Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 5 cited by

The paper shows that radiative corrections to pion beta decay can be matched beyond leading-logarithmic accuracy with a scheme-independent short-distance correction, cutting the V_ud theory uncertainty by a factor of three and making the ta

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 00:13 UTC pith:WTKH5VNG

load-bearing objection Solid NLL matching work for pion beta decay and tau->pipi nu, with real new numbers and scheme cancellations shown; the main unresolved point is a ~3e-4 gap from the previous lattice-based central value that the paper does not itemize, plus an O(alpha_s) OPE subtraction that is estimated, not computed. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2602.11253 v2 pith:WTKH5VNG submitted 2026-02-11 hep-ph hep-exhep-latnucl-exnucl-th

Pion β decay and τtoππν_τ beyond leading logarithms

Vincenzo Cirigliano , Martin Hoferichter , Nicola Valori This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-exhep-latnucl-exnucl-th
keywords pion beta decayradiative correctionsgamma-W boxlattice QCDCKM matrix element V_udtau lepton decayshadronic vacuum polarizationnext-to-leading logarithms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper shows that the radiative corrections to pion beta decay (π±→π0e±νe) and to the hadronic tau decay (τ±→π±π0ντ) can be organized beyond leading-logarithmic accuracy in a scheme-independent way. The key step is to package all short-distance electroweak effects into a single correction g_V^π(µχ) that combines the renormalized weak-interaction coefficient with a nonperturbative matrix element computed in lattice QCD; the scheme dependence from evanescent operators and the scale dependences cancel by construction. With this correction, the radiative factor in pion beta decay becomes Δ_RC = 0.03403 with a total error of 1.1×10^-4, a factor-of-three improvement in the theory uncertainty of the CKM element V_ud. The same correction, via lepton-flavor universality, fixes the short-distance part of isospin breaking in τ→ππν, leaving a negligible matching uncertainty in the hadronic-vacuum-polarization contribution to the muon's magnetic moment. If correct, this makes a clean V_ud measurement from pion beta decay possible and tightens tau-based determinations of the muon g-2.

Core claim

The central claim is that the short-distance electroweak correction to any Fermi beta decay can be written as g_V^π(µχ)=1+Δ̃S_EW(µχ), defined in Eq. (6) as the product of the scheme-independent Wilson coefficient C̄_β^(3)(µ) and the combination of the nonperturbative γW-box matrix element □̄_V^π(µ0) with explicit logarithms of the scales µ, µχ, µ0. The authors show that this combination is independent of the evanescent-operator scheme and of the renormalization scales µ, µχ, µ0 at next-to-leading-logarithmic (and next-to-leading-logarithmic-in-α_s) order. They evaluate □̄_V^π(µ0) from lattice-QCD data supplemented by four-loop perturbative QCD at high momentum, obtaining 10^3 □̄_V^π(µ0) = 0.

What carries the argument

The central object is the scheme-independent short-distance correction g_V^π(µχ) = 1+Δ̃S_EW(µχ). The identity carrying the argument is Eq. (6): it factorizes the LEFT Wilson coefficient C̄_β^(3)(µ) from the nonperturbative γW-box matrix element □̄_V^π(µ0)—the photon–W loop exchange between the hadronic vector current and the leptonic current—with explicit logarithms arranged so that all dependences on the LEFT scale µ, the chiral scale µχ, and the factorization scale µ0 cancel at the working order. The nonperturbative input is the integral over the lattice-QCD/pQCD integrand M_π(Q²), with the asymptotic part subtracted via the operator product expansion at Q0=1.6 GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The result hinges on the assumption that the operator-product-expansion subtraction in Eq. (12) is accurate at Q ≥ 1.6 GeV, with the uncomputed O(α_s²) terms of the subtraction kernel no larger than the quoted total error of 1.1×10^-4; if those terms are bigger, the claimed factor-of-three improvement in V_ud weakens, and the soft-pion-theorem reduction also carries unquantified chiral corrections.

What would settle it

Compute the complete O(α_s²) correction to the OPE subtraction kernel in Eq. (12) (i.e., to C_d(Q²) in Eq. (13)) and check whether it shifts Δ_RC by more than 1×10^-4; alternatively, measure the γW-box integrand M_π(Q²) directly on the lattice at Q² values above (1.6 GeV)² and check agreement with the assumed pQCD form.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The V_ud theory uncertainty from radiative corrections in pion beta decay drops from about 3×10^-4 to 1.1×10^-4, a factor-of-three improvement that leaves future experiments, the branching-fraction measurement, and the pion mass difference as the limiting uncertainties.
  • For τ→ππν, the short-distance matching contributes only 1×10^-10 to the isospin-breaking correction Δa_μ[ππ,τ] = −24.9×10^-10, negligible compared with the experimental and chiral uncertainties.
  • The same g_V^π(µχ) correction applies universally to the Fermi component of any beta decay (neutron, nuclear, pion) once the corresponding γW-box matrix element is supplied, so the machinery transfers directly to neutron and superallowed-decay analyses.
  • The scheme dependence from evanescent operators cancels exactly in physical rates, removing a previous source of systematic uncertainty.
  • With the linearized and LL/quadratic terms separated (Eq. (24)), the large-log resummation contributes about 5×10^-4 to the radiative correction, confirming that beyond-LL effects matter at this precision.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the paper identifies the O(α_s²) OPE-subtraction terms as the limiting uncertainty, a natural next step is a dedicated two-loop calculation of that subtraction kernel; a shift beyond ~1×10^-4 in Δ_RC would invalidate the quoted error budget.
  • The same matching logic should extend to the axial-vector channel and to K_ℓ3 decays, where analogous scheme-dependent short-distance corrections enter; the paper does not address those cases.
  • The pion-mass-difference term in the phase-space factor (I_πℓ uncertainty of 2.7×10^-4) will become the dominant theory-type limit for V_ud; improved measurements of M_π±−M_π0 would directly sharpen the extraction.
  • If the four-loop pQCD result in the intermediate region Q0≤Q≤Q1 is replaced by an alternative nonperturbative determination (e.g., from the same lattice ensembles at higher Q²), the stability of the central value could be tested without waiting for the O(α_s²) calculation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This Letter develops an EFT framework for the short-distance gamma-W box corrections in pion beta decay (pi+ -> pi0 e+ nu_e) and hadronic tau decays (tau -> pi pi nu_tau), matching the LEFT (with QCD and QED Wilson coefficients evolved to NLL and NLLs accuracy) onto ChPT. The central object is a scheme-independent short-distance factor g_V^pi(mu_chi) = 1 + Delta_tildeS_EW(mu_chi), in which the evanescent-operator parameter a and the dependence on the LEFT scale mu cancel between the Wilson coefficient and the matrix elements. The nonperturbative input BarBox_V^pi(mu0) is taken from two recent lattice-QCD determinations (Feng et al. 2020; Yoo et al. 2023), which agree (0.691(31) x 10^-3 vs 0.690(28) x 10^-3). Main numerical results: Delta_RC^{pi l} = 0.03403(11), a V_ud = 0.97346(283) with the theory error no longer dominant, and IB corrections to tau -> pi pi nu_tau of Delta a_mu[pi pi, tau] = -24.9(1)_exp(5)_th(1)_SD x 10^-10, for which the short-distance matching uncertainty becomes negligible. The matching conditions are derived twice (spurion method, Appendix A; amplitude matching, Appendix B), with the scheme/scale cancellations displayed.

Significance. If correct, the paper delivers the main ingredients for a precision program: a consistent NLL(NLLs) matching between short-distance QCD/QED corrections and lattice-QCD matrix elements with explicit cancellation of the evanescent scheme; a universal form of the short-distance correction applicable to any Fermi beta transition; and an updated tau -> pi pi nu_tau IB correction for the HVP contribution to a_mu. The factor-of-three reduction of the theory uncertainty in pion beta decay, if borne out, makes PIONEER's V_ud extraction experiment-limited, and the short-distance uncertainty in the tau-based HVP IB correction becomes negligible. Strengths of the work: the matching relations are derived by two independent methods that agree; the cancellation of the scheme parameter a is shown explicitly (Eqs. (5)-(6) and App. C); two independent lattice inputs are used and agree; and the 3-loop vs 4-loop pQCD difference is used as a systematic. I find no circularity: no output observable is used to fix a parameter. The main caveat is numerical: the itemization of the central-value shift relative to Ref. [64] is incomplete (Major Comment 1), and the robustness of the OPE-subtraction uncertainty

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (24) and preceding paragraph] The numerical comparison with Ref. [64] is not fully itemized. The paper states that the difference from Delta_RC^{pi l}|[64] = 0.0332(1)(3) is 'primarily due to the low-energy RG corrections and the quadratic terms,' but Eq. (24) quantifies only the increment from a 'fully linearized' starting point of 0.0335: +4.7 x 10^-4 (LL+quad.) and +0.6 x 10^-4 (NLL). The ~3 x 10^-4 gap between 0.0335 and 0.0332 is never explained, although it is three times the quoted total uncertainty of 1.1 x 10^-4. If this gap reflects a convention difference (e.g., the Sirlin-function definition, the choice of mu0, or updated phase-space/ChPT inputs), the comparison should say so; if it is a missing contribution, the central value shifts by several times the new error budget. A complete decomposition of the shift from 0.0332(1)(3) to 0.03403(11) is needed before the claimed factor-of-three improvement can be
  2. [Sec. 2.3, Eqs. (12)-(15)] The residual uncertainty of the O(alpha_s)-accurate OPE subtraction in Eq. (12) is estimated in Eq. (15) by the difference between three-loop and four-loop C_d(Q^2). This probes the truncation of C_d, but not the sensitivity to the hand-chosen scales Q0 = mu0 = 1.6 GeV and Q1 set by C_d(Q1^2) = 1 - alpha_s(mu0)/pi. Since the paper itself notes (Sec. 2.3) that control of O(alpha_s^2) terms would be required to improve precision further, the error budget would be more convincing with a scale-variation test: vary Q0 in [1.4, 1.8] GeV (re-determining Q1 by the same criterion) and include the known c2 (alpha_s/pi)^2 term in the constant asymptotic form beyond Q1. Please report the resulting spread in BarBox_V^pi and in Delta_RC^{pi l}, demonstrating that the OPE-subtraction uncertainty lies below the quoted 1.1 x 10^-4.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (8)] Unbalanced parenthesis in the pion theta function ('theta(mu_chi - M_pi)'); also specify whether the spin-0 sum runs over pi+, pi0 (and pi-).
  2. [Sec. 2.2, footnote 3] The identification of the usual S_EW with 1+2Delta_tildeS_EW appears only as a parenthetical; a one-line definition in the main text would ease comparison with the Marciano-Sirlin convention.
  3. [Eq. (15)] The averaging of the two lattice results (n_f = 3 and n_f = 4) into the central value and error of BarBox_V^pi is not described; state the averaging rule and whether correlations between the two determinations are assumed.
  4. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.5)] The soft-pion theorem is used 'up to higher-order chiral corrections' without an estimate. Since Appendix B provides an independent cross-check, state explicitly the accuracy to which the two derivations agree, so that the omitted chiral corrections are bounded by the cross-check.
  5. [Abstract vs Sec. 4] 'Theory uncertainties improved by a factor of three' and 'factor of five below the precision goal of PIONEER' compare different baselines; rephrase so that both comparison targets are explicit.
  6. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (24)] The term 'fully linearized form' and the label 'LL' for the (alpha/pi)^2 log^2 expression are not defined; clarify whether 'LL' refers to resummed leading logarithms or fixed-order log-squared terms.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the matching relations are derived from external lattice and RG inputs, and the evanescent-scheme dependence cancels explicitly rather than being fixed by the target observables.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The matching conditions (5) and (6) are obtained from LEFT-to-ChPT matching using the spurion method (Appendix A) and amplitude-level matching (Appendix B), with the nonperturbative matrix element □̄Vπ(µ0) taken from lattice QCD [64,66], not from the pion β decay rate or the τ→ππν rate. The evanescent parameter a enters the Wilson coefficient via Eq. (3) and the matrix element through Zs.c. in Eq. (C.8); the product in Eq. (C.7) shows the a-dependence cancels by construction, so no target observable is used to fix the scheme. The central numerical claims, Eqs. (23) and (32), are evaluations of these independent inputs: they do not fit any parameter to the decay rates, and the quoted uncertainties are propagated from lattice, perturbative, and chiral estimates. Citations to Refs. [26,35] provide the RG framework and NLL/NLLs ingredients, but the paper rederives the pion-specific matching and explicitly demonstrates the scheme cancellation; these citations are not invoked as a black-box uniqueness theorem and do not force the numerical output. The concerns raised about the OPE subtraction (Q0=1.6 GeV, uncomputed O(αs^2) terms) and the unexplained offset relative to Ref. [64] are accuracy and comparison issues, not circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited and the score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on external lattice-QCD matrix elements (Refs [64,66]), the NLL/NLLs RG from Refs [26,35], standard chiral/EFT machinery, and the stated O(αs)-accurate OPE subtraction with Q0=1.6 GeV. No parameter is fitted to the target decay rates. The two manual scales (µ0, Q1) and the unquantified soft-pion-theorem corrections are the main inputs the reader did not pay for upstream; their residual effects are partly folded into the quoted uncertainties via scale variation and the 3/4-loop pQCD difference.

free parameters (2)
  • µ0 = Q0 (OPE subtraction / factorization scale) = 1.6 GeV (central choice; Ref. [64] used 2 GeV)
    Sec. 2.3: 'We therefore choose µ0 = Q0 = 1.6 GeV'. Below Q0 the lattice integrand is used; between Q0 and Q1 full 4-loop pQCD; above Q1 the one-loop constant. Residual effects enter the quoted errors via the 3-loop vs 4-loop difference and scale variation; the paper states O(αs²) subtraction terms would be needed for further precision.
  • Q1 (transition scale to asymptotic subtraction) = 4.46 GeV (n_f=3), 4.53 GeV (n_f=4)
    Determined by C_d(Q1²)=1−αs(µ0)/π 'to ensure a smooth transition to the asymptotic form' (Sec. 2.3). Not fitted to the target data, but a modeling choice for the matching window.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption SM with V−A charged-current operators and the LEFT operator basis of Ref. [60] (Eq. 1)
    The whole matching is built in LEFT with n_f flavors; C_β(µ,a)=1+O(α) from Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption NLL/NLLs anomalous dimensions γ, γ~ from Refs [26,35,121] (Eqs. C.1–C.3)
    The RG evolution of C_β to NLL(s) accuracy is imported; an error there propagates into Eq. (6).
  • domain assumption Universality of the O(αχ²) anomalous dimension [29,90] used in Eq. (7)
    Enables NLL resummation of low-energy αχ logs; not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Soft-pion theorem relation Γ_VV = −3/√2 T_3^[64] (Appendix A, Eq. A.5)
    Connects the spurion-matching correlator to the lattice box; corrections are 'higher-order chiral' but unquantified in the error budget.
  • domain assumption Lattice-QCD results for M_π(Q²) from Refs [64,66] and four-loop pQCD coefficient C_d [91,92] are correct (Eqs. 12–14)
    Nonperturbative input is external; the two lattice results agree (0.691(31) vs 0.690(28)) but share the O(αs) subtraction limitation.
  • ad hoc to paper The O(αs)-accurate subtraction kernel in Eq. (12) with O(αs²) terms neglected
    Stated in Sec. 2.3: 'the subtraction in Eq. (12) is only accurate at O(αs)'; the residual is estimated by the 3-loop vs 4-loop difference, not computed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22420 in / 32180 out tokens · 307125 ms · 2026-08-03T00:13:28.525772+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The consistent matching of short-distance contributions and hadronic matrix elements is crucial for precise predictions of weak processes involving hadrons. In this Letter, we address this point for charged-current processes involving two pions -- pion $\beta$ decay $\pi^\pm\to\pi^0 e^\pm\nu_e$ and hadronic $\tau$ decays $\tau^\pm\to\pi^\pm\pi^0\nu_\tau$ -- whose decay rates depend on the so-called $\gamma W$ box correction. Using recent results from lattice QCD, we show how to formulate the matching beyond leading-logarithmic accuracy, in particular, how to cancel the dependence on the scheme choice for evanescent operators. As main results, we obtain a prediction for the decay rate of pion $\beta$ decay with theory uncertainties improved by a factor of three, which renders theory uncertainties negligible for future determinations of $V_{ud}$ even beyond the reach of the PIONEER experiment, and an evaluation of isospin-breaking corrections to $\tau\to\pi\pi\nu_\tau$ with negligible uncertainty from the short-distance matching, as necessary for a future $\tau$-based determination of the hadronic-vacuum-polarization contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.11253 by Martin Hoferichter, Nicola Valori, Vincenzo Cirigliano.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Resulting integrand Mπ(Q 2 ) for the lattice-QCD inputs from Ref. [64] (upper, nf = 3) and Ref. [66] (lower, nf = 4). In both cases, we show the lattice-QCD results up to 2 GeV, the pQCD curves above 1 GeV (green dashed and solid for three- and four-loop order), and the constant one-loop result above the respective values of Q1 (maroon dashed and solid). The resulting subtracted integrand as it enters in E… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Electroweak precision physics via angular distributions in hadronic $\tau$ decays

    hep-ph 2026-06 accept novelty 7.0

    Angular moments in two-pseudoscalar tau decays give form-factor-independent SM relations that tensor new physics and scalar mass effects can break.

  2. Isospin-breaking effects in inclusive hadronic $\tau$ data for the muon $(g-2)$ from first principles

    hep-lat 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A lattice QCD+QED strategy is outlined for calculating isospin-breaking effects in inclusive tau decays to support high-precision HVP contributions to muon g-2.

  3. Electroweak precision physics via angular distributions in hadronic $\tau$ decays

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Angular information in hadronic tau decays enables form-factor-independent electroweak observables with first-principles SM predictions and BSM sensitivity.

  4. Comparison of the hadronic vacuum polarization between hadronic $\tau$-decay data and lattice QCD

    hep-ph 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Isospin-corrected inclusive τ spectral functions yield light-quark-connected HVP and window quantities consistent with lattice QCD, but the 2π⁻π⁺π⁰ mode differs significantly from e⁺e⁻-based Pais expectations.

  5. Comparison of the hadronic vacuum polarization between hadronic $\tau$-decay data and lattice QCD

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Lattice QCD and tau-decay dispersive calculations of isospin-one HVP generally agree, except for a significant difference in the 2π−π+π0 four-pion mode contribution to window quantities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 97 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Cabibbo, Phys

    N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett.10, 531 (1963)

    1963

  2. [2]

    Kobayashi and T

    M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys.49, 652 (1973)

    1973

  3. [3]

    J. C. Hardy and I. S. Towner, Phys. Rev. C102, 045501 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    Kinoshita and A

    T. Kinoshita and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev.113, 1652 (1959)

    1959

  5. [5]

    Sirlin, Phys

    A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett.19, 877 (1967)

    1967

  6. [6]

    Sirlin, Phys

    A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev.164, 1767 (1967)

    1967

  7. [7]

    E. S. Abers, D. A. Dicus, R. E. Norton, and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. 167, 1461 (1968)

    1968

  8. [8]

    Jaus and G

    W. Jaus and G. Rasche, Nucl. Phys. A143, 202 (1970)

    1970

  9. [9]

    Sirlin, Rev

    A. Sirlin, Rev. Mod. Phys.50, 573 (1978), [Erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys. 50, 905 (1978)]

    1978

  10. [10]

    Sirlin, Nucl

    A. Sirlin, Nucl. Phys. B196, 83 (1982)

    1982

  11. [11]

    D. H. Wilkinson, Nucl. Phys. A377, 474 (1982)

    1982

  12. [12]

    Sirlin and R

    A. Sirlin and R. Zucchini, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 1994 (1986)

    1994

  13. [13]

    I. S. Towner, Nucl. Phys. A540, 478 (1992)

    1992

  14. [14]

    D. H. Wilkinson, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A335, 172 (1993)

    1993

  15. [15]

    D. H. Wilkinson, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A335, 201 (1993)

    1993

  16. [16]

    Czarnecki, W

    A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D70, 093006 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0406324

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  17. [17]

    W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 032002 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0510099

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  18. [18]

    I. S. Towner and J. C. Hardy, Rept. Prog. Phys.73, 046301 (2010)

    2010

  19. [19]

    C.-Y . Seng, M. Gorchtein, H. H. Patel, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 241804 (2018), arXiv:1807.10197 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    C. Y . Seng, M. Gorchtein, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. D100, 013001 (2019), arXiv:1812.03352 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Gorchtein, Phys

    M. Gorchtein, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 042503 (2019), arXiv:1812.04229 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Seng and M

    C.-Y . Seng and M. Gorchtein, Phys. Rev. C107, 035503 (2023), arXiv:2211.10214 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    P.-X. Ma, X. Feng, M. Gorchtein, L.-C. Jin, K.-F. Liu, C.-Y . Seng, B.-G. Wang, and Z.-L. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 191901 (2024), arXiv:2308.16755 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Seng and M

    C.-Y . Seng and M. Gorchtein, Phys. Rev. C109, 044302 (2024), arXiv:2304.03800 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    R. J. Hill and R. Plestid, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 021803 (2024), arXiv:2309.07343 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Cirigliano, W

    V . Cirigliano, W. Dekens, E. Mereghetti, and O. Tomalak, Phys. Rev. D 108, 053003 (2023), arXiv:2306.03138 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Cirigliano, W

    V . Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, S. Gandolfi, M. Hoferichter, and E. Mereghetti, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 211801 (2024), arXiv:2405.18469 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Cirigliano, W

    V . Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, S. Gandolfi, M. Hoferichter, and E. Mereghetti, Phys. Rev. C110, 055502 (2024), arXiv:2405.18464 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    Borah, R

    K. Borah, R. J. Hill, and R. Plestid, Phys. Rev. D109, 113007 (2024), arXiv:2402.13307 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Gennari, M

    M. Gennari, M. Drissi, M. Gorchtein, P. Navratil, and C.-Y . Seng, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 012501 (2025), arXiv:2405.19281 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Vander Griend, Z

    P. Vander Griend, Z. Cao, R. J. Hill, and R. Plestid, Phys. Lett. B868, 139678 (2025), arXiv:2501.17916 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    G. B. King, J. Carlson, A. R. Flores, S. Gandolfi, E. Mereghetti, S. Pa- store, M. Piarulli, and R. B. Wiringa, (2025), arXiv:2509.07310 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Z. Cao, R. J. Hill, R. Plestid, and P. Vander Griend, (2025), arXiv:2511.05446 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    `O. L. Crosas and E. Mereghetti, (2025), arXiv:2511.05481 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Gorbahn, F

    M. Gorbahn, F. Moretti, and S. J ¨ager, (2025), arXiv:2510.27648 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Belfatto, R

    B. Belfatto, R. Beradze, and Z. Berezhiani, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 149 (2020), arXiv:1906.02714 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    A. M. Coutinho, A. Crivellin, and C. A. Manzari, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 071802 (2020), arXiv:1912.08823 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    Cheung, W.-Y

    K. Cheung, W.-Y . Keung, C.-T. Lu, and P.-Y . Tseng, JHEP05, 117 (2020), arXiv:2001.02853 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    Belfatto and Z

    B. Belfatto and Z. Berezhiani, JHEP10, 079 (2021), arXiv:2103.05549 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    G. C. Branco, J. T. Penedo, P. M. F. Pereira, M. N. Rebelo, and J. I. Silva-Marcos, JHEP07, 099 (2021), arXiv:2103.13409 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, M. Kirk, C. A. Manzari, and L. Schnell, JHEP10, 221 (2021), arXiv:2107.13569 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Crivellin, F

    A. Crivellin, F. Kirk, C. A. Manzari, and M. Montull, JHEP12, 166 (2020), arXiv:2008.01113 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Kirk, Phys

    M. Kirk, Phys. Rev. D103, 035004 (2021), arXiv:2008.03261 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and C. A. Manzari, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 071801 (2021), arXiv:2102.02825 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    Crivellin and M

    A. Crivellin and M. Hoferichter, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 111801 (2020), arXiv:2002.07184 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Crivellin, F

    A. Crivellin, F. Kirk, C. A. Manzari, and L. Panizzi, Phys. Rev. D103, 073002 (2021), arXiv:2012.09845 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    Capdevila, A

    B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, C. A. Manzari, and M. Montull, Phys. Rev. D103, 015032 (2021), arXiv:2005.13542 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Crivellin and M

    A. Crivellin and M. Hoferichter, Science374, 1051 (2021), arXiv:2111.12739 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    Crivellin, C

    A. Crivellin, C. A. Manzari, M. Alguer ´o, and J. Matias, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 011801 (2021), arXiv:2010.14504 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Marzocca and S

    D. Marzocca and S. Trifinopoulos, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 061803 (2021), arXiv:2104.05730 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    A. K. Alok, A. Dighe, S. Gangal, and J. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D108, 113005 (2023), arXiv:2108.05614 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    Cirigliano, W

    V . Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, E. Mereghetti, and T. Tong, Phys. Rev. D106, 075001 (2022), arXiv:2204.08440 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    Cirigliano, W

    V . Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, E. Mereghetti, and T. Tong, JHEP 03, 033 (2024), arXiv:2311.00021 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Dawid, V

    M. Dawid, V . Cirigliano, and W. Dekens, JHEP08, 175 (2024), arXiv:2402.06723 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Czarnecki, W

    A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D100, 073008 (2019), arXiv:1907.06737 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    C.-Y . Seng, X. Feng, M. Gorchtein, and L.-C. Jin, Phys. Rev. D101, 111301 (2020), arXiv:2003.11264 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    Hayen, Phys

    L. Hayen, Phys. Rev. D103, 113001 (2021), arXiv:2010.07262 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Shiells, P

    K. Shiells, P. G. Blunden, and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. D104, 033003 (2021), arXiv:2012.01580 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    Cirigliano, A

    V . Cirigliano, A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and M. Moulson, Phys. Lett. B838, 137748 (2023), arXiv:2208.11707 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Descotes-Genon and B

    S. Descotes-Genon and B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C42, 403 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505077

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  61. [61]

    Po ˇcani´cet al., Phys

    D. Po ˇcani´cet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 181803 (2004), arXiv:hep- ex/0312030

    arXiv 2004

  62. [62]

    Cirigliano, M

    V . Cirigliano, M. Knecht, H. Neufeld, and H. Pichl, Eur. Phys. J. C27, 255 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0209226

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  63. [63]

    Czarnecki, W

    A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D101, 091301 (2020), arXiv:1911.04685 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    X. Feng, M. Gorchtein, L.-C. Jin, P.-X. Ma, and C.-Y . Seng, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 192002 (2020), arXiv:2003.09798 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  65. [65]

    P.-X. Ma, X. Feng, M. Gorchtein, L.-C. Jin, and C.-Y . Seng, Phys. Rev. D103, 114503 (2021), arXiv:2102.12048 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    J.-S. Yoo, T. Bhattacharya, R. Gupta, S. Mondal, and B. Yoon, Phys. Rev. D108, 034508 (2023), arXiv:2305.03198 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    Altmannshoferet al.(PIONEER), (2022), arXiv:2203.01981 [hep- ex]

    W. Altmannshoferet al.(PIONEER), (2022), arXiv:2203.01981 [hep- ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  68. [68]

    Adelmannet al.(PIONEER), (2025), arXiv:2504.06375 [hep-ex]

    A. Adelmannet al.(PIONEER), (2025), arXiv:2504.06375 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Alemany, M

    R. Alemany, M. Davier, and A. Hoecker, Eur. Phys. J. C2, 123 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9703220

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  70. [70]

    Cirigliano, G

    V . Cirigliano, G. Ecker, and H. Neufeld, Phys. Lett. B513, 361 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0104267

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  71. [71]

    Cirigliano, G

    V . Cirigliano, G. Ecker, and H. Neufeld, JHEP08, 002 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0207310

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  72. [72]

    Flores-Ba ´ez, A

    F. Flores-Ba ´ez, A. Flores-Tlalpa, G. L ´opez Castro, and G. Toledo S ´anchez, Phys. Rev. D74, 071301 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0608084

    arXiv 2006

  73. [73]

    Davier, A

    M. Davier, A. Hoecker, G. L ´opez Castro, B. Malaescu, X. H. Mo, G. Toledo S ´anchez, P. Wang, C. Z. Yuan, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C66, 127 (2010), arXiv:0906.5443 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  74. [74]

    J. A. Miranda and P. Roig, Phys. Rev. D102, 114017 (2020), arXiv:2007.11019 [hep-ph]. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  75. [75]

    G. L. Castro, A. Miranda, and P. Roig, Phys. Rev. D111, 073004 (2025), arXiv:2411.07696 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Aoyamaet al., Phys

    T. Aoyamaet al., Phys. Rept.887, 1 (2020), arXiv:2006.04822 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  77. [77]

    Alibertiet al., Phys

    R. Alibertiet al., Phys. Rept.1143, 1 (2025), arXiv:2505.21476 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    D. W. Hertzog and M. Hoferichter, (2025), arXiv:2512.16980 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Davier, A

    M. Davier, A. Hoecker, A.-M. Lutz, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 721 (2024), arXiv:2312.02053 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Colangelo, M

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, and P. Stoffer, JHEP10, 032 (2022), arXiv:2208.08993 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

Showing first 80 references.