QCD condensates and $\alpha_s$ from $e^+e^-$ and $\tau$-decays

iHEPMAD-Univ. Antananarivo-MG); Stephan Narison (LUPM-CNRS Montpellier-FR

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

QCD condensates and $\alpha_s$ from $e^+e^-$ and $\tau$-decays

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that SVZ sum rules extract QCD condensates up to dimension D=20 without exponential growth, which would exclude significant duality violation in e+e- and tau decays, and fix alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1176 in agreement with the 2024 w

desk verdict Useful summary of Narison's SVZ program with an alpha_s average consistent with PDG, but the DV-exclusion claim rests on an unproven diagnostic and the fit has internal circularity. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05434 v1 pith:34KIKF4V submitted 2025-08-07 hep-ph hep-exhep-lat

Stephan Narison (LUPM-CNRS Montpellier-FR , iHEPMAD-Univ. Antananarivo-MG) This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-exhep-lat

keywords QCDsumrulesSVZexpansioncondensatesstrongcouplingtaudecayse+e-annihilationdualityviolationLaplace

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 argues that the SVZ sum-rule framework, which writes QCD correlation functions as a perturbative series plus a tower of vacuum condensates, remains valid through very high dimensions in the channels probed by $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation and $\tau$ decay. Extracting condensates of dimension up to $D=20$ from the Euclidean region, the author finds no exponential growth in their fitted values and concludes, by duality, that the time-like spectral functions contain no significant duality-violating component. The same analysis fixes the strong coupling at the $\tau$ mass: averaging over the $e^{+}e^{-}$, axial-vector, and V-A channels gives $\alpha_s(M_\tau)=0.3128(51)$ in fixed-order perturbation theory and $0.3330(57)$ in contour-improved theory, which evolve to $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1176$ and $0.1201$ respectively. The fixed-order result agrees with the 2024 world-average non-lattice value $0.1175(10)$, which a sympathetic reader would take as evidence that the tau-decay determination of $\alpha_s$ is settled at the quoted precision.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the ratio of Laplace sum-rule moments, $\mathcal{R}_{10}^H(\tau)= L_1^c/L_0^c$, whose non-perturbative part exponentiates each condensate with a factorial denominator $(D/2-1)!$, and the BNP tau-decay moments defined by Cauchy contour integrals over the circle $|s|=M_0^2$, which at leading order in $\alpha_s$ select specific condensate dimensions. The diagnostic at the center of the paper is the dimension dependence of the fitted coefficients $d_D$: factorial growth of $d_D$ with $D$ would signal the divergence of the condensate series and the presence of duality violation, whereas the values extracted up to $D=20$ are not exponentially growing. The paper's claim

What would settle it

Fit the same spectral functions in the time-like region with the standard duality-violation ansatz, an oscillatory exponential term such as $\exp(-\delta s)\cos(\beta s+\phi)$ added to the QCD continuum above threshold, and compare the extracted $\alpha_s(M_\tau)$: if the DV amplitude is non-negligible, or if including it shifts $\alpha_s(M_\tau)$ by more than the quoted 0.0051 uncertainty, the exclusion claim fails. A second check is to extend the moment analysis to degrees $n>6$ (dimensions $D>20$) and test whether the condensates $d_D$ begin to grow factorially.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working within the SVZ operator-product expansion, the paper treats the two-point functions of the vector, axial-vector, and V-A currents as a perturbative series through order $\alpha_s^4$ plus a tower of vacuum condensates. It uses the ratio of Laplace sum-rule moments $\mathcal{R}_{10}^H = L_1^c/L_0^c$ and generalized tau-decay moments up to degree $n=6$ to extract the condensates $d_4$ through $d_{20}$ from $e^{+}e^{-}\to I=1$ hadrons and from the axial-vector channel of $\tau$ decay; the values show no exponential growth with dimension. The author reads this as excluding, by duality, any significant duality-violating component in the time-like spectral functions. He also reports that th

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the absence of exponential growth in the fitted condensates up to $D=20$ in the Euclidean region is a reliable diagnostic for the absence of duality-violating exponential terms in the time-like region; the paper states this as a duality argument rather than a derivation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is right, the SVZ expansion with condensates through D=20 describes both e+e- and tau spectral functions without any duality-violating term, settling the DV controversy in these channels.
The fixed-order value alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1176(7)(3) provides a non-lattice determination of the strong coupling that coincides with the 2024 world average 0.1175(10).
The factor-about-6 violation of four-quark condensate factorization becomes a quantitative input for models of the QCD vacuum and for sum-rule analyses of other hadronic observables.
The condensate hierarchy and the stability of the ratio r46 approximately 0.9e-2 GeV^2 constrain future extractions of alpha_s from tau decays, since the set of condensates can be used as a fixed input.
The cross-channel relation d6,A approximately -(11/7)d6,V provides a consistency test for future data sets in the vector and axial-vector channels.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the D=20 cutoff is a practical stopping point; the same argument cannot exclude a factorial tail that starts above D=20, so the DV-exclusion claim is inherently finite-order and should be read as evidence rather than proof.
Editorial inference: the FO and CI central values for alpha_s(M_Z), 0.1176 and 0.1201, differ by roughly 0.0025; the paper's agreement with the 2024 world average 0.1175(10) is therefore carried by the FO series, and the CI series is only marginally consistent. Resolving the FO/CI scheme ambiguity would sharpen the comparison.
Editorial inference: the disagreement with DV-including analyses, which the paper attributes to their lower continuum threshold tc around 1.55 GeV^2, could be settled by repeating the extraction at tc = 4-5 GeV^2 with the DV ansatz included and checking whether the fitted DV parameters vanish; the paper does not report such a fit.
Editorial inference: the near-constant ratio r46 approximately 0.9e-2 GeV^2 and the channel relation d6,A approximately -(11/7)d6,V are concrete predictions for the vacuum matrix elements of four-quark operators that could be tested directly by lattice QCD.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Quick take on 2508.05434. It's a review talk by Narison summarizing his own SVZ sum-rule determinations of QCD condensates and alpha_s, with corrected misprints and an updated combined average. The headline alpha_s values (0.1176 FO, 0.1201 CI at MZ) match the PDG non-lattice average, so this is a cross-check rather than a change to the world value. What's genuinely useful is the clear tabulation of condensates up to D=20 in e+e- and axial-vector channels, plus the explicit comparison with other determinations.

The paper does a decent job as a review. It's transparent about being a talk, and the numerical work is presented in enough detail (with figures) to be followed. The use of CMD-3 and updated ALEPH data is a modest step up from earlier papers. I appreciate the ratio r46 relation, which seems robust across methods.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The most serious is the DV-exclusion claim. The abstract says: no exponential growth in D of the Euclidean condensates, therefore no significant time-like duality violation. That inference is not justified. Duality violations would appear as additional, non-OPE terms in the spectral function; their absence does not follow from the behavior of the fitted dD. The paper cites Pich-Rodriguez for an independent DV estimate, but the diagnostic presented here is not shown to be equivalent. So the central claim that DV is negligible should be read as a reasonable expectation, not a proof.

There's also internal circularity. In Sec.11, the gluon condensate is fixed as input to extract d6,A and d8,A, and then those are used to "confirm" the same gluon condensate. And in Sec.7, alpha_s is an input to the PT part when extracting higher condensates, which are then used to extract alpha_s in Sec.9. These are known issues in sum-rule fits, but they reduce the independence of the cross-check. The choice to extract alpha_s at non-physical scales (M0 ~ 1.5-1.7 GeV or s0=2.8 GeV^2) because the physical Mtau gives "overestimated" values also looks like a post-hoc window selection. That's worth keeping in mind.

For a talk write-up, this is fine. For a journal submission, I'd want the DV argument tightened and the circularity acknowledged explicitly. Who benefits? Someone wanting a compact overview of Narison's results and a comparison with PDG. I wouldn't cite it in my own work except as a pointer to the fuller papers. But it deserves a serious referee if submitted; the claims are non-trivial and the current manuscript doesn't fully support them.

Recommendation: send to peer review, but flag the need for a stronger DV analysis.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This proceedings contribution reviews and extends the author's SVZ sum-rule analyses of e+e−→I=1 hadrons and of the axial-vector and V−A components of τ decay. It extracts QCD condensates up to dimension D=20 from ratios of Laplace sum rules and τ-like moments, reports α_s(Mτ)=0.3128(51) (FO) and 0.3330(57) (CI), corresponding to α_s(MZ)=0.1176 and 0.1201, and claims agreement with the PDG24 average. The paper further argues that the absence of exponential growth of the extracted condensates with dimension in the Euclidean region excludes significant duality violation in the time-like region, and that the gluon-condensate value extracted from the axial-vector channel confirms the external input used in the analysis.

Significance. If the central conclusions hold, the paper would support the practical adequacy of the SVZ expansion without DV corrections for these channels and would provide a competitive α_s determination with a detailed condensate table. The analysis uses α_s^4 perturbative expressions, explicit estimates of the α_s^5 truncation error, and comparisons with ALEPH, OPAL, and PDG values; these are positive features. However, the DV-exclusion inference is not established, and the α_s extraction and the claimed gluon-condensate confirmation involve scale-window selection and circular reasoning. The significance is therefore conditional on resolving these issues.

major comments (4)

[Abstract and §7, §10] The statement 'we do not find any exponential growth of their values in the Euclidian region, thus excluding (by duality) any significant effect of the so-called Duality Violation (DV) in the Time-like one' is not derived. DV contributions are non-OPE corrections to the spectral function; in sum rules they manifest, for example, as terms exponentially small in s0 or τ, or as oscillations in contour moments, and they need not produce exponential/factorial growth of the fitted OPE condensates d_D with D. The diagnostic based on the D-dependence of condensates therefore does not, by itself, test the size of DV in the time-like region. Please provide a explicit derivation of the duality mapping or substantially soften the claim.
[§9, §12, Eq. (31), Eq. (32)] The quoted α_s values are extracted from stability windows M0=1.5–1.7 GeV or s0=2.5–2.8 GeV², not at the physical τ mass, and the text states that extraction at the physical Mτ 'overestimates' the value (Eq. (31)). If DV is negligible as claimed, the residual s0/M0 dependence is unexplained and should be attributed to truncation or condensate systematics. The post hoc selection of a window that brings the FO value close to the PDG average requires a systematic study of the window dependence and an explicit estimate of the associated systematic error. This is load-bearing for the central α_s claim.
[§5, Eq. (10); §11, Eq. (22)] The gluon condensate from Eq. (10) is used as input to extract d6 and d8 in the vector channel, and the same input is used to extract d6,A and d8,A in the axial-vector channel. Those d6,A and d8,A values are then fixed to 'extract' <α_s G²>, with the result quoted as agreement with Eq. (10). Because the input propagates through the extraction chain, Eq. (22) is not an independent confirmation. Either perform a fit with <α_s G²>, d6, d8 left free, or explicitly label Eq. (22) as a consistency check rather than a confirmation.
[§13, Eq. (32)] The CI average α_s(MZ)=0.1201(7)(3) is approximately 2σ above the PDG average 0.1175(10), whereas the abstract emphasizes the FO value 0.1176. Since both FO and CI are presented as legitimate resummation procedures, the discrepancy should be addressed explicitly: is the CI value disfavored by the data, or does the quoted error underestimate a systematic not included in the fit? The current presentation gives the reader no basis to judge the consistency of the two averages.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] Typos and grammar: 'Cointour' → 'Contour' (Eq. 16), 'vaalues', 'supersed', 'condesate', 'rarher', 'Euclidian' → 'Euclidean'.
[Table 1] The sign convention in Table 1 is confusing: columns are labeled '-d6', 'd8', '-d10', etc., while the text reports d6 negative and d8 positive. Please define clearly whether the table lists d_D or |d_D| or the values with an implicit sign.
[§6, Eq. (14)] The continuum threshold t_c is fixed by matching the PT and experimental sides for τ≤0.7 GeV⁻². A sensitivity study of the quoted results to the exact value of t_c in the range 4–5 GeV² (and to the matching interval) would improve confidence.
[§9, §11, §12] The notation oscillates between M0 and s0=M0² for the hypothetical τ mass; please use one consistent symbol and define it clearly in each section.
[Eq. (32)] Please specify how the individual errors in Eqs. (16), (25), and (29) are combined (correlations?) and whether the α_s^5 truncation uncertainties are included in the final average. The quoted errors 0.0051 and 0.0057 appear to be fit-only errors.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partial circularity: alpha_s is used as input to extract condensates, and alpha_s is then 'determined' from those condensates; the A-channel gluon-condensate agreement is a fixed-point consistency check rather than an independent confirmation. The DV-exclusion claim rests on an unproven diagnostic, but that is a validity gap, not a circular reduction.

fitted input called prediction [Sec. 7 and Sec. 9]
"Using as input the value of αs in the PT contributions, we notice that a two-parameter fit of Ree 0 does not provide a stable result versus the change of τ-like mass. ... Once fixed the values of the condensates, we attempt to extract αs from the lowest Ree 0 BNP moment."

The condensates in Table 1 were obtained with an αs input (Sec. 7). Sec. 9 then extracts αs from a moment with those condensates fixed. The extracted αs is therefore not an independent determination: the input αs is encoded in the fitted condensates, and the reported agreement with the PDG/input value is partly inherited from that input. The use of the lowest BNP moment reduces the sensitivity to condensates but does not remove the feedback loop.
fitted input called prediction [Sec. 11, Eq. (21)-(22); input from Sec. 5, Eq. (10)]
"We use the ratio of LSR moment to extract (d6,A, d8,A) from a two-parameter fit giving ⟨αsG2⟩ as input. ... We redo the fit by fixing now (d6,A, d8,A) and extract ⟨αsG2⟩. ... ⟨αsG2⟩ = (6.9 ± 1.5) × 10−2 GeV4, in good agreement with the one in Eq.10 from the heavy quark systems and some other sum rules used previously as input though less accurate."

The d6,A and d8,A used in the second fit were themselves extracted from the same dataset with the Eq. (10) ⟨αsG2⟩ as a fixed input. Re-extracting ⟨αsG2⟩ from those fitted condensates is a fixed-point/consistency condition, not an independent measurement. The 'good agreement' with Eq. (10) is therefore expected from the way the parameters were produced and does not provide independent confirmation.

full rationale

The paper's central alpha_s determination contains a genuine but partial circular loop: alpha_s is used as input for the condensate extraction (Sec. 7), and alpha_s is then extracted from moments using those condensates (Sec. 9). The result is a self-consistent solution rather than an independent prediction, although the use of the lowest BNP moment mitigates the dependence. A second, more explicit loop appears in the axial-vector channel (Sec. 11): d6,A and d8,A are fitted with ⟨αsG2⟩ as input, then ⟨αsG2⟩ is re-fitted from those condensates and reported as agreement with the input; this is a consistency check, not an independent derivation. The abstract's DV-exclusion claim ('we do not find any exponential growth ... thus excluding (by duality) any significant effect of DV') is an unproven diagnostic: the fits use the OPE form without DV terms, so the absence of exponential growth in Euclidean condensates does not by construction rule out time-like duality violation. That is a correctness/validity limitation rather than a circular reduction and is not counted as a circular step under the hard rules. The paper does contain independent external comparisons (ALEPH, OPAL, Pich-Rodriguez, PDG), and its condensate values are not purely renaming of inputs, so the overall circularity is moderate: score 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central extraction relies on the SVZ expansion, an external gluon condensate input, a fitted continuum threshold, and an assumed duality relation. The paper adds these as inputs rather than deriving them.

free parameters (6)

Continuum threshold t_c = ~4-5 GeV^2
Fixed by matching PT and experimental sides at small tau (Eq.14); affects the condensate extraction.
Gluon condensate <alpha_s G^2> = (6.39 +/- 0.35) x 10^-2 GeV^4 (input)
Taken from quarkonia sum rules [18,19] as input to extract d6,d8; the quoted agreement in Sec.11 is not fully independent.
d6 (vector channel) = -20.5 +/- 2.2 x 10^-2 GeV^6 (Eq.11); later -26.3 +/- 3.7 (Table 5)
Fitted from Ree10 and tau-like moments; central to the four-quark condensate violation claim.
d8 (vector channel) = 4.7 +/- 3.5 (Eq.11); later -18.2 +/- 0.6 (Table 1)
Fitted; large shift with truncation indicates PT truncation sensitivity.
Higher condensates d10...d20 = Table 1 values
Fitted from higher moments; used to support the no-exponential-growth DV conclusion.
alpha_s(Mtau) = 0.3128(51) FO, 0.3330(57) CI
Extracted from moments after fixing condensates; the central result.

assumptions (7)

standard math The two-point correlator obeys the dispersion relation (Eq.3) with a finite number of subtraction constants.
Standard Kallen-Lehmann representation; no controversy.
domain assumption The QCD two-point function can be represented by the OPE/SVZ expansion as a sum of condensates (Eq.4).
This is the central non-perturbative framework; assumes the OPE for current correlators.
domain assumption The value of the gluon condensate <alpha_s G^2> = (6.39 +/- 0.35) x 10^-2 GeV^4 from quarkonia and other sum rules can be used as input when extracting d6,d8 from e+e- data.
The paper's condensate ladder and the resulting alpha_s depend on this external input. If this value were wrong, the extracted d6,d8 shift.
ad hoc to paper The continuum threshold t_c is fixed by requiring the PT and experimental sides of the moments to coincide for tau <= 0.7 GeV^-2, giving t_c ~ 4-5 GeV^2.
The choice of t_c is a free input, determined by a matching condition in the paper; different choices change the condensate extraction.
ad hoc to paper The alpha_s^5 perturbative coefficient is estimated by assuming geometric growth of the series [17], and this estimate is used as a systematic error.
This is a model assumption, not a computed coefficient; it affects the error bars on alpha_s(Mtau).
domain assumption Polynomial fits to subregions of the e+e- and ALEPH spectral functions faithfully represent the true spectral functions in the moment integrals.
The fits with Mathematica FindFit and the averages of upper/lower fits are assumed to provide unbiased spectral functions.
ad hoc to paper Absence of exponential growth of condensates up to D=20 in the Euclidean region implies negligible duality violation in the time-like region.
This duality assumption connects the Euclidean OPE coefficients to the time-like DV terms; it is not proven in the paper and is the basis of the DV exclusion claim.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QCD condensates and $\alpha_s$ from $e^+e^-$ and $\tau$-decays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/34KIKF4V

@misc{pith2026250805434,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QCD condensates and $\alpha_s$ from $e^+e^-$ and $\tau$-decays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/34KIKF4V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05434}
}

abstract

In this talk, I review the determinations of the QCD condensates and $\alpha_s$ within the SVZ expansion using the ratio of Laplace sum rule (LSR) and $\tau$-like moments in $e^+e^-\to I=1$ Hadrons and in $\tau\to \nu_\tau+$Hadrons Axial-vector (A) and V-A channels. Some misprints in the original papers [1-3] have been corrected. We found that the value of the gluon condensate agrees with the one $\langle \alpha_s G^2\rangle=(6.35\pm 0.35)\times 10^{-2}$ GeV$^4$ from quarkonia and some other sum rules but less accurate, while the factorization of the four-quark condensate is violated by a factor about 6: $\rho\langle\bar\psi\psi\rangle^2=(5.98\pm 0.64)\times 10^{-4}$ GeV$^6$ which confirms previous findings. Extracting the QCD condensates up to dimension D=20 from $e^+e^-$ and the axial-vector channel of $\tau$-decay, we do not find any exponential growth of their values in the Euclidian region, thus excluding (by duality) any significant effect of the so-called Duality Violation (DV) in the Time-like one. The optimal values of $\alpha_s(M_\tau)$ from $e^+e^-\to$ Hadrons and $\tau$-decays agree each others and lead to the average: $\alpha_s(M_\tau)=0.3128(51)$ [resp.0.3330(57)] $ \longrightarrow \alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.1176$ [resp. 0.1201] $(7)_{fit}(3)_{evol.}$ for Fixed Order (FO) [resp. Contour improved (CI)] PT series to be compared with the PDG24 average (without Lattice calculations): $ \alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.1175(10)$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[1]

Narison, Nucl

S. Narison, Nucl. Phys. A 1039 (2023) 122744; Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 343 (2024) 104

work page 2023
[2]

Phys.A 1046 (2024)122873, Nucl

S.Narison, Nucl. Phys.A 1046 (2024)122873, Nucl. Phys.A1050(2024)122915 (erratum); Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc.. 347 (2024) 105

work page 2024
[3]

Narison, Nucl

S. Narison, Nucl. Phys. A1055 (2025) 123014; J. Subatomic Part. Cosmol., 3 (2025) 100038

work page 2025
[4]

Shifman, A.I

M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein, V.I. Zakharov,Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 385; Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 448

work page 1979
[5]

Forareview, seee.g.S.Narison, QCD as a theory of hadrons, Cambridge Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol.17. (2004) 1-778 [hep-ph/0205006]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004
[6]

Workman et al

R.L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group),Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2022(2022) 083C01

work page 2022
[7]

Braaten, S

E. Braaten, S. Narison, A. Pich,Nucl. Phys. B373 (1992) 581

work page 1992
[8]

Braaten,Phys

E. Braaten,Phys. Rev. Lett.60 (1988) 606; E. Braaten,Phys. Rev. D39 (1989) 1458; S. Narison, A. Pich,Phys. Lett. B211 (1988) 183

work page 1988

Show all 32 references

[9]

Ignatov et al

F.V. Ignatov et al. (CMD3 Collaboration),Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 112002 : ArXiv2302.08834[hep-ex](2023); Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024)23, 231903: ArXiv 2309.12910 [hep-ex] (2023)

2024
[10]

Davier, A

M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, C. Yuan, Z. Zhang (ALEPH collaboration) , Eur. Phys. J.C74 (2014) 2803

2014
[11]

Narison and E

S. Narison and E. de Rafael,Phys. Lett. B 103, (1981) 57

1981
[12]

Bell and R.A

J.S. Bell and R.A. Bertlmann,Nucl. Phys. B187, (1981) 285. 17

1981
[13]

Narison,The Laplace Transform and its Applications, ed

S. Narison,The Laplace Transform and its Applications, ed. V. Martinez-Lucaes, Nova Science Pub., New-York - 2024 (arXiv: 2309.00258 [hep-ph])

2024 arXiv
[14]

Launer, S

G. Launer, S. Narison, R. Tarrach,Z. Phys. C26 (1984) 433

1984
[15]

Shankar, Phys

R. Shankar, Phys. Rev. D15 (1977) 755

1977
[16]

Le Diberder, A

F. Le Diberder, A. Pich,Phys. Lett. B286 (1992) 147; B289 (1992) 165

1992
[17]

Narison, V.I

S. Narison, V.I. Zakharov,Phys. Lett. B679 (2009) 355

2009
[18]

Narison, Int

S. Narison, Int. J. Mod. Phys.A33 (2018) no. 10, 185004; Addendum:Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33 (2018) no.10, 1850045

2018
[19]

Narison, Phys

S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B693 (2010) 559, erratumibid, B705 (2011) 544; ibid, B706 (2012) 412; ibid,B707 (2012) 259

2010
[20]

Bertlmann, G

R.A. Bertlmann, G. Launer and E. de Rafael,Nucl. Phys.B250, (1985) 61; R.A. Bertlmann, C.A. Dominguez, M. Loewe, M. Perrottet and E. de Rafael,Z. Phys. C39 (1988) 231

1985
[21]

Boito et al., Phys

D. Boito et al., Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 3, 034028; Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 074030

2021
[22]

Boito, M

D. Boito, M. Golterman, K. Maltman, S. Peris,Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) no. 3, 034024

2017
[23]

Dominguez, J

C.A. Dominguez, J. Sola,Z. Phys. C40 (1988) 63

1988
[24]

Bordes, V

J. Bordes, V. Gimenenz, J.A. Penarrocha,Phys. Lett. B201 (1988) 365

1988
[25]

Causse, G

M.B. Causse, G. Mennessier,Z. Phys. C47 (1990) 611

1990
[26]

Barate et al

R. Barate et al. (ALEPH collaboration),Eur. Phys. J.C4 (1998) 409

1998
[27]

Ackerstaff et al

K. Ackerstaff et al. (OPAL Collaboration),Eur. Phys. J.C7 (1999) 571

1999
[28]

A. Pich, A. Rodríguez-Sánchez,Phys.Rev. D94 (2016) 3, 034027;Mod.Phys.Lett. A31 (2016) 30, 1630032;Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc.287-288 (2017) 81

2016
[29]

Chetyrkin, S

K.G. Chetyrkin, S. Narison, V. I. Zakharov,Nucl. Phys. B550(1999) 353

1999
[30]

Ayala, G

C. Ayala, G. Cvetic, D. Teca,J.Phys. G 50 (2023) n0. 4, 045004; M. Beneke, D. Boito, M. Jamin,JHEP 01 (2013) 125

2023
[31]

Shifman,Nucl

M.A. Shifman,Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.B207-208 (2010) 298; ibid arXiv: hep- ph/0009131; B. Blok, M.A. Shifman, Da-Xin Zhang,Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 2691; Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 019901 (erratum)

2010
[32]

Navas et al., (Particle Data Group),Phys

S. Navas et al., (Particle Data Group),Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 030001. 18

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Narison, Nucl

S. Narison, Nucl. Phys. A 1039 (2023) 122744; Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 343 (2024) 104

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Phys.A 1046 (2024)122873, Nucl

S.Narison, Nucl. Phys.A 1046 (2024)122873, Nucl. Phys.A1050(2024)122915 (erratum); Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc.. 347 (2024) 105

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Narison, Nucl

S. Narison, Nucl. Phys. A1055 (2025) 123014; J. Subatomic Part. Cosmol., 3 (2025) 100038

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Shifman, A.I

M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein, V.I. Zakharov,Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 385; Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 448

work page 1979

[5] [5]

Forareview, seee.g.S.Narison, QCD as a theory of hadrons, Cambridge Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol.17. (2004) 1-778 [hep-ph/0205006]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004

[6] [6]

Workman et al

R.L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group),Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2022(2022) 083C01

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Braaten, S

E. Braaten, S. Narison, A. Pich,Nucl. Phys. B373 (1992) 581

work page 1992

[8] [8]

Braaten,Phys

E. Braaten,Phys. Rev. Lett.60 (1988) 606; E. Braaten,Phys. Rev. D39 (1989) 1458; S. Narison, A. Pich,Phys. Lett. B211 (1988) 183

work page 1988