Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Correlated low-energy constants in large-$N_c$ chiral perturbation theory

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pion decay data fix one correlated combination of low-energy constants, not three independent numbers.

desk verdict A correct, modest methodological note: fits constrain a correlated (F0,L4,C16) direction, but the paper overstates exactness by omitting loop-log and higher-LEC contributions. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08209 v1 pith:CUBLTNST submitted 2026-08-08 hep-ph hep-lat

Pere Masjuan This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-lat
keywords chiralperturbationtheorylarge-Ncexpansionlow-energyconstantspiondecayconstantcorrelateddirectionsU(3)axionphenomenologynext-to-next-to-leadingorder
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 argues that in the combined chiral and large-$N_c$ expansion, the low-energy constants $(F_0,L_4,C_{16})$ and $(F_0,L_6,C_{20})$ are not independently measurable: the operator structure of the effective Lagrangian makes physical observables depend on specific correlated combinations. Taking the pion decay constant as the illustrative case, the paper shows that what phenomenology actually constrains is the combination $F_\pi^2 \simeq F_0^2 + 16 L_4 M_K^2 + 64 C_{16} M_K^4$, so quoting $F_0$, $L_4$ and $C_{16}$ as separate fitted values overstates the information content of the data. The well-known anticorrelation between $F_0$ and $L_4$ is shown to extend naturally to next-to-next-to-leading order through $C_{16}$, explaining the persistent difficulty in extracting a precise $F_0$. The paper's prescription is to select determinations consistent with the large-$N_c$ operator hierarchy and to propagate uncertainties along these correlated directions rather than treating the couplings independently. This matters for precision U(3) chiral perturbation theory and for low-energy axion phenomenology, where the correlated-direction uncertainty can compete with other subleading effects such as isospin breaking.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the operator chain in the large-$N_c$ kinetic term, written as $\frac{1}{4}\langle u_\mu u^\mu\rangle\left(F_0^2 + 4 L_4 \langle\chi_+\rangle + 4 C_{16} \langle\chi_+^2\rangle + \cdots\right)$. Evaluated in the pion channel it becomes the single combination $F_\pi^2 \simeq F_0^2 + 16 L_4 M_K^2 + 64 C_{16} M_K^4 + \cdots$, which is the identity that carries the argument. This combination defines a flat direction in the $(F_0,L_4,C_{16})$ parameter space, showing explicitly how the leading-order, next-to-leading-order and next-to-next-to-leading-order couplings are slaved to one another by the operator hierarchy; the analogous chain $(F_0,L_6,C_{20})$ follows from the same reasoning.

What would settle it

Measure the pion decay constant over a wide range of quark masses with high precision and fit $F_0$, $L_4$ and $C_{16}$ as independent parameters: the central claim would be falsified if the best-fit values resolve the individual couplings and do not satisfy $F_\pi^2 \simeq F_0^2 + 16 L_4 M_K^2 + 64 C_{16} M_K^4$, or if the $C_{16} M_K^4$ term is not suppressed relative to $16 L_4 M_K^2$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the large-$N_c$ chiral Lagrangian organizes the low-energy constants into correlated families, exemplified by the chains $(F_0,L_4,C_{16})$ and $(F_0,L_6,C_{20})$. For the decay-constant sector, the kinetic operator is $\frac{1}{4}\langle u_\mu u^\mu\rangle \left(F_0^2 + 4 L_4 \langle \chi_+\rangle + 4 C_{16} \langle \chi_+^2\rangle + \cdots\right)$, and because $\langle\chi_+\rangle \sim 4 M_K^2$, the physical pion decay constant obeys $F_\pi^2 \simeq F_0^2 + 16 L_4 M_K^2 + 64 C_{16} M_K^4 + \cdots$. Consequently, phenomenological and lattice determinations of $F_0$, $L_4$ and $C_{16}$ are really determinations of this single correlated direction; the couplings should not be interpreted as independently constrained parameters. The paper applies this reinterpretation to existing determinations, showing that the familiar $F_0$--$L_4$ anticorrelation extends to $C_{16}$ at NNLO, and that the same structure is expected for the $(F_0,L_6,C_{20})$ chain.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the operator tower for the pion decay constant converges fast enough that the terms beyond the $C_{16}$ contribution are negligible; the paper itself flags this as a nontrivial assumption because $4 M_K^2$ is close to 1 GeV$^2$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reported values of $F_0$, $L_4$ and $C_{16}$ from global fits should be understood as one correlated combination, and the uncertainty in $F_0$ cannot be reduced without also constraining $L_4$ and $C_{16}$ along the same direction.
  • The persistent difficulty in extracting a precise value of $F_0$ is a direct consequence of this flat direction, not a sign of insufficient data quality.
  • In U(3) chiral perturbation theory and axion phenomenology, error propagation should move along the $(F_0,L_4,C_{16})$ and $(F_0,L_6,C_{20})$ directions rather than treating the couplings as independent.
  • The NNLO analysis is the first nontrivial test of the numerical hierarchy; higher-order terms in $M_K$ remain an unquantified theoretical uncertainty in the strange-meson sector.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same correlated-direction logic should apply to other observables in the $\eta$--$\eta'$ sector, such as the kaon decay constant ratio $F_K/F_\pi$ and the $\eta$--$\eta'$ mixing parameters, where the same operator chains enter; the paper gestures at this but does not work it out.
  • A direct lattice test would be to fit $F_\pi^2$ with $F_0$, $L_4$ and $C_{16}$ left free over a wide range of quark masses: if the data collapse onto the predicted combination while the individual couplings vary, the direction is confirmed; if the individual couplings are resolvable, the tower is not the full story.
  • For axion phenomenology, propagating uncertainties along the correlated direction instead of independently will likely widen the error bars on axion-meson couplings, since the flat direction allows compensating shifts among $F_0$, $L_4$ and $C_{16}$.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper argues that, within the combined chiral and large-Nc expansion, the low-energy constants (F0, L4, C16) and (F0, L6, C20) organize into correlated operator chains, so that phenomenological fits constrain correlated combinations rather than independent couplings. The argument is centered on Eq. (2), where the pion decay constant is written as Fπ² ≈ F0² + 16 L4 M_K² + 64 C16 M_K⁴, plus a tower of higher-order terms. The paper illustrates the correlation geometry with existing lattice and phenomenological determinations, and it recommends that uncertainties on OZI-suppressed couplings be propagated along these correlated directions.

Significance. If the central claim is correct as stated, the paper provides a useful and economical reinterpretation of the well-known F0–L4 anticorrelation and extends it to NNLO through C16. The paper is honest about the convergence assumption in the strange-meson sector, and the recognition that phenomenological fits often determine combinations rather than individual LECs is timely for U(3) ChPT and axion applications. However, the strict rank-one degeneracy behind Eq. (2) is not established beyond a tree-level truncation, and the promised practical prescription is only verbal. The significance is therefore real but conditional on the authors clarifying the approximation and providing a quantitative check of the dropped loop contributions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2)] The identification of Fπ² with the polynomial operator chain is a tree-level truncation, not a direct consequence of the large-Nc operator structure. At the same chiral orders, the physical decay constant receives one-loop contributions proportional to M_K⁴ log(M_K²/μ²) and NNLO two-loop and logarithmic terms; these contributions depend on L4 and on other LECs such as L5 and L8 in a way that does not factor through the single combination F0² + 16 L4 M_K² + 64 C16 M_K⁴. Consequently, the Hessian of Fπ² with respect to (F0, L4, C16) generically has more than one non-negligible direction, and the statement that fits constrain only this combination is not exact. The paper should either formulate Eq. (2) explicitly as a tree-level effective correlation, with an estimate of the size of the dropped loop directions (for example by including the known one-loop Fπ² in the large-Nc counting), or limit the practical prescription to that approximation. This point is load-bearing because the uncertainty-propagation prescription assumes the rank-one degeneracy.
  2. [Section 2, Eqs. (1)–(2)] The step from the displayed operator in Eq. (1) to the numerical coefficients in Eq. (2) is asserted rather than derived. The physical decay constant differs from the coefficient of the Lagrangian kinetic term by wave-function renormalization, and the replacement ⟨χ₊⟩ ≃ 4 M_K² is an approximation that suppresses the pion-mass dependence in SU(3) and U(3) ChPT. The coefficients 16 and 64 in Eq. (2) should be verified explicitly from a stated Lagrangian normalization, because the correlated direction used for error propagation is determined by those coefficients. Please supply the derivation or a reference that fixes the operator normalization and the relation to the physical Fπ.
  3. [Section 3] The paper advertises a practical prescription, but the text stops at the verbal recommendation to propagate uncertainties along correlated directions. It does not define how a user should construct the correlated error or covariance matrix from a given fit, which quantities are to be combined, or at which renormalization scale and scheme the combination should be evaluated. Without a concrete algorithm or a worked example, the claimed practical implication cannot be checked or applied by a reader. Please provide an explicit propagation formula and a worked example, or clearly restrict the paper's scope to the identification of the correlated directions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] The references in the introduction contain unresolved placeholders, for example "[7?–12]" and "[?]" in the sentence about rare η and η′ decays; these need to be completed.
  2. [Abstract and Section 1] There are typographical spacing errors in phrases such as "theηandη ′ mesons" and "bothηandη ′ mesons"; the Greek letters should be separated from surrounding text.
  3. [Eq. (2)] The same expansion is written as an approximation with "∼" and later as an equality with "+"; please harmonize the notation and include an explicit O(p⁸) or O(M_K⁶) remainder if the equality is intended.
  4. [Figure 1] The caption does not define the confidence levels of the ellipses, the precise values of C16 used for the orange bands, or the quantitative meaning of the shaded regions; adding these details would make the figure self-contained.
  5. [Section 2] The phrase "physical observables are therefore sensitive to this combination rather than to the individual LECs separately" is too strong given the loop caveat; a qualifier such as "at tree level" or "in the operator-chain approximation" should be added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the correlated-direction claim is an explicit operator-structure identity, not a fitted prediction, and the same-author benchmark is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the large-Nc chiral Lagrangian kinetic operator in Eq. (1) contains the combination F0^2 + 4 L4 <chi+> + 4 C16 <chi+^2> + ..., so observables such as Fpi^2 constrain the combination in Eq. (2). This is not a fitted result or an empirical prediction; it is an algebraic consequence of the assumed operator chain, stated transparently as a reinterpretation of existing determinations. The numerical illustration adopts L5, C14, and C17 from Ref. [38] (same author group), but only as a benchmark for drawing the ellipses; changing or removing that input would not alter the existence or direction of the operator chain. The paper explicitly labels the NNLO truncation as a limitation and flags convergence in the strange-meson sector as a nontrivial assumption, so the main caveat is an accuracy/assumption concern rather than circularity. Citations [37,38] are used to note previously observed F0-L4 correlations, but Section 2 re-derives the relevant structure from the Lagrangian, so the self-citations are not load-bearing. No prediction in the paper reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, and no uniqueness claim rests on a self-citation. Score 1 reflects one minor same-author benchmark citation, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or entities; the central claim is an identity from the operator structure. The listed inputs are external values adopted for the illustration. The key implicit assumption is the convergence of the operator tower, which the author explicitly acknowledges.

free parameters (3)
  • F0 (input value) = 86.0(5) MeV
    Fixed input used in the right panel of Figure 1 to project the (L4,C16) correlation; not fitted in this paper but adopted from previous determinations.
  • C16 (illustrative values) = three representative values (orange bands)
    Scanned by hand in Figure 1 to illustrate the correlated operator chain (F0,L4,C16); no fit is performed.
  • L5, C14, C17 = values from Ref. [38]
    Adopted from the author's prior large-Nc analysis to benchmark the numerical illustration; values not quoted in the text.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The combined chiral and large-Nc expansion is the correct organizing framework for the LECs in U(3) ChPT.
    Invoked in the Introduction and throughout; the paper's reinterpretation depends on large-Nc ordering being physically meaningful.
  • standard math The operator basis of the large-Nc chiral Lagrangian of Refs [34-36] is complete at LO, NLO and NNLO for the decay-constant sector.
    Eq. (1) relies on this basis; if additional operators mix in at these orders, the identified chains could be incomplete.
  • domain assumption The mass insertion <χ+> is approximated by 4 M_K^2, so the decay constant combination takes the numerical form of Eq. (2).
    Section 2 uses 'since <χ+> ~ (4 M_K^2)'; this approximation omits pion-mass contributions and is illustrative.
  • domain assumption The operator tower converges numerically, so truncation at NNLO preserves the qualitative correlated direction.
    Explicitly flagged by the author as 'a nontrivial assumption in the strange-meson sector' (Section 2); if false, the practical prescription loses validity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correlated low-energy constants in large-$N_c$ chiral perturbation theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CUBLTNST

@misc{pith2026260808209,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correlated low-energy constants in large-$N_c$ chiral perturbation theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CUBLTNST}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08209}
}
abstract

The combined chiral and large-$N_c$ expansion is increasingly employed in precision studies involving the $\eta$ and $\eta'$ mesons, including recent applications to low-energy axion phenomenology within U(3) chiral perturbation theory. We point out that the operator structure of the large-$N_c$ chiral Lagrangian naturally induces correlated directions among the low-energy constants $(F_0,L_4,C_{16})$ and $(F_0,L_6,C_{20})$, implying that phenomenological analyses determine correlated combinations of couplings rather than independent low-energy constants. Using the determination of the pion decay constant as an illustrative example, we reinterpret existing phenomenological and lattice determinations in terms of these correlated directions, showing that the well-known anticorrelation between $F_0$ and $L_4$ extends naturally to NNLO through $C_{16}$. These correlated directions lead to a practical prescription for interpreting and propagating phenomenological determinations of the low-energy constants consistently within the combined chiral and large-$N_c$ framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08209 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Correlation between F0 and L4 obtained from the NNLO analysis of Ref. [38]. The blue and green ellipses denote the RBC/UKQCD lattice constraints [39, 40]. The orange bands correspond to three representative values of C16, illustrating the correlated operator chain (F0, L4, C16). Right: Correlated values of L4 and C16 for fixed F0 = 86.0(5) MeV. The shaded regions indicate where the NNLO contribution exceeds th… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    Approximating chiral SU(3) ampli- tudes,

    G. Ecker, P. Masjuan, and H. Neufeld, “Approximating chiral SU(3) ampli- tudes,” Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2748 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    Chiral Perturbation Theory to One Loop,

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, “Chiral Perturbation Theory to One Loop,” Annals Phys.158, 142 (1984)

    1984

  3. [2]

    Chiral Perturbation Theory: Expansions in the Mass of the Strange Quark,

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, “Chiral Perturbation Theory: Expansions in the Mass of the Strange Quark,” Nucl. Phys. B250, 465–516 (1985)

    work page 1985

  4. [3]

    Review of Lattice Results Concerning Low-Energy Particle Physics,

    S. Aoki et al., “Review of Lattice Results Concerning Low-Energy Particle Physics,” Eur. Phys. J. C74, 2890 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [4]

    FLAG review 2024,

    Y. Aoki et al., “FLAG review 2024,” Phys. Rev. D113, 014508 (2026)

    work page 2026

  6. [5]

    Mesonic low-energy constants,

    J. Bijnens and G. Ecker, “Mesonic low-energy constants,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.64, 149–174 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [6]

    The QCD axion, precisely,

    G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega, and G. Villadoro, “The QCD axion, precisely,” JHEP01, 034 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [7]

    Study of the interactions of the axion with mesons and photons using a chiral effective Lagrangian model,

    G. Landini and E. Meggiolaro, “Study of the interactions of the axion with mesons and photons using a chiral effective Lagrangian model,” Eur. Phys. J. C80, 302 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    Axion-pion thermalization rate in unitarized NLO chiral perturbation theory,

    L. Di Luzio, J. Martin Camalich, G. Martinelli, J. A. Oller, and G. Piazza, “Axion-pion thermalization rate in unitarized NLO chiral perturbation theory,” Phys. Rev. D108, 035025 (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    a→πππdecay at next-to-leading order in chiral perturbation theory,

    L. Di Luzio and G. Piazza, “a→πππdecay at next-to-leading order in chiral perturbation theory,” JHEP12, 041 (2022). [Erratum: JHEP05, 018 (2023)]. 5

    2022

  3. [10]

    Axion production in the η→ππadecay within SU(3) chiral perturbation theory,

    J.-B. Wang, Z.-H. Guo, Z. Lu, and H.-Q. Zhou, “Axion production in the η→ππadecay within SU(3) chiral perturbation theory,” JHEP11, 029 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    New study of the interactions of the axion with mesons and photons using a chiral effective Lagrangian model,

    E. Meggiolaro and M. Tamburini, “New study of the interactions of the axion with mesons and photons using a chiral effective Lagrangian model,” Phys. Rev. D111, 095024 (2025)

    2025

  5. [12]

    Compre- hensive ALP Searches in Meson Decays,

    J. Alda, M. Fuentes Zamoro, L. Merlo, X. Ponce D ´ ıaz, and S. Rigolin, “Compre- hensive ALP Searches in Meson Decays,” (2025), [arXiv:2507.19578 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Nonderivative Axionic Couplings to Nucleons at large and smallN,

    F. Bigazzi, A. L. Cotrone, M. J¨ arvinen, and E. Kiritsis, “Nonderivative Axionic Couplings to Nucleons at large and smallN,” JHEP01, 100 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    The axion-baryon coupling in SU(3) heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory,

    T. Vonk, F.-K. Guo, and U.-G. Meißner, “The axion-baryon coupling in SU(3) heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory,” JHEP08, 024 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    Comprehensive study of axion photoproduction off the nucleon in chiral effective field theory,

    X.-H. Cao and Z.-H. Guo, “Comprehensive study of axion photoproduction off the nucleon in chiral effective field theory,” Phys. Rev. D110, 095025 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    Axion-meson mixing in light of recent latticeη–η ′ simulations and their two-photon couplings within U(3) chiral theory,

    R. Gao, Z.-H. Guo, J. A. Oller, and H.-Q. Zhou, “Axion-meson mixing in light of recent latticeη–η ′ simulations and their two-photon couplings within U(3) chiral theory,” JHEP04, 022 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    Precision tests of fundamental physics withηandη ′ mesons,

    L. Gan, B. Kubis, E. Passemar, and S. Tulin, “Precision tests of fundamental physics withηandη ′ mesons,” Phys. Rept.945, 1–105 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    Isospin- breaking contribution to the model-independent axion-photon-photon coupling in U(3) chiral theory,

    R. Gao, J. Hao, C.-G. Duan, Z.-H. Guo, J. A. Oller, and H.-Q. Zhou, “Isospin- breaking contribution to the model-independent axion-photon-photon coupling in U(3) chiral theory,” Eur. Phys. J. C85, 97 (2025)

    2025

  12. [19]

    On the decay of a light spinless particle into two photons,

    F. Feruglio, G. Levati and R. Ziegler, “On the decay of a light spinless particle into two photons,” JHEP05(2026), 307

    2026

  13. [20]

    The chiral Lagrangian of CP-violating axion-like particles,

    L. Di Luzio, G. Levati, and P. Paradisi, “The chiral Lagrangian of CP-violating axion-like particles,” JHEP02, 020 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    New physics searches at kaon and hyperon factories,

    E. Goudzovski et al., “New physics searches at kaon and hyperon factories,” Rept. Prog. Phys.86, 016201 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    The REDTOP experiment: Rareη/η ′ Decays To Probe New Physics,

    J. Elam et al., “The REDTOP experiment: Rareη/η ′ Decays To Probe New Physics,” (2022), [arXiv:2203.07651 [hep-ex]]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Hidden-sectors search and probe of discrete symmetries at the REDTOP experiment,

    C. Gatto et al., “Hidden-sectors search and probe of discrete symmetries at the REDTOP experiment,”(2026), [arXiv:2606.12158 [hep-ex]]

    2026 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Measurement of the very rareK + →π +ν¯νdecay,

    E. Cortina Gil et al., “Measurement of the very rareK + →π +ν¯νdecay,” JHEP 06, 093 (2021)

    2021

  18. [25]

    Search for Axionlike and Scalar Particles with the NA64 Experiment,

    D. Banerjee et al., “Search for Axionlike and Scalar Particles with the NA64 Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 081801 (2020)

    2020

  19. [26]

    Study of theK L →π 0ν¯νDecay at the J-PARC KOTO Experiment,

    J. K. Ahn et al., “Study of theK L →π 0ν¯νDecay at the J-PARC KOTO Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 121801 (2021). 6

    2021

  20. [27]

    Search for diphoton decays of an axionlike particle in ra- diativeJ/ψdecays,

    M. Ablikim et al., “Search for diphoton decays of an axionlike particle in ra- diativeJ/ψdecays,” Phys. Rev. D110, L031101 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    Study ofη ′ →π +π−ℓ+ℓ− decays at BESIII,

    M. Ablikim et al., “Study ofη ′ →π +π−ℓ+ℓ− decays at BESIII,” JHEP07, 135 (2024)

    2024

  22. [29]

    Searches for New Physics Beyond the Standard Model in Hyperon Sector,

    J. Zhang, J. Fu, and H.-B. Li, “Searches for New Physics Beyond the Standard Model in Hyperon Sector,” Chin. Phys. Lett.43, 060201 (2026)

    2026

  23. [30]

    Search for the Axion-Like- Particles in theη→π +π−e+e− decay with HADES detector,

    M. Zieli´ nski, K. Pro´ sci´ nski, and P. Salabura, “Search for the Axion-Like- Particles in theη→π +π−e+e− decay with HADES detector,” PoS HADRON2025, 023 (2026)

    2026

  24. [31]

    Search for Axion-Like Particles produced ine+e− collisions at Belle II,

    F. Abudin´ en et al., “Search for Axion-Like Particles produced ine+e− collisions at Belle II,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 161806 (2020)

    2020

  25. [32]

    Search for a Higgs Portal Scalar Decaying to Electron- Positron Pairs in the MicroBooNE Detector,

    P. Abratenko et al., “Search for a Higgs Portal Scalar Decaying to Electron- Positron Pairs in the MicroBooNE Detector,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 151803 (2021)

    2021

  26. [33]

    Search for an Axionlike Particle inBMeson Decays,

    J. P. Lees et al., “Search for an Axionlike Particle inBMeson Decays,” Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 131802 (2022)

    2022

  27. [34]

    Bounds on the light quark masses,

    H. Leutwyler, “Bounds on the light quark masses,” Phys. Lett. B374, 163–168 (1996)

    1996

  28. [35]

    Chiral effective Lagrangian in the largeN c limit: The Nonet case,

    P. Herrera-Siklody, J. I. Latorre, P. Pascual, and J. Taron, “Chiral effective Lagrangian in the largeN c limit: The Nonet case,” Nucl. Phys. B497, 345– 386 (1997)

    1997

  29. [36]

    LargeN c in chiral perturbation theory,

    R. Kaiser and H. Leutwyler, “LargeN c in chiral perturbation theory,” Eur. Phys. J. C17, 623–649 (2000)

    2000

  30. [37]

    Chiral extrapolation and determination of low-energy constants from lattice data,

    G. Ecker, P. Masjuan, and H. Neufeld, “Chiral extrapolation and determination of low-energy constants from lattice data,” Phys. Lett. B692, 184–188 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Continuum Limit Physics from 2+1 Flavor Domain Wall QCD,

    Y. Aoki et al., “Continuum Limit Physics from 2+1 Flavor Domain Wall QCD,” Phys. Rev. D83, 074508 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Domain Wall QCD with Near-Physical Pions,

    R. Arthur et al., “Domain Wall QCD with Near-Physical Pions,” Phys. Rev. D 87, 094514 (2013). 7

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.