Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Form factors of the $\rho$-meson in chiral perturbation theory

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · 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 infrared regularization makes one-loop chiral perturbation theory calculations of the rho-meson electromagnetic form factors consistent, with Ward identities intact at the working order, while the steep curvature near

desk verdict A careful, checkable one-loop ChPT calculation of the ρ form factors whose conclusion — that perturbative ChPT misses the width-driven near-threshold curvature — is unsurprising, but whose internal checks earn it referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25844 v1 pith:AUNTRCRV submitted 2026-07-28 hep-ph hep-latnucl-th

Kakha Shamanauri , Jambul Gegelia , Ulf-G. Mei{ss}ner , Akaki Rusetsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-latnucl-th
keywords rho-mesonformfactorschiralperturbationtheoryinfraredregularizationWardidentitiesvectormesonsnon-relativisticeffectivefieldresonancepole
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

The paper tries to show that covariant chiral perturbation theory can reliably compute the electromagnetic form factors of the unstable rho-meson at one loop, despite the power-counting problem caused by the rho's heavy mass. Its method is infrared regularization: each loop integral is split into a singular part that preserves the chiral hierarchy and a regular polynomial part that is subtracted and absorbed into the Lagrangian's operators. The authors explicitly verify the electromagnetic Ward identity, so the charge form factor is correctly normalized at q^2=0 to the order worked. The payoff is a direct comparison with non-relativistic effective field theory: ChPT converges better after subtraction but still cannot reproduce the steep near-zero curvature that NREFT attributes to the nearby resonance pole; reproducing it requires unnaturally large low-energy constants. If correct, this sharpens the prediction that the rapid variation is a genuine non-perturbative effect tied to the decay width and testable on the lattice.

What carries the argument

Infrared regularization adapted to spin-1 fields: each of the 13 scalar one-loop integrals I_alpha is split as I_alpha = I_alpha^S + I_alpha^R, where I_alpha^R is a low-energy polynomial whose subtraction removes power-counting violations. The load-bearing step is the claim that all such subtraction polynomials can be renormalized into the finite operator set of the Lagrangian—Tr(rho_mu_nu rho^mu_nu) for hard rho diagrams and d_x, f_V, h_V for soft-photon diagrams—with complex-mass renormalization on the external rho lines; the self-energy appendix shows IR and that scheme agree.

What would settle it

A two-loop test of whether any operator beyond Eq. (2.2) is needed to absorb the subtraction polynomials, or a lattice measurement of rho form factors at pion masses below the physical value: if the predicted large charge radius and negative quadrupole moment do not appear as the rho becomes unstable, the width-driven curvature claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: infrared-regularized one-loop ChPT for rho form factors obeys chiral and U(1) Ward identities to the working order, with subtractions at hard rho and soft photon momentum scales. Subtraction polynomials—including complex unitarity-breaking pieces—are claimed absorbable into existing operators Tr(rho_mu_nu rho^mu_nu), d_x, f_V, h_V, restoring power counting. Convergence improves, f_1(0)=1, and continuation to the second sheet isolates the resonance. ChPT cannot reproduce the steep near-zero variation of all three form factors for q^2 in (−0.1,0) GeV^2; matching NREFT requires unnaturally large D_x=-3.41 and h_V=10.53, after which convergence fails away from q^2=0. The curvature

Load-bearing premise

The scheme rests on the claim that every subtracted polynomial—including complex, unitarity-breaking ones—can be absorbed into the truncated operator set of Eq. (2.2) simultaneously for hard rho momenta and soft photon momenta; the paper argues this by inspecting the Lagrangian rather than by an explicit diagram-by-diagram proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One-loop covariant ChPT with IR subtraction is a consistent scheme for rho form factors, including both hard rho momenta and soft photon momenta, with f_1(0)=1 at the working order.
  • The chiral expansion converges substantially better after the regular parts are subtracted.
  • ChPT does not converge for q^2 below −0.1 GeV^2 and cannot generate the rapid near-threshold variation of the form factors; only unnaturally large LECs can mimic it locally.
  • Because f(q^2) behaves as (s−Re s_R)^(−1/2) near the pole, the charge radius and quadrupole moment grow as the decay width shrinks, explaining the unnaturally large NREFT values.
  • Lattice calculations performed at smaller quark masses, where the rho is unstable, should see this curvature, providing an independent test.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: the same 13-integral IR decomposition should apply to other unstable vector mesons, such as the K*, with the steep-curvature scale set by each resonance's width.
  • The equivalence between IR and complex-mass renormalization shown for the self-energy suggests the form-factor results are regularization-scheme independent at this order; an independent calculation using a different subtraction scheme could confirm f_1(0) and the slopes.
  • The unnatural LECs required for matching suggest that a non-perturbative or unitarized treatment inside ChPT might reproduce the width effect rather than merely parametrize it—an avenue the paper does not pursue.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the electromagnetic form factors of the ρ-meson at one loop in covariant chiral perturbation theory (ChPT), using infrared (IR) regularization to restore chiral power counting. All 20 one-loop diagrams are reduced to 13 scalar integrals; each integral is split into a singular part (containing the non-analytic and power-counting-violating terms) and a regular part (a low-energy polynomial), and the regular parts are subtracted. The authors verify explicitly that the non-analytic terms cancel in I - I^R, check U(1) Ward identities in four mass configurations, continue to the second Riemann sheet to define the resonance form factors, and compare the results with non-relativistic effective field theory (NREFT) predictions from Ref. [1]. The main claims are: (i) IR subtraction makes the one-loop ChPT calculation of the ρ form factors consistent, including the simultaneous restoration of power counting for hard ρ-momenta and soft photon momenta; (ii) the Ward identities are satisfied up to the working chiral order; (iii) one-loop ChPT does not reproduce the rapid q² dependence near q²=0 predicted by NREFT, and can only mimic it at the expense of unnaturally large low-energy constants.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, this is the first one-loop covariant ChPT calculation of the ρ-meson form factors with a systematic treatment of power-counting violations and explicit gauge-invariance checks. The paper is unusually detailed: all 13 scalar integrals and their regular parts are listed in appendices, the Ward identities are checked in four configurations, and the equivalence of IR and complex-mass renormalization for the self-energy is shown in Appendix C. The argument in Appendix D, tracing the small scale to the resonance width via f(q²) ∝ (s - Re s_R)^{-1/2}, is a valuable qualitative insight. The main weakness is that the consistency claim relies on a verbal assertion in Sec. 3.3 that the subtraction polynomials can be absorbed into the truncated Lagrangian; this is load-bearing and needs an explicit check.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 (Eq. (3.1))] The central consistency claim rests on the assertion that the regular parts I_R^α, including the complex-valued, unitarity-breaking polynomial pieces, can be absorbed into the truncated Lagrangian of Eq. (2.2) in both the hard (triple-ρ) and soft (photon) momentum regimes. The argument is verbal: 'After thoroughly examining the structure of the effective Lagrangian ... one concludes that the answer ... is yes.' No explicit demonstration is given that the subtracted polynomials are generated by the operators Tr(ρμνρμν), d_x, f_V, h_V, nor that no operator beyond this truncated set is required. This is load-bearing for the paper's main conclusion. Please provide a diagram-by-diagram or operator-level check, or at least a counting argument showing that the number of independent polynomial structures equals the number of available counterterms at the working order. Appendix C shows the equiv
  2. [Sec. 4, case 3] The Ward identity for the mass configuration (m_1^2 = M^2, m_2^2 = m_ω^2) is stated to be fulfilled only 'to the order one is working.' Since the abstract and introduction claim that the Ward identities are explicitly verified, this qualification should be made quantitative: show the actual residual of f_1(0)-1 (expected to be O(q^4) or higher) or explain why exact fulfillment is not expected in a truncated one-loop calculation. As it stands, the normalization f_1(0)=1 is asserted modulo higher-order terms without an estimate of the missing contribution. This is not necessarily an error, but it is a gap in the advertised check.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 4] The abstract says 'the Ward identities are explicitly verified at the order considered.' Given that case 3 of Sec. 4 is satisfied only to working order, consider adding a brief qualifier in the abstract or conclusions to avoid overstating the check.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The horizontal axis is labeled 0.0 to 1.0, while the text says the range is -1 GeV^2 < q^2 < 0. Please relabel the axis as -q^2 or explicitly state the sign convention in the caption.
  3. [Sec. 5, Eq. (5.1)] The matched values D_x = -3.41 and h_V = 10.53 are described as 'unnaturally large.' It would be useful to state the natural-size expectation for these LECs (e.g., based on vector-meson-dominance estimates) to make the unnaturalness quantitative.
  4. [Sec. 6, fourth bullet] The statement that 'ChPT does not converge for the values q^2 < -0.1 GeV^2' is inferred from a one-loop comparison with NREFT. Since only one-loop order is computed, the non-convergence claim is an extrapolation; consider softening to 'the one-loop expansion does not reproduce...' unless a two-loop or higher-order estimate is provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core IR-subtracted one-loop ChPT calculation is self-contained, and the self-citations to NREFT are used as a comparison benchmark, not as load-bearing premises.

full rationale

The central claim is that infrared regularization renders one-loop ChPT calculations of the rho-meson form factors consistent, with Ward identities intact up to the working chiral order. This claim is supported by an explicit, self-contained calculation: the 13 scalar integrals are evaluated in Sec. 3.2 and Appendix B, the regular parts are subtracted explicitly, and the U(1) Ward identities are checked in four mass configurations in Sec. 4, with case 3 satisfied to the working order as stated. Appendix C further shows equivalence between IR and the complex-mass scheme for the self-energy, providing an independent internal consistency check. The only gap is the verbal argument in Sec. 3.3 that all subtraction polynomials can be absorbed into the truncated Lagrangian; this is an unproven assertion, but not a circular one, because it does not assume the desired conclusion. The comparison with Ref. [1] involves overlapping authors, but the NREFT results are used as an external benchmark rather than as an input to the ChPT derivation. The matching of two LECs to NREFT charge radius and magnetic moment, followed by the 'prediction' of the quadrupole moment, is explicitly labeled as illustrative and tests an independent observable, so it is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The Ward-identity and power-counting checks are internal and do not reduce to the paper's own conclusions. Minor self-citations to Refs. [24,25] for the IR method are not load-bearing because the prescription is re-derived for the integrals in this paper. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained; the identified weaknesses are exposition gaps and benchmark provenance, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything the central result rests on that is not derived in the paper: the KSFR constraint, the O(1)-heavy-mass counting, the Δ = O(q²) mass splitting, the absorbability of the subtraction polynomials into the truncated operator set, the clean-sheet analytic continuation, and the pole-dominated NREFT phase shift that anchors the benchmark. The two numbers genuinely fitted to external data are D_x and h_V (Eq. 5.1), matched to the same group's NREFT results. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • D_x = d_x − √2 f_V (photon–rho direct coupling combination) = −3.41
    Matched in Sec. 5 to the real part of the NREFT charge radius of Ref [1]; unnaturally large relative to natural-size expectations stated by the authors.
  • h_V (photon–rho–rho tensor coupling) = 10.53
    Matched in Sec. 5 to the real part of the NREFT magnetic moment; sets the sign and size of the quadrupole through tree-level Eq. (2.23).
  • g_{ωρπ} (ωρπ coupling) = 1.478
    Phenomenological input from the literature, appearing in the ω-exchange diagrams (13) and (19+20); not fitted here.
  • complex rho mass m_ρ² + c_x M² = 0.7752 − i·0.775×0.149 GeV²
    Input pole position from ππ scattering, used with the complex-mass scheme; the finite part of c_x is effectively absorbed into this input.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption KSFR relation m²_{ρ,0} = 2 g₀² F² imposed on the bare couplings
    Sec. 2.1; required for the consistency of the hidden-local-symmetry treatment of the vector meson as a gauge field; if relaxed, the counting and normalization of the tree-level coupling change.
  • domain assumption Power counting: m_V = O(1) hard scale; p² − m_V² = O(q) near the vector-meson mass shell; pion mass, photon momentum, and electric charge O(q); derivatives on heavy fields O(1)
    Sec. 2.2; the entire chiral-order assignment for diagrams and the identification of power-counting-violating terms depend on this counting.
  • domain assumption m_ω² − m_ρ² = Δ = O(q²)
    Sec. 2.2; used in the chiral expansion of I₂, I₈, I₉ and the subtraction polynomials.
  • ad hoc to paper The IR regular parts (low-energy polynomials) can be absorbed into the operators of the truncated Lagrangian while preserving hidden local symmetry and the U(1) Ward identities
    Sec. 3.3; argued verbally by inspecting the operator content, not demonstrated diagram by diagram or for arbitrary operators beyond the truncated set.
  • domain assumption Subtraction rectifies counting on the physical sheet implies it rectifies counting on the directly adjacent second sheet; the subtraction polynomial has no cuts
    Sec. 3.4; argued via a prototype square-root function; the paper itself notes the argument fails if the resonance requires a long path through several sheets.
  • ad hoc to paper Resonance dominance of the ππ phase shift, tan δ ≃ C/(s − Re s_R), so f(q²) ∝ (s − Re s_R)^{−1/2}
    Appendix D, Eq. (D.7); the width-scaling and universality conclusions rest on this pole-dominated form of the phase shift near the resonance.
  • standard math Standard QFT machinery: dimensional regularization; Passarino–Veltman reduction of all one-loop diagrams to the 13 scalar integrals (Eq. 2.25); the divergence identities of Sec. 4
    Used throughout as the framework of the calculation; unproved background assumed without comment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Form factors of the $\rho$-meson in chiral perturbation theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AUNTRCRV

@misc{pith2026260725844,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Form factors of the $\rho$-meson in chiral perturbation theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AUNTRCRV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25844}
}
abstract

We present the calculation of the electromagnetic form factors of the $\rho$-meson at one loop in Chiral Perturbation Theory. The power-counting-violating terms in the loop diagrams are subtracted by using infrared regularization, and the Ward identities are explicitly verified at the order considered. The results are compared to the recent calculations carried out in the framework of non-relativistic effective field theory.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Meißner, Akaki Rusetsky, Ajay S

    Ulf-G. Meißner, Akaki Rusetsky, Ajay S. Sakthivasan, Gerrit Schierholz, and Jia-Jun Wu. Form factors of theρmeson from effective field theory and the lattice.JHEP, 06:164, 2026

    2026

  2. [2]

    Gegelia and S

    J. Gegelia and S. Scherer. How to define physical properties of unstable particles.Eur. Phys. J. A, 44:425–430, 2010

    2010

  3. [3]

    Djukanovic, E

    D. Djukanovic, E. Epelbaum, J. Gegelia, and U.-G. Meißner. The magnetic moment of the ρ-meson.Phys. Lett. B, 730:115–121, 2014

    2014

  4. [4]

    Bernard, D

    V. Bernard, D. Hoja, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Rusetsky. Matrix elements of unstable states. JHEP, 09:023, 2012

    2012

  5. [5]

    Ruiz de Elvira, U.-G

    J. Ruiz de Elvira, U.-G. Meißner, A. Rusetsky, and G. Schierholz. Feynman–Hellmann theorem for resonances and the quest for QCD exotica.Eur. Phys. J. C, 77(10):659, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    Mandelstam

    S. Mandelstam. Dynamical variables in the Bethe-Salpeter formalism.Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 233:248, 1955

    1955

  7. [7]

    Hoja, U.-G

    D. Hoja, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Rusetsky. Resonances in an external field: The 1+1 dimensional case.JHEP, 04:050, 2010

    2010

  8. [8]

    Brice˜ no, Maxwell T

    Alessandro Baroni, Ra´ ul A. Brice˜ no, Maxwell T. Hansen, and Felipe G. Ortega-Gama. Form factors of two-hadron states from a covariant finite-volume formalism.Phys. Rev. D, 100(3):034511, 2019

    2019

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Brice˜ no, Maxwell T

    Ra´ ul A. Brice˜ no, Maxwell T. Hansen, and Andrew W. Jackura. Consistency checks for two-body finite-volume matrix elements: I. Conserved currents and bound states.Phys. Rev. D, 100(11):114505, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Brice˜ no, Maxwell T

    Ra´ ul A. Brice˜ no, Maxwell T. Hansen, and Andrew W. Jackura. Consistency checks for two-body finite-volume matrix elements: II. Perturbative systems.Phys. Rev. D, 101(9):094508, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Ortega-Gama, Ra´ ul A

    Joseph Moscoso, Felipe G. Ortega-Gama, Ra´ ul A. Brice˜ no, Andrew W. Jackura, Charles Kacir, and Amy N. Nicholson. Resolving the structure of bound states using lattice quantum field theories. 2 2026

    2026

  4. [12]

    Meißner, Fernando Romero-L´ opez, Akaki Rusetsky, and Gerrit Schierholz

    Jonathan Lozano, Ulf-G. Meißner, Fernando Romero-L´ opez, Akaki Rusetsky, and Gerrit Schierholz. Resonance form factors from finite-volume correlation functions with the external field method.JHEP, 10:106, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Gurtler et al

    M. Gurtler et al. Vector meson electromagnetic form factors.PoS, LATTICE2008:051, 2008. – 44 –

    2008

  6. [14]

    Meißner, and Carsten Urbach

    Maxim Mai, Ulf-G. Meißner, and Carsten Urbach. Towards a theory of hadron resonances. Phys. Rept., 1001:1–66, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Bauer, J

    T. Bauer, J. Gegelia, and S. Scherer. Magnetic moment of the Roper resonance.Phys. Lett. B, 715:234–240, 2012

    2012

  8. [16]

    R.G. Stuart. TheZ 0 Resonance.Z 0 physics, Editions Frontieres, Gif-sur-Yvette, page 41, 1990

    1990

  9. [17]

    Dittmaier, M

    Ansgar Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth, and D. Wackeroth. Predictions for all processes e+e−→4 fermions +γ.Nucl. Phys. B, 560:33–65, 1999

    1999

  10. [18]

    Dittmaier

    Ansgar Denner and S. Dittmaier. The Complex-mass scheme for perturbative calculations with unstable particles.Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl., 160:22–26, 2006

    2006

  11. [19]

    Dittmaier, M

    Ansgar Denner, S. Dittmaier, M. Roth, and L. H. Wieders. Electroweak corrections to charged-currente +e−→4 fermion processes: Technical details and further results.Nucl. Phys. B, 724:247–294, 2005. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 854, 504–507 (2012)]

    2005

  12. [20]

    Two-Loop Renormalization in the Standard Model Part III: Renormalization Equations and their Solutions.Nucl

    Stefano Actis and Giampiero Passarino. Two-Loop Renormalization in the Standard Model Part III: Renormalization Equations and their Solutions.Nucl. Phys. B, 777:100–156, 2007

    2007

  13. [21]

    Two-Loop Threshold Singularities, Unstable Particles and Complex Masses.Phys

    Stefano Actis, Giampiero Passarino, Christian Sturm, and Sandro Uccirati. Two-Loop Threshold Singularities, Unstable Particles and Complex Masses.Phys. Lett. B, 669:62–68, 2008

    2008

  14. [22]

    Djukanovic, J

    D. Djukanovic, J. Gegelia, A. Keller, and S. Scherer. Complex-mass renormalization in chiral effective field theory.Phys. Lett. B, 680:235–238, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    Djukanovic, E

    D. Djukanovic, E. Epelbaum, J. Gegelia, H. Krebs, and U.-G. Meißner. Complex-mass renormalization in hadronic EFT: applicability at two-loop order.Eur. Phys. J. A, 51:101, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Bruns and Ulf-G

    Peter C. Bruns and Ulf-G. Meißner. Infrared regularization for spin-1 fields.Eur. Phys. J. C, 40:97–119, 2005

    2005

  17. [25]

    P. C. Bruns and Ulf-G. Meißner. Infrared regularization with vector mesons and baryons. Eur. Phys. J. C, 58:407–422, 2008

    2008

  18. [26]

    Leutwyler

    Thomas Becher and H. Leutwyler. Baryon chiral perturbation theory in manifestly Lorentz invariant form.Eur. Phys. J., 9(4):643–671, 1999

    1999

  19. [27]

    Ecker, J

    G. Ecker, J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, A. Pich, and E. de Rafael. Chiral Lagrangians for Massive Spin 1 Fields.Phys. Lett. B, 223:425–432, 1989

    1989

  20. [28]

    Djukanovic, J

    D. Djukanovic, J. Gegelia, A. Keller, S. Scherer, and L. Tiator. Vector form factor of the pion in chiral effective field theory.Phys. Lett. B, 742:55–60, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Ulf-G. Meißner. Low-Energy Hadron Physics from Effective Chiral Lagrangians with Vector Mesons.Phys. Rept., 161:213, 1988

    1988

  22. [30]

    Nonlinear realizations of chiral symmetry.Phys

    Steven Weinberg. Nonlinear realizations of chiral symmetry.Phys. Rev., 166:1568–1577, 1968

    1968

  23. [31]

    Sharp, and W

    Murray Gell-Mann, D. Sharp, and W. G. Wagner. Decay rates of neutral mesons.Phys. Rev. Lett., 8:261, 1962

    1962

  24. [32]

    J. J. Sakurai. Theory of strong interactions.Annals Phys., 11:1–48, 1960. – 45 –

    1960

  25. [33]

    Djukanovic, M

    D. Djukanovic, M. R. Schindler, J. Gegelia, G. Japaridze, and S. Scherer. Universality of the rho-meson coupling in effective field theory.Phys. Rev. Lett., 93:122002, 2004

    2004

  26. [34]

    Partially Conserved Axial-Vector Current and the Decays of Vector Mesons.Phys

    Ken Kawarabayashi and Mahiko Suzuki. Partially Conserved Axial-Vector Current and the Decays of Vector Mesons.Phys. Rev. Lett., 16:255, 1966

    1966

  27. [35]

    Algebra of Current Components and Decay Widths of rho and K ∗ Mesons.Phys

    Riazuddin and Fayyazuddin. Algebra of Current Components and Decay Widths of rho and K ∗ Mesons.Phys. Rev., 147:1071–1073, 1966

    1966

  28. [36]

    Epelbaum, W

    E. Epelbaum, W. Gl¨ ockle, and Ulf-G. Meißner. The Two-nucleon system at next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order.Nucl. Phys. A, 747:362–424, 2005

    2005

  29. [37]

    Meißner and Ismail Zahed

    Ulf-G. Meißner and Ismail Zahed. Nucleons From Skyrmions With Vector Mesons.Z. Phys. A, 327:5–15, 1987

    1987

  30. [38]

    On renormalizability of the effective field theory of massive Yang-Mills fields.Mod

    Jambul Gegelia and George Japaridze. On renormalizability of the effective field theory of massive Yang-Mills fields.Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 27:1250128, 2012

    2012

  31. [39]

    Veronique Bernard, Norbert Kaiser, Joachim Kambor, and Ulf-G. Meißner. Chiral structure of the nucleon.Nucl. Phys. B, 388:315–345, 1992

    1992

  32. [40]

    Schindler, Jambul Gegelia, and Stefan Scherer

    Matthias R. Schindler, Jambul Gegelia, and Stefan Scherer. Infrared regularization of baryon chiral perturbation theory reformulated.Phys. Lett. B, 586:258–266, 2004

    2004

  33. [41]

    Gasser, V

    J. Gasser, V. E. Lyubovitskij, and A. Rusetsky. Hadronic atoms in QCD + QED.Phys. Rept., 456:167–251, 2008. – 46 –

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.