matching'.
  • domain assumption Octet vector mesons are described as matter fields Vmu transforming homogeneously as Vmu -> h Vmu h^dagger, equivalent to other formulations.
    This representation is adopted and its equivalence to hidden local symmetry and tensor field approaches is cited from [27,36], not proven in the present context.
  • domain assumption Chiral power counting assigns O(p^0) to {Sigma, xi, Vmu, B, D_mu B} and O(p^1) to {D_mu X_nu, D_mu Sigma}.
    Necessary to identify LO terms; treating massive vector fields as O(p^0) is a model assumption.
  • domain assumption The new LECs d_i are estimated by NDA as Lambda_chi^2/(4 pi) ~ 0.115 GeV^2.
    Used for all numerical examples; no data or lattice determination is available.
  • domain assumption The neutral vector meson mixing is ideal, phi^(8) = omega/sqrt(3) - phi sqrt(2/3).
    Phenomenological assumption for physical omega and phi states.
  • ad hoc to paper Derived bounds in Table I assume single-operator dominance and neglect the d_i LECs.
    Stated before Table I; these are simplifying assumptions for the illustrative bounds, not part of the core Lagrangian.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chiral perturbation theory for baryon-number-violating nucleon decay into a vector meson." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3FKKVHG5

@misc{pith2026250605052,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chiral perturbation theory for baryon-number-violating nucleon decay into a vector meson},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3FKKVHG5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05052}
}
read the original abstract

In a recent work [New chiral structures for baryon number violating nucleon decays, arXiv:2504.14855], we identified generic baryon-number-violating (BNV) structures containing triple light quarks and achieved their leading-order chiral realizations involving octet pseudoscalars and baryons. Although many two-body nucleon decays into a vector meson have been experimentally searched for and stringently constrained, a consistent theoretical framework for their calculation is still lacking. In this Letter, we fill the gap by implementing chiral matching of all these triple-quark interactions onto hadronic interactions involving octet vector mesons, baryons, and pseudoscalars. This paves the way for a consistent and comprehensive study of all relevant BNV processes. As an illustration of application, we show how degeneracy in the parameter space of Wilson coefficients can be broken by synthesizing experimental constraints on nucleon decays into a vector or pseudoscalar meson when relevant hadronic low-energy constants can be reasonably determined.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05052 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. An example of complementarity between pseu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Diagrams for nucleon BNV two-body decay involving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. An example of vector meson mode in breaking the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

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. Baryon-number-violating nucleon decays into a dark photon particle

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A complete XLEFT basis for nucleon decay into a dark photon is matched to ChPT, yielding width formulas and first recast lifetime bounds from Super-K data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 5, 32 (1967)

  2. [2]

    R. M. Bionta et al. (Irvine-Michigan-Brookhaven), Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 27 (1983), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 51, 522 (1983)]

  3. [3]

    Search for invisible modes of nucleon decay in water with the SNO+ detector

    M. Anderson et al. (SNO+), Phys. Rev. D 99, 032008 (2019), arXiv:1812.05552 [hep-ex]

  4. [4]

    Search for the proton decay mode $p \rightarrow \overline{\nu} K^{+}$ with KamLAND

    K. Asakura et al. (KamLAND), Phys. Rev. D 92, 052006 (2015), arXiv:1505.03612 [hep-ex]

  5. [5]

    K. S. Hirata et al. , Phys. Rev. D 38, 448 (1988)

  6. [6]

    Review of Nucleon Decay Searches at Super-Kamiokande

    V. Takhistov (Super-Kamiokande), in 51st Rencontres de Moriond on EW Interactions and Unified Theories (2016) pp. 437–444, arXiv:1605.03235 [hep-ex]

  7. [7]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. D 96, 012003 (2017), arXiv:1705.07221 [hep-ex]

  8. [8]

    McGrew et al

    C. McGrew et al. , Phys. Rev. D 59, 052004 (1999)

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    K. S. Hirata et al. (Kamiokande-II), Phys. Lett. B 220, 308 (1989)

  2. [10]

    Berger et al

    C. Berger et al. (Frejus), Z. Phys. C 50, 385 (1991)

  3. [11]

    Nishino et al

    H. Nishino et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. D 85, 112001 (2012), arXiv:1203.4030 [hep-ex]

  4. [12]

    Abi et al

    B. Abi et al. (DUNE), (2020), arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex]

  5. [13]

    Abe et al

    K. Abe et al. (Hyper-Kamiokande), (2018), arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]

  6. [14]

    An et al

    F. An et al. (JUNO), J. Phys. G 43, 030401 (2016), arXiv:1507.05613 [physics.ins-det]. 6

  7. [15]

    Askins et al

    M. Askins et al. (Theia), Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 416 (2020), arXiv:1911.03501 [physics.ins-det]

  8. [16]

    Liao, X.-D

    Y. Liao, X.-D. Ma, and H.-L. Wang, (2025), arXiv:2504.14855 [hep-ph]

  9. [17]

    Wilczek and A

    F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1571 (1979)

  10. [18]

    J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard, and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 88, 320 (1979)

  11. [19]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566 (1979)

  12. [20]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 22, 1694 (1980)

  13. [21]

    L. F. Abbott and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2208 (1980)

  14. [22]

    A. B. Beneito, I, J. Gargalionis, J. Herrero-Garcia, A. Santamaria, and M. A. Schmidt, JHEP 07, 004 (2024), arXiv:2312.13361 [hep-ph]

  15. [23]

    L. J. Broussard et al. , in SNSF-INT Joint Workshop: Baryon Number Violation: From Nuclear Matrix Ele- ments to BSM Physics (2025) arXiv:2504.16983 [hep-ph]

  16. [24]

    Claudson, M

    M. Claudson, M. B. Wise, and L. J. Hall, Nucl. Phys. B 195, 297 (1982)

  17. [25]

    W.-Q. Fan, Y. Liao, X.-D. Ma, and H.-L. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 862, 139335 (2025), arXiv:2412.20774 [hep-ph]

  18. [26]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 166, 1568 (1968)

  19. [27]

    Ecker, J

    G. Ecker, J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, A. Pich, and E. de Rafael, Phys. Lett. B 223, 425 (1989)

  20. [28]

    Bando, T

    M. Bando, T. Kugo, and K. Yamawaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 73, 1541 (1985)

  21. [29]

    Fujiwara, T

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

  22. [30]

    Gasser and H

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Annals Phys. 158, 142 (1984)

  23. [31]

    Ecker, J

    G. Ecker, J. Gasser, A. Pich, and E. de Rafael, Nucl. Phys. B 321, 311 (1989)

  24. [32]

    Gasiorowicz and D

    S. Gasiorowicz and D. A. Geffen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 41, 531 (1969)

  25. [33]

    Kaymakcalan, S

    O. Kaymakcalan, S. Rajeev, and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 30, 594 (1984)

  26. [34]

    H. Gomm, O. Kaymakcalan, and J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2345 (1984)

  27. [35]

    U. G. Meissner, Phys. Rept. 161, 213 (1988)

  28. [36]

    M. C. Birse, Z. Phys. A 355, 231 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9603251

  29. [37]

    E. G. Delgado Acosta, V. M. Banda Guzm´ an, and M. Kirchbach, Eur. Phys. J. A 51, 35 (2015), arXiv:1503.07230 [hep-ph]

  30. [38]

    J.-S. Yoo, Y. Aoki, P. Boyle, T. Izubuchi, A. Soni, and S. Syritsyn, Phys. Rev. D 105, 074501 (2022), arXiv:2111.01608 [hep-lat]

  31. [39]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2333 (1989)

  32. [40]

    Manohar and H

    A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B 234, 189 (1984)

  33. [41]

    Kaymakcalan, C.-H

    O. Kaymakcalan, C.-H. Lo, and K. C. Wali, Phys. Rev. D 29, 1962 (1984)

  34. [42]

    E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B 255, 558 (1991)

  35. [43]

    Y. Unal, A. Kucukarslan, and S. Scherer, Phys. Rev. C 92, 055208 (2015), arXiv:1510.02205 [nucl-th]

  36. [44]

    G. S. Bali, S. Collins, W. S¨ oldner, and S. Weish¨ aupl (RQCD), Phys. Rev. D 105, 054516 (2022), arXiv:2201.05591 [hep-lat]

  37. [45]

    Kawarabayashi and M

    K. Kawarabayashi and M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 255 (1966)

  38. [46]

    Riazuddin and Fayyazuddin, Phys. Rev. 147, 1071 (1966)

  39. [47]

    Navas et al

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

  40. [48]

    E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and P. Stoffer, JHEP 03, 016 (2018), [Erratum: JHEP 12, 043 (2023)], arXiv:1709.04486 [hep-ph]. 7 Supplemental Material I. CHIRAL LAGRANGIAN FOR BNV NUCLEON DECA Y WITH OCTET PSEUDOSCALAR MESONS For simplicity, we organize the spurion fields assoc...

Pith tools

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