Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Lattice QCD calculation finds that the connected and disconnected pieces of the neutral pion transition form factor have the same sign, so they interfere constructively.

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

2026-07-31 23:58 UTC pith:5YTWKFRB

load-bearing objection A useful independent confirmation of the same-sign disconnected contribution, but the disconnected-loop estimator is under-validated and the Omega^(4) weight is undefined, so it needs revision before it settles anything. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27868 v1 pith:5YTWKFRB submitted 2026-07-30 hep-lat

Pion Transition Form Factor in Lattice QCD

Shihao Su , Liuming Liu , Peng Sun This is my paper
classification hep-lat PACS 12.38.Gc
keywords pion transition form factorlattice QCDdisconnected contributionblending methodall-to-all propagatorhadronic light-by-lightmuon g-2distillation
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 reports a lattice-QCD calculation of the neutral pion transition form factor F_{π⁰γ*γ*}(q₁², q₂²) on a single N_f = 2 + 1 ensemble at a pion mass near 293 MeV. The authors aim to settle whether the connected and disconnected quark contractions contribute with the same sign or opposite signs, a question on which earlier lattice studies disagree. Using the blending method, which supplies stochastic unbiased estimators for all-to-all propagators built from distillation-like low modes plus random high modes, they compute both contributions separately. They find the disconnected contribution has the same sign as the connected contribution and is about 1% of it, so the two interfere constructively. If correct, this removes a sign ambiguity in the pion-pole term of hadronic light-by-light scattering and provides a direct first-principles input for the dispersive muon g-2 program.

Core claim

The central claim, stated in Sec. IV, is that within the statistical precision of the C24P29 ensemble the disconnected contribution to F_{π⁰γ*γ*} has the same sign as the connected contribution, with disconnected values around 1.6–2.7 × 10⁻³ GeV⁻¹ compared with connected values of roughly 210–280 × 10⁻³ GeV⁻¹. The paper therefore supports the same-sign observation of one recent lattice study and contradicts several earlier calculations that reported opposite signs. The constructive interference means the disconnected diagram is a small positive correction to the connected amplitude rather than a cancellation, and the fully blended and hybrid estimates of the total form factor agree at the fe

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the blending basis: the Laplace eigenvector space on each time slice is split into a retained low-mode subspace and a high-mode subspace sampled by orthonormal random vectors. An unbiased estimator of the identity operator, with weight factors that account for the compression of the high-mode space, turns the quark propagator and the electromagnetic currents into compressed perambulators. A second-order weight matrix handles operators whose two vertices lie on the same time slice, where the same random vectors appear on both sides. The external pion is built from low modes via distillation, while the currents are evaluated in the full blending space, so the connect

Load-bearing premise

The random high-mode sampling in the blending identity estimator is unbiased; a percent-level bias there would corrupt the small disconnected amplitude, whose sign is the paper's headline result.

What would settle it

Compute the disconnected three-point function on the same ensemble with an exact all-to-all propagator, or with many more random vectors, and check whether the disconnected contribution remains positive and at the 1% level for q₁ = (0,0,1) and t_π = 18.

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

If this is right

  • The pion-pole contribution to hadronic light-by-light scattering receives a small positive disconnected correction instead of a canceling one, shifting central values in a known direction.
  • Earlier opposite-sign results are called into question; the resolution likely lies in method or kinematics, not in a universal destructive interference.
  • Blending makes all-to-all propagator calculations cheap enough that disconnected diagrams can be included in form-factor studies on moderate lattice volumes.
  • The reported values at equal, asymmetric, and single-virtual photon momenta can be compared directly with dispersive predictions and with future experimental determinations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the same sign persists at the physical pion mass, the pion-pole term in hadronic light-by-light would be larger than connected-only estimates by about twice the ~1% disconnected fraction; this is testable once physical-mass ensembles are used.
  • Because the disconnected amplitude is only a few standard deviations above zero (for example 1.63(0.63) at equal virtualities), a modest increase in statistics or an independent exact-contraction method could change the conclusion; the sign should be treated as provisional until confirmed.
  • The same blending machinery could be applied to other flavor-singlet and disconnected quantities, such as nucleon scalar or axial couplings, where signal-to-noise has historically been poor.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the neutral pion transition form factor F_{π^0 γ^* γ^*}(q_1^2,q_2^2) on a single N_f=2+1 CLQCD ensemble (C24P29, a≈0.105 fm, m_π≈293 MeV) using the 'blending' all-to-all propagator method. The three-point function is decomposed into connected and disconnected Wick contractions; the pion external states are treated with distillation and the currents with blending. For three kinematic points with |q_1|≈0.49 GeV, the disconnected contribution is reported as positive and roughly 1% of the connected one, leading to the paper's central claim that connected and disconnected amplitudes interfere constructively. The paper frames this as supporting the recent observation of ref. [20] and contradicting several earlier calculations.

Significance. If correct, the result is of direct relevance to hadronic light-by-light contributions to (g−2)_μ: it bears on the size and sign of a sub-percent correction to the π^0-pole contribution and on the interpretation of conflicting lattice results. The paper's strengths are that it computes both contributions within one framework on the same ensemble, that the connected contribution is cross-checked with two blending variants (Fig. 3), and that a conserved-current ratio check is provided (Fig. 1). The Appendix also compares blended and general-distillation baryon matrix elements. However, the central conclusion is supported by a single ensemble, one momentum, one source–sink separation, and, for the cleanest kinematic point, only a ≈2.6σ signal; the unbiasedness of the disconnected-loop estimator is not directly verified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.C, Eqs. (51)–(52)] The central claim—that the disconnected contribution is positive and about 1% of the connected one—rests on the blending estimator for the disconnected loop Tr[γ_μ G(x,x)]. The unbiasedness checks reported in Fig. 1 (connected pion matrix element) and the Appendix (connected proton matrix elements) do not exercise this same-time, all-to-all trace, which is precisely the quantity with the special same-time weight rule of Eq. (37). A bias in the random high-mode sampling that is invisible at the 1% level in Fig. 1 could be comparable to the disconnected signal (Table II: 1.63(0.63), 1.9(1.2), 2.7(3.2) × 10^{-3} GeV^{-1}). Please add a direct numerical test of the blended disconnected loop against an exact or independent reference (e.g., point-source, sequential, or exact low-mode plus stochastic high-mode with a different scheme) on at least a subset of configurations, or otherwise demonst
  2. [Sec. III.B, Eqs. (46)–(49)] The complete-blending connected correlator in Eq. (49) requires, at τ=0, the weight tensor Ω^(4)_{ijmn} introduced in Eq. (47). This fourth-order weight is never defined in the text. Since τ=0 contributes to the integral in Eq. (12), Eq. (49) is incomplete as written. Please define Ω^(4) explicitly or state that the τ=0 slice is treated separately; if the τ=0 contribution is negligible, show this numerically.
  3. [Sec. IV and Table II] The statistical evidence for the same-sign conclusion is marginal at two of the three kinematic points: the disconnected contributions are 1.63(0.63), 1.9(1.2), and 2.7(3.2) × 10^{-3} GeV^{-1}, i.e., ≈2.6σ, ≈1.6σ, and <1σ. Combined with the single ensemble, single lattice spacing, single momentum, and single source–sink separation (t_π=18 ≈1.9 fm), the statement that the paper 'confirms' same-sign constructive interference is stronger than the data support. At minimum, a second source–sink separation and a second momentum (or a second ensemble) are needed to establish that the result is not a statistical fluctuation or a systematic artifact of the one geometry.
  4. [Sec. II.A and Table II] The paper never states whether the reported form-factor values are renormalized. The local electromagnetic current in Eq. (2) is a bare lattice current; a finite renormalization constant is generally required. If the same local current is used in the connected and disconnected diagrams, the relative sign and the 1% ratio may be unaffected, but the absolute values in Table II cannot be compared with the ABJ anomaly, PrimEx, or dispersive evaluations without a determination of Z_V. Please state the renormalization convention and, if no Z_V is applied, label the numbers as bare and discuss the implications for the quantitative claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. I] The sentence 'We will present a new calculation method based on blending to confirm this symbol' should presumably read '...to confirm this sign'.
  2. [Sec. II.E, Eq. (35)] In the definition of the blending perambulator, the right-hand side reads '⟨φ_i(t_x,z)|...|φ_i(t_y,w)⟩'; the second index should be φ_j(t_y,w) to be consistent with P_{ij}.
  3. [Sec. III.A] The conversion from lattice units to physical units for the form factor is not shown. Since Table II gives values in GeV^{-1}, please state explicitly how the lattice spacing and renormalization factors enter the conversion.
  4. [Fig. 4] The caption says '100*Disconnected' but the disconnected curve appears scaled by a factor of 100; please state the scaling in the caption (or legend) so that the reader can interpret the vertical axis correctly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central sign result is an independent lattice measurement; the only self-citation is the blending-method reference [24], which is partially validated in this paper.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the pion transition form factor is extracted from three-point correlation functions using standard spectral weights (Z_pi, E_pi from the two-point function) and a fixed kinematic decomposition. No parameter is fitted to the target sign or magnitude of the disconnected contribution; the disconnected values in Table II (1.63(0.63), 1.9(1.2), 2.7(3.2) x 10^-3 GeV^-1) are direct outputs of the lattice contractions. The claim that connected and disconnected contributions have the same sign is therefore a numerical result, not an identity forced by construction. The one genuinely load-bearing imported object is the blending estimator's unbiasedness, cited to the authors' own prior work [24] ("the unbiasedness is proved in [24] and its supplementary material"). This is a self-citation, but it is not circular: the estimator weights are defined so that E[sum Omega |phi><phi|] = I, and the paper provides an independent numerical check against the conserved current in Fig. 1, finding agreement at the ~1% level. The skeptic's remaining concern -- that this check does not directly exercise the same-time disconnected loop of Eq. (51) -- is a systematic-correctness risk, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Thus no specific equation is equivalent by construction to the paper's central conclusion, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The blending basis is a numerical construction, not an invented physical entity. The main axiom load is the same-group blending estimator, the renormalization of the local current, and the representativeness of a single unphysical-mass ensemble. The free parameters are analysis choices (N1, N2, t_pi) that are not fully reported.

free parameters (2)
  • N1, N2 (blending low/high mode counts) = not stated
    The dimensions of the exact low-mode and random high-mode spaces are never reported. Statistical precision and the unbiasedness of the disconnected diagrams depend on these choices.
  • source-sink separation t_pi = 18a ~ 1.9 fm
    Only one temporal separation to the pion interpolating operator is used. The extraction assumes ground-state dominance at this separation, but no excited-state scan is shown.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The blending identity estimator (Eq. 19) and the weight rules (Eqs. 23 and 37) are unbiased for the operators and propagators used.
    This is taken from the authors' previous paper [24]; Fig. 1 verifies only a vector-current matrix element at about the 1% level, not the full set of same-time and disconnected contractions.
  • domain assumption Ground-state saturation at t_pi = 18a (~1.9 fm).
    Eqs. (8)-(12) extract the form factor through a single-pion intermediate state; no excited-state contamination analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption The local electromagnetic current in Eq. (2) is handled with the correct renormalization.
    No multiplicative renormalization factor Z_V or equivalent is mentioned. This affects the absolute values in Table II, although it may not change the sign conclusion.
  • domain assumption The sign observed on the C24P29 ensemble persists at the physical point.
    Only one lattice spacing, one volume, one pion mass, and one three-momentum are used. No chiral, continuum, or volume extrapolation is performed.
  • standard math Standard Wick rotation and time-momentum representation for three-point functions.
    Eqs. (3)-(12) rely on standard Euclidean lattice methodology; not in question.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 11789 in / 15904 out tokens · 142641 ms · 2026-07-31T23:58:48.497185+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the neutral pion transition form factor $F_{\pi^0\gamma^\ast\gamma^\ast}(q_1^2,q_2^2)$ in lattice QCD and confirm that the connected and disconnected contributions have the same sign. We employ the recently proposed blending method, which supplies an unbiased and cheap estimators for the required all-to-all propagators. The external pion states are treated within the distillation framework, while the electromagnetic currents are evaluated in the full blending space. Numerical tests are performed on an $N_f=2+1$ lattice ensemble. Our result shows that the contribution of the disconnected part is approximately $1\%$ of that of the connected part and enables constructive interference of probability amplitudes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27868 by Liuming Liu, Peng Sun, Shihao Su.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. In this work we also calculate the conserved vector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic diagram of the calculation process. BLD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Connected contribution to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Total, connected, and disconnected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The bare matrix element of Scalar Vector Axial Vec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.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

37 extracted references · 25 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Generate a random vectorV r in the fullL

  2. [2]

    We employ the recently proposed blending method, which supplies an unbiased and cheap estimators for the required all- to-all propagators

    in lattice QCD and confirm that the connected and disconnected contributions have the same sign. We employ the recently proposed blending method, which supplies an unbiased and cheap estimators for the required all- to-all propagators. The external pion states are treated within the distillation framework, while the electromagnetic currents are evaluated ...

  3. [3]

    It plays an important role in understanding pre- cision tests of the Standard Model‌[1–6]

    de- scribes the coupling of a neutral pion to two (off-shell) photons. It plays an important role in understanding pre- cision tests of the Standard Model‌[1–6]. The normal- ization of the form factor at zero momentum is fixed by the Adler–Bell–Jackiw (ABJ) chiral anomaly [4, 5], giv- ingF π0γ∗γ∗ (0,0) = 1 4π2Fπ ≈0.274 GeV −1. This predic- tion has been t...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    In this work we setp π = (E π,⃗0)

    is the pion transition form factor. In this work we setp π = (E π,⃗0). Herep π is the momentum of the pion andE π is the energy of the pion ground state. For Energy-Momentum Conservation pπ =q 1 +q 2, the current momentum can be defined as q1 = (δ, ⃗ q1), q2 = (E π −δ,−⃗ q1).δis an arbitrary real number. To evaluate this quantity in lattice QCD, we perfor...

  5. [5]

    Schmidt Orthogonalization)

    Orthogonalize these random vectors to all the vec- tors ofi < r(e.g. Schmidt Orthogonalization)

  6. [6]

    P ⃗ y,⃗ z γνG(y, z)γ5G(z, y)e−i⃗ q2⃗ y # +

    Normalize to this orthogonalized vector. The vectorsV r are constructed sequentially. C. Unbiased Estimator of the Identity The identity operator onLcan be written as ˆI=P[L] i=1 |Vi⟩⟨Vi|in any orthonormal basis. Using the blend- ing basis, an unbiased estimator is: ˆI≈ N1+N2X k=1 Ω(1) k |ϕk⟩⟨ϕk|.(17) with the weight factors: Ω(1) k =    1, k≤N 1 ω0 ≡ ...

  7. [7]

    20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 /a 0 5 10 15 20 25 A( ) [GeV] 0 * * Connected + Disconnected Connected 100*Disconnected FIG

    The parameterδcan be chosen arbitrarily (subject to energy-momentum conser- vationp π =q 1 +q 2), thereby controlling the virtualities assigned to the two photons. 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 /a 0 5 10 15 20 25 A( ) [GeV] 0 * * Connected + Disconnected Connected 100*Disconnected FIG. 4. Total, connected, and disconnectedA(τ) from eq (11) with⃗ q1 = (0,0,1) an...

  8. [8]

    G´ erardin, H

    A. G´ erardin, H. B. Meyer, and A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rev. D100, 034520 (2019), arXiv:1903.09471 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    G´ erardin, W

    A. G´ erardin, W. E. A. Verplanke, G. Wang, Z. Fodor, J. N. Guenther, L. Lellouch, K. K. Szabo, and L. Varnhorst, Phys. Rev. D111, 054511 (2025), arXiv:2305.04570 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    G´ erardin, H

    A. G´ erardin, H. B. Meyer, and A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rev. D94, 074507 (2016), arXiv:1607.08174 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev.177, 2426 (1969)

    1969

  12. [12]

    J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, Nuovo Cim. A60, 47 (1969)

    1969

  13. [13]

    S. L. Adler and W. A. Bardeen, Phys. Rev.182, 1517 (1969)

    1969

  14. [14]

    Larinet al.(PrimEx-II), Science368, 506 (2020), arXiv:2004.14257 [nucl-ex]

    I. Larinet al.(PrimEx-II), Science368, 506 (2020), arXiv:2004.14257 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    T. Blum, P. A. Boyle, V. G¨ ulpers, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, A. J¨ uttner, C. Lehner, A. Portelli, and J. T. Tsang (RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 022003 (2018), arXiv:1801.07224 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Borsanyiet al.(Budapest-Marseille-Wuppertal), Na- ture593, 51 (2021), arXiv:2002.12347 [hep-lat]

    S. Borsanyiet al.(Budapest-Marseille-Wuppertal), Na- ture593, 51 (2021), arXiv:2002.12347 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Blum, Phys

    T. Blum, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 052001 (2003), arXiv:hep- lat/0212018 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2003

  18. [18]

    Aoyamaet al., Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Jegerlehner and A

    F. Jegerlehner and A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rept.477, 1 (2009), arXiv:0902.3360 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  20. [20]

    Colangelo, M

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, JHEP09, 074 (2015), arXiv:1506.01386 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    Hoferichter, B.-L

    M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, B. Kubis, S. Leupold, and S. P. Schneider, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 112002 (2018), arXiv:1805.01471 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    T. Blum, S. Chowdhury, M. Hayakawa, and T. Izubuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 012001 (2015), arXiv:1407.2923 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, and C. Lehner, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 022005 (2017), arXiv:1610.04603 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    E.-H. Chao, R. J. Hudspith, A. G´ erardin, J. R. Green, H. B. Meyer, and K. Ottnad, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 651 (2021), arXiv:2104.02632 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, C. Lehner, and C. Tu, (2023), arXiv:2304.04423 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Colangelo, M

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Lett. B738, 6 (2014), arXiv:1408.2517 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  27. [27]

    T. Lin, M. Bruno, X. Feng, L.-C. Jin, C. Lehner, C. Liu, and Q.-Y. Luo, Rep. Prog. Phys.88, 080501 (2025), arXiv:2411.06349 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    X. Feng, S. Aoki, H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto, T. Kaneko, J.-i. Noaki, and E. Shintani, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 182001 (2012), arXiv:1206.1375 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  29. [29]

    Alexandrouet al.(Extended Twisted Mass), Phys

    C. Alexandrouet al.(Extended Twisted Mass), Phys. Rev. D108, 094514 (2023), arXiv:2308.12458 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Koponen, A

    J. Koponen, A. G´ erardin, K. Ottnad, H. B. Meyer, and G. von Hippel, PoSLA TTICE2024, 231 (2025), arXiv:2503.11428 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Hu, J.-H

    Z.-C. Hu, J.-H. Wang, X. Jiang, L. Liu, S.-H. Su, P. Sun, and Y.-B. Yang, arXiv:2505.01719 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Ji and C.-W

    X.-D. Ji and C.-W. Jung, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 208 (2001), arXiv:hep-lat/0101014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  33. [33]

    X. D. Ji and C. W. Jung, Phys. Rev. D64, 034506 (2001), hep-lat/0103007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  34. [34]

    Peardon, J

    M. Peardon, J. Bulava, J. Foley, C. Morningstar, J. Dudek, R. G. Edwards, B. Jo´ o, H.-W. Lin, D. G. Richards, and K. J. Juge (Hadron Spectrum Collabo- ration), Phys. Rev. D80, 054506 (2009)

    2009

  35. [35]

    Morningstar, J

    C. Morningstar, J. Bulava, J. Foley, K. J. Juge, D. Lenkner, M. Peardon, and C. H. Wong, Phys. Rev. D83, 114505 (2011)

    2011

  36. [36]

    Huet al.(CLQCD), Phys

    Z.-C. Huet al.(CLQCD), Phys. Rev. D109, 054507 (2024), arXiv:2310.00814 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Michael and C

    C. Michael and C. Urbach (ETM), inProceedings of the XXV International Symposium on Lattice Field The- ory (Lattice 2007), Vol. LATTICE2007 (2007) p. 122, arXiv:0709.4564 [hep-lat]. 9 V. APPENDIX For the improved Blending method, we calculated var- ious different matrix elements, such as Vector, Scalar, Axial Vector and Tensor with Proton external state. ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007