Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 104 references

A lattice calculation extracts the theta-induced neutron EDM as -0.0050(4)(8) e fm by sampling local topology on a deformed nucleon ground state.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 10:30 UTC pith:YE6IFJBD

load-bearing objection Solid methodological advance on θ-induced nEDM with local topology + non-Hermitian GEVP; the physical-point number is still controlled by a two-parameter chiral fit from mπ ≥ 340 MeV that the quoted systematics do not cover. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.10606 v1 pith:YE6IFJBD submitted 2026-07-12 hep-lat hep-exhep-ph

The Neutron Electric Dipole Moment from Lattice QCD using a Background Electric Field

Thomas Blum , Fangcheng He , Taku Izubuchi , Luchang Jin , Hiroshi Ohki , Sergey Syritsyn This is my paper
classification hep-lat hep-exhep-ph
keywords neutron electric dipole momentlattice QCDtheta termbackground electric fieldtopological chargegeneralized eigenvalue problemCP violationdomain-wall fermions
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.

Permanent electric dipole moments of the neutron are a precision probe of CP violation. The only CP-odd operator of dimension four allowed by QCD is the theta term, but its contribution to the neutron EDM has been hard to compute cleanly on the lattice: global topological charge produces large noise, and ordinary positive-parity nucleon operators suffer severe excited-state contamination once a background electric field is turned on. This paper shows that the EDM can be read off as the forward matrix element of the local (single-time-slice) topological charge density between ground-state nucleons that have been deformed by a weak Euclidean electric field. The deformed ground state is isolated by a non-Hermitian generalized eigenvalue problem that mixes positive- and negative-parity operators. After a chiral extrapolation the authors report dn = -0.0050(4)stat(8)sys theta-bar e fm. The result is free of the form-factor extrapolation that earlier methods required and is consistent across several choices of interpolating field once the ground state is properly projected.

Core claim

The theta-induced neutron EDM is equal to the forward matrix element of the local topological charge density evaluated between the left and right ground-state nucleon eigenvectors that solve a non-Hermitian GEVP in a background Euclidean electric field. After multi-operator GEVP isolation and chiral extrapolation the authors obtain dn/theta-bar = -0.0050(4)stat(8)sys e fm at the physical point.

What carries the argument

Non-Hermitian generalized eigenvalue problem (GEVP) for the 2 imes2 (or multi-operator) correlator matrix of positive- and negative-parity nucleon operators in a constant Euclidean electric field, combined with Feynman–Hellmann sampling of the single-time-slice topological charge density.

Load-bearing premise

The chiral extrapolation formula and the claim that residual excited-state and higher-order electric-field effects are fully captured by the quoted systematic error, even though only one lattice spacing is used and conventional discretization and finite-volume uncertainties are left for later work.

What would settle it

A calculation on the same ensembles that isolates the ground-state matrix element with an independent multi-state fit (or a larger GEVP basis) and finds a central value outside the quoted -0.0050(4)(8) band, or a continuum-limit study that moves the physical-point result by more than the present systematic.

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

If this is right

  • The same local-topology + non-Hermitian GEVP method can be applied without modification to other CP-odd operators (Weinberg three-gluon, four-quark, chromo-EDM).
  • Once lighter pion masses and finer lattices become available, the remaining conventional systematics can be quantified and the physical-point error budget reduced.
  • Form-factor extrapolations and global-topology noise can be bypassed for any CP-odd nucleon observable that couples to a local density.
  • Consistency between gluonic and (ABJ-corrected) fermionic definitions of topology supplies an internal cross-check for future lattice EDM programs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If residual Nπ contamination still hides inside the present GEVP, the physical-point central value could shift once true multi-hadron operators are added to the basis.
  • The method’s statistical power on local topology suggests it could become the default route for lattice EDM calculations once continuum and volume systematics are under control.
  • A parallel calculation of the proton EDM would immediately test whether the same deformed-ground-state machinery survives acceleration effects.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the QCD θ-term contribution to the neutron EDM on three 2+1-flavor domain-wall ensembles at fixed a≈0.11 fm (mπ=340, 420, 576 MeV) by measuring the energy shift of the neutron in a uniform Euclidean background electric field. Motivated by the Feynman–Hellmann theorem, the authors replace the noisy global topological charge with the forward matrix element of the local topological charge density between ground-state nucleons that have been deformed by the electric field; those states are isolated by a non-Hermitian GEVP that mixes positive- and negative-parity interpolators. After multi-operator consistency checks, ABJ-anomaly validation of two topological-charge definitions, and a two-parameter chiral extrapolation, they quote dn=−0.0050(4)stat(8)sys θ-bar e fm at the physical point, with the quoted systematic covering only Euclidean-time fit windows and |nz|=1 versus |nz|=2 differences. Conventional discretization, finite-volume and full chiral systematics are deferred.

Significance. If the physical-point number survives a complete error budget, it supplies one of the more precise lattice determinations of the θ-induced nEDM and tightens the bound on the strong-CP angle. Independently of the final number, the methodological advances—local rather than global topology, non-Hermitian GEVP isolation of the parity-mixed ground state, and explicit demonstration that conventional positive-parity operators suffer large, sign-changing contamination—are substantial and immediately reusable for other CP-odd operators (Weinberg three-gluon, four-quark, etc.). The multi-operator and ABJ cross-checks give high that the lattice matrix elements themselves are under control.

major comments (3)
  1. Sec. IV E, Eqs. (79)–(80), Fig. 25 and Table III: the headline physical-point value and its (8)sys are obtained from a two-parameter fit of three points (mπ≥340 MeV) to the chiral form dn=c0 mπ^{2} + c1 mπ^{2} log(mπ^{2}/mN,phy^{2}). The quoted systematic contains only fit-window and |nz| variation; ansatz dependence, higher-order chiral terms and the large lever arm to the physical point are explicitly deferred. Because the abstract and Eq. (80) present this number as the principal result, the model dependence of the extrapolation must be quantified (e.g., pure mπ^{2}, inclusion of mπ^{4} or Nπ continuum terms) and folded into the error, or the physical value must be demoted to a secondary, illustrative extrapolation while the three lattice points are emphasized.
  2. Sec. III and the discussion surrounding Eq. (42): the calculation is electro-quenched (background field couples only to valence quarks). While the authors cite a ~1 % sea contribution to the magnetic moment, the same argument does not automatically apply to a CP-odd, topology-sensitive matrix element. An estimate or a controlled test of the quenching error is needed before the physical number can be regarded as complete.
  3. Throughout Sec. IV and the abstract: only a single lattice spacing is used. Domain-wall fermions are automatically O(a)-improved, yet residual O(a^{2}) and finite-volume effects remain uncontrolled for the quoted physical result. The paper correctly flags these as future work, but the present error budget therefore understates the total uncertainty attached to dn/θ-bar at the physical point.
minor comments (4)
  1. Fig. 7 and the accompanying discussion of κest: the large operator dependence and lack of plateau are used to motivate the GEVP, but a short quantitative estimate of the polarizability bias (Appendix D) already appears in the text; cross-referencing it more prominently would help the reader.
  2. Notation for Euclidean versus Minkowski quantities (Appendix A) is careful, yet the main text occasionally drops the E subscript after declaring it the default; a single clarifying sentence at the start of Sec. II would remove any residual ambiguity.
  3. Table III and Fig. 24: the choice of fit windows for the two |nz|=2 cases that yield poorer χ^{2} is explained in the text, but the table caption itself should note which windows were adopted so that the numbers can be read without hunting through the prose.
  4. Several multi-panel figures (e.g., Figs. 13–15, 22–23) pack four operators × three ensembles; increasing the font size of the operator labels or adding a common legend would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: first-principles lattice matrix elements plus ordinary literature chiral fit; physical-point number is not forced by definition or self-fit.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a standard lattice-QCD computation of the forward matrix element of local topological charge density between non-Hermitian GEVP ground states of the nucleon in a background Euclidean electric field (Secs. II C–E, Eqs. (18), (37), (71)), performed on three independent ensembles (Table I). The three lattice values of dn/ heta-bar (Table III) are obtained from Euclidean correlators after multi-operator GEVP isolation and constant fits in source-sink separation; they are not defined in terms of the final physical-point number. The subsequent chiral extrapolation (Eq. (79), Fig. 25) adopts the two-parameter form of Crewther et al. and O’Connell–Savage (external citations [10,96]), fits the two free coefficients to the three new lattice points, and reports the extrapolated value together with a systematic that covers only fit-window and |nz| variation (explicitly deferring discretization, volume and full chiral-model systematics). This is ordinary extrapolation, not a self-definitional loop, a fitted-input-called-prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation chain. Minor self-references to the authors’ own earlier proceedings ([55,56]) describe intermediate technical steps and do not force the central numerical claim. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors’ prior work, no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. The calculation is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks; the physical-point result stands or falls on the quality of the lattice data and the adequacy of the (literature) chiral ansatz, not on circular construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The result rests on standard lattice QCD assumptions plus a few controllable approximations (electro-quenching, single spacing, specific chiral form). No new particles or forces are postulated; free parameters are ordinary fit coefficients.

free parameters (3)
  • c0, c1 of chiral ansatz
    Coefficients of dn = c0 mπ^{2} + c1 mπ^{2} log(mπ^{2}/mN^{2}) fitted to the three lattice points; the physical-point value depends on them.
  • electric-field quanta nz = ±1, ±2
    Strength of the background field chosen by hand; residual O(E^{2}) contamination is estimated by comparing the two values.
  • GEVP reference time t0 and fit windows
    t0 = 5a and the Euclidean-time plateaus used for constant fits are analysis choices that enter the quoted systematic.
axioms (4)
  • standard math Feynman-Hellmann theorem relates the energy shift linear in θ-bar to the forward matrix element of local qtop between electric-field-deformed nucleon states.
    Invoked in Sec. II C to justify replacing the global topological charge by a single-time-slice operator.
  • domain assumption Electro-quenched approximation (background field couples only to valence quarks) introduces negligible error for the nEDM.
    Stated in Sec. III; justified by analogy to the ~1 % sea-quark contribution to the magnetic moment, but not quantified for the EDM.
  • domain assumption The non-Hermitian GEVP with positive- and negative-parity operators isolates the true ground state of the deformed nucleon for the field strengths used.
    Central methodological claim of Sec. II E and IV B–E; supported by consistency across operators but not proven to all orders.
  • domain assumption Chiral extrapolation form of Crewther et al. / O’Connell-Savage is adequate between 340 MeV and the physical point.
    Used in Sec. IV E; higher-order terms and finite-volume corrections are deferred.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 53228 in / 2620 out tokens · 29073 ms · 2026-07-14T10:30:53.694009+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present the calculation of the neutron electric dipole moment (nEDM) $d_n$ using 2+1 flavor domain wall fermion ensembles with fixed lattice spacing $a\approx 0.11\,\text{fm}$ and pion masses of 340, 420, and 576 MeV. We show that the neutron electric dipole moment can be extracted from the energy shift induced by a static uniform external background electric field in the presence of the CP-violating QCD theta-term, $\bar\theta Q_{top}$. Motivated by the Feynman-Hellmann theorem, we employ sampling of the topological charge $q_\text{top}(t)$ on a single time-slice rather than the global topological charge $Q_\text{top}=\int q_\text{top}(t) \, dt$, which dramatically improves the statistical precision of the $\theta$-induced nEDM. Key to our method is to calculate the forward matrix element of the topological charge density in the nucleon deformed by a background electric field. We find that calculation with the traditional positive parity-projected nucleon operator is subject to large excited-state contamination. To remove the contamination, we construct the ground state of the deformed nucleon by solving a non-Hermitian generalized eigenvalue problem. With this approach, we find consistent values for the nEDM when using different nucleon interpolating operators, regardless of whether they are covariant or non-covariant under chiral transformations. Finally, after extrapolating to the physical point, we obtain $d_n=-0.0050(4)^\text{stat}(8)^\text{sys}\bar{\theta}$ $e$ fm, where the systematic uncertainty includes excited-state effects estimated as variation with the Euclidean-time fits and the dependence on the strength of the electric field applied to the neutron. Conventional systematic errors like discretization, finite-volume, and chiral extrapolation effects will be addressed in future work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10606 by Fangcheng He, Hiroshi Ohki, Luchang Jin, Sergey Syritsyn, Taku Izubuchi, Thomas Blum.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Constant background electric field on a periodic lattice, following Ref. [61]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The dependence of topological charge on gradient flow time. The result is obtained from 11 configurations on ensemble [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of global topological charge constructed from pseudoscalar quark density using varying numbers of lowest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of global topological charge computed from gluon field and pseudoscalar quark density with varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Correlation functions of local topological charge (53) computed from pseudoscalar quark density (PS loop) with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The effective mass extracted from correlation functions of pseudoscalar quark density computed with varying quark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Results for the neutron anomalous magnetic moment estimator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Neutron EDM results obtained using global topological charge constructed from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as Fig. 8 but the topological charge is defined using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The effective mass of positive-parity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The ground and the first-excited 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The effective mass of the ground state (left panel) and the first excited state (right panel) with different electric field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. The EDM results obtained using definition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The EDM results obtained using definition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. The EDM results obtained using GEVP method (71) on ensembles 24I-005(left), 24I-010(middle), and 24I-020(right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. The comparison of differential ratios ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. The gradient flow-time dependence of the results obtained using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. GEVP results for the nEDM ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Similar to Fig. 18 but with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Similar to Fig. 18 but using pseudoscalar quark density with the axial-vector current correction and varying loop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Comparison of the effective masses of the first four eigenstates from GEVP using nucleon operators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. The EDM results obtained using multiple operators GEVP on ensemble 24I-005(left panel), 24I-010(middle panel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. Similar to Fig. 22 but with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24. The EDM results obtained using GEVP with operators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25. The comparison of our nEDM result to other previous works. The cyan data point is from [36], which is obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26. The squared overlap factors of the parity components of the interpolating operator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27. Comparison of the nEDM results obtained using the AMA correction alone and the combination of AMA and LMA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_27.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 66 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Kobayashi and T

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

    1973

  2. [2]

    I. B. Khriplovich and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Lett. B109, 490 (1982)

    1982

  3. [3]

    Czarnecki and B

    A. Czarnecki and B. Krause, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 4339 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9704355

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  4. [4]

    Seng, Phys

    C.-Y. Seng, Phys. Rev. C91, 025502 (2015), arXiv:1411.1476 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Abel et al

    C. Abel et al. (nEDM), Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 081803 (2020), arXiv:2001.11966 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Graner, Y

    B. Graner, Y. Chen, E. G. Lindahl, and B. R. Heckel, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 161601 (2016), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 119901 (2017)], arXiv:1601.04339 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Alarcon et al., in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.08103 [hep-ph]

    R. Alarcon et al., in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.08103 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    SNS nEDM progress and plans,

    T. Ito, “SNS nEDM progress and plans,”https://indico.frib.msu.edu/event/13/contributions/191/attachments/ 79/384/SNSnEDM_Ito.pdf(2019)

    2019

  9. [9]

    Weinberg, Phys

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

    1989

  10. [10]

    R. J. Crewther, P. Di Vecchia, G. Veneziano, and E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B88, 123 (1979), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 91, 487 (1980)]

    1979

  11. [11]

    Pich and E

    A. Pich and E. de Rafael, Nucl. Phys. B367, 313 (1991)

    1991

  12. [12]

    P. L. Cho, Phys. Rev. D48, 3304 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9212274

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  13. [13]

    Borasoy, Phys

    B. Borasoy, Phys. Rev. D61, 114017 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0004011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  14. [14]

    W. H. Hockings and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B605, 273 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0508012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  15. [15]

    Narison, Phys

    S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B666, 455 (2008), arXiv:0806.2618 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  16. [16]

    Ottnad, B

    K. Ottnad, B. Kubis, U.-G. Meissner, and F.-K. Guo, Phys. Lett. B687, 42 (2010), arXiv:0911.3981 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

    de Vries, R

    J. de Vries, R. G. E. Timmermans, E. Mereghetti, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B695, 268 (2011), arXiv:1006.2304 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  18. [18]

    Mereghetti, J

    E. Mereghetti, J. de Vries, W. H. Hockings, C. M. Maekawa, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B696, 97 (2011), arXiv:1010.4078 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  19. [19]

    Pospelov and A

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 2526 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9904483

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  20. [20]

    Pospelov and A

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D63, 073015 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0010037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  21. [21]

    Lebedev, K

    O. Lebedev, K. A. Olive, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D70, 016003 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0402023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  22. [22]

    Pospelov and A

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Annals Phys.318, 119 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  23. [23]

    Fuyuto, J

    K. Fuyuto, J. Hisano, and N. Nagata, Phys. Rev. D87, 054018 (2013), arXiv:1211.5228 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [24]

    Haisch and A

    U. Haisch and A. Hala, JHEP2019, 154 (2019), arXiv:1909.08955 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Y. Ema, T. Gao, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D110, 034028 (2024), arXiv:2405.08856 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Faccioli, D

    P. Faccioli, D. Guadagnoli, and S. Simula, Phys. Rev. D70, 074017 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0406336

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  27. [27]

    Liu and I

    W.-Y. Liu and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D112, 094048 (2025), arXiv:2501.11856 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Shintani, S

    E. Shintani, S. Aoki, N. Ishizuka, K. Kanaya, Y. Kikukawa, Y. Kuramashi, M. Okawa, Y. Taniguchi, A. Ukawa, and T. Yoshie, Phys. Rev. D72, 014504 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0505022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  29. [29]

    Berruto, T

    F. Berruto, T. Blum, K. Orginos, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D73, 054509 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0512004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  30. [30]

    Shindler, J

    A. Shindler, J. de Vries, and T. Luu, PoSLATTICE2014, 251 (2014), arXiv:1409.2735 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  31. [31]

    F.-K. Guo, R. Horsley, U.-G. Meissner, Y. Nakamura, H. Perlt, P. E. L. Rakow, G. Schierholz, A. Schiller, and J. M. Zanotti, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 062001 (2015), arXiv:1502.02295 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    Shindler, T

    A. Shindler, T. Luu, and J. de Vries, Phys. Rev. D92, 094518 (2015), arXiv:1507.02343 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  33. [33]

    Alexandrou, A

    C. Alexandrou, A. Athenodorou, M. Constantinou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, K. Jansen, G. Koutsou, K. Ottnad, and M. Petschlies, Phys. Rev. D93, 074503 (2016), arXiv:1510.05823 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    Shintani, T

    E. Shintani, T. Blum, T. Izubuchi, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D93, 094503 (2016), arXiv:1512.00566 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    Abramczyk, S

    M. Abramczyk, S. Aoki, T. Blum, T. Izubuchi, H. Ohki, and S. Syritsyn, Phys. Rev.D96, 014501 (2017), arXiv:1701.07792 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    Dragos, T

    J. Dragos, T. Luu, A. Shindler, J. de Vries, and A. Yousif, Phys. Rev. C103, 015202 (2021), arXiv:1902.03254 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Alexandrou, A

    C. Alexandrou, A. Athenodorou, K. Hadjiyiannakou, and A. Todaro, Phys. Rev. D103, 054501 (2021), arXiv:2011.01084 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Bhattacharya, V

    T. Bhattacharya, V. Cirigliano, R. Gupta, E. Mereghetti, and B. Yoon, Phys. Rev. D103, 114507 (2021), arXiv:2101.07230 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Liang, A

    J. Liang, A. Alexandru, T. Draper, K.-F. Liu, B. Wang, G. Wang, and Y.-B. Yang (χQCD), Phys. Rev. D108, 094512 (2023), arXiv:2301.04331 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    W.-Y. Ai, B. Garbrecht, and C. Tamarit, Universe10, 189 (2024), arXiv:2404.16026 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Schierholz, J

    G. Schierholz, J. Phys. G52, 04LT01 (2025), arXiv:2403.13508 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    V. V. Khoze, (2025), arXiv:2512.06827 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    J. N. Benabou, A. Hook, C. A. Manzari, H. Murayama, and B. R. Safdi, (2025), arXiv:2510.18951 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Bhattacharya, (2025), arXiv:2512.10127 [hep-lat]

    T. Bhattacharya, (2025), arXiv:2512.10127 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Aghaie and R

    M. Aghaie and R. Sato, (2026), arXiv:2601.18248 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    Bhattacharya, V

    T. Bhattacharya, V. Cirigliano, R. Gupta, H.-W. Lin, and B. Yoon, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 212002 (2015), arXiv:1506.04196 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    Bhattacharya, B

    T. Bhattacharya, B. Yoon, R. Gupta, and V. Cirigliano, inProceedings of LATTICE2018: The 36th Annual International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (2018) arXiv:1812.06233 [hep-lat]. 44

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    J. Kim, J. Dragos, A. Shindler, T. Luu, and J. de Vries, PoSLATTICE2018, 260 (2019), arXiv:1810.10301 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Bhattacharya, V

    T. Bhattacharya, V. Cirigliano, R. Gupta, E. Mereghetti, and B. Yoon, in 38th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (2022) arXiv:2203.03746 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  50. [50]

    Dragos, T

    J. Dragos, T. Luu, A. Shindler, and J. de Vries, in35th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice 2017) Granada, Spain, June 18-24, 2017 (2017) arXiv:1711.04730 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [51]

    Aoki and A

    S. Aoki and A. Gocksch, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 1125 (1989), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 65, 1172 (1990)]

    1989

  52. [52]

    Shintani, S

    E. Shintani, S. Aoki, N. Ishizuka, K. Kanaya, Y. Kikukawa, Y. Kuramashi, M. Okawa, A. Ukawa, and T. Yoshie, Phys. Rev. D75, 034507 (2007), arXiv:hep-lat/0611032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  53. [53]

    Shintani, S

    E. Shintani, S. Aoki, and Y. Kuramashi, Phys. Rev. D78, 014503 (2008), arXiv:0803.0797 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  54. [54]

    Izubuchi, S

    T. Izubuchi, S. Aoki, K. Hashimoto, Y. Nakamura, T. Sekido, and G. Schierholz, PoSLATTICE2007, 106 (2007), arXiv:0802.1470 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  55. [55]

    Izubuchi, H

    T. Izubuchi, H. Ohki, and S. Syritsyn, PoSLATTICE2019, 290 (2020), arXiv:2004.10449 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  56. [56]

    F. He, M. Abramczyk, T. Blum, T. Izubuchi, H. Ohki, and S. Syritsyn, PoSLATTICE2023, 336 (2024), arXiv:2311.06106 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Hackl and C

    A. Hackl and C. Lehner, (2024), arXiv:2412.17442 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Smit and J

    J. Smit and J. C. Vink, Nucl. Phys. B286, 485 (1987)

    1987

  59. [59]

    S. Itoh, Y. Iwasaki, and T. Yoshie, Phys. Rev. D36, 527 (1987)

    1987

  60. [60]

    Alexandrou, A

    C. Alexandrou, A. Athenodorou, K. Cichy, A. Dromard, E. Garcia-Ramos, K. Jansen, U. Wenger, and F. Zimmermann, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 424 (2020), arXiv:1708.00696 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    Detmold, B

    W. Detmold, B. C. Tiburzi, and A. Walker-Loud, Phys. Rev. D79, 094505 (2009), arXiv:0904.1586 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  62. [62]

    Detmold, B

    W. Detmold, B. C. Tiburzi, and A. Walker-Loud, Phys. Rev. D81, 054502 (2010), arXiv:1001.1131 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  63. [63]

    The explicit matrix form on the right hand side is obtained in the Weylγ-matrix basis, following the convention adopted in Ref. [35]. For most of the discussion below, we use spin-parity (Dirac) basis

  64. [64]

    C. M. Bender and D. W. Hook, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 045002 (2024), arXiv:2312.17386

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    , which connect it to the relativistic picture

    In the context of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the only excited states such a “sterile” neutron would have are particle-antiparticle pair excited states with energies ∆E= 2m N ,4m N , . . ., which connect it to the relativistic picture

  66. [66]

    Baym and D

    G. Baym and D. H. Beck, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.113, 7438 (2016), arXiv:1606.06774 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    Bouchard, C

    C. Bouchard, C. C. Chang, T. Kurth, K. Orginos, and A. Walker-Loud, Phys. Rev. D96, 014504 (2017), arXiv:1612.06963 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [68]

    Throughout the paper, the lattice electric field ⃗Econtains an additional factor of electron charge|e|compared to the standard units, while the electric dipole operatorD z is defined in terms of its fractionsQ u,d = 2/3 and (−1/3) and has dimension of length

  69. [69]

    The dipole operator can also mix spin- 1 2 and spin- 3 2 states, the latter one can be neglected since the topological charge forbids the mixing between states with different spin, assuming good rotation symmetry on lattice

  70. [70]

    This definition corresponds toα E ≈1.26·10 −3 fm3 [102], equivalent tod(E)≈0.86 e·cm· E 104V/cm [66] in more common units

  71. [71]

    Baluni, Phys

    V. Baluni, Phys. Rev. D19, 2227 (1979)

    1979

  72. [72]

    (19) in Ref

    The above equation is consistent with Eq. (19) in Ref. [71] withq top,E =iq top,M following Eq. (A11)

  73. [73]

    These overlaps are spin-independent in theCP-even theory

  74. [74]

    Formulas for the spin (−1/2) case are analogous and would differ only due to Wigner-Eckart theorem, for example, in⟨N ∗↑|Dz|N ↑⟩=−⟨N ∗↓|Dz|N ↓⟩

    The nucleon field and state spins, where omitted, are presumed (+1/2). Formulas for the spin (−1/2) case are analogous and would differ only due to Wigner-Eckart theorem, for example, in⟨N ∗↑|Dz|N ↑⟩=−⟨N ∗↓|Dz|N ↓⟩

  75. [75]

    If the anti-Hermitian part becomes nonperturbative, i.e., larger than the energy gaps between unperturbed coupled states, then these two states “merge” into a pair of states with complex-conjugate eigenvalues, see App. C

  76. [76]

    Allton et al

    C. Allton et al. (RBC-UKQCD), Phys. Rev.D78, 114509 (2008), arXiv:0804.0473 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  77. [77]

    R. S. Sufian, Y.-B. Yang, J. Liang, T. Draper, and K.-F. Liu, Phys. Rev. D96, 114504 (2017), arXiv:1705.05849 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [78]

    L¨ uscher, JHEP2010, 071 (2010), [Erratum: JHEP 03, 092 (2014)], arXiv:1006.4518 [hep-lat]

    M. L¨ uscher, JHEP2010, 071 (2010), [Erratum: JHEP 03, 092 (2014)], arXiv:1006.4518 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  79. [79]

    Luscher and P

    M. Luscher and P. Weisz, JHEP02, 051 (2011), arXiv:1101.0963 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  80. [80]

    de Forcrand, M

    P. de Forcrand, M. Garcia Perez, and I.-O. Stamatescu, Nucl. Phys. B499, 409 (1997), arXiv:hep-lat/9701012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

Showing first 80 references.