Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 11 cited by

Dispersion relation for hadronic light-by-light scattering: subleading contributions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper reports subleading hadronic light-by-light effects summing to $33.2(7.2)\times10^{-11}$ and a full dispersive total of $a_\mu^{\mathrm{HLbL}}=101.9(7.9)\times10^{-11}$.

desk verdict A careful, mostly convincing dispersive update of the HLbL subleading contributions; the effective-pole estimate is the soft spot, but the paper's own error accounting keeps the central claim credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00178 v2 pith:4AEEEUDJ submitted 2024-11-29 hep-ph hep-exhep-latnucl-th

Martin Hoferichter , Peter Stoffer , Maximilian Zillinger This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-latnucl-th
keywords hadroniclight-by-lightscatteringmuonanomalousmagneticmomentdispersionrelationsaxial-vectormesonstransitionformfactorsshort-distanceconstraintsoperatorproductexpansioneffectivepoles
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

This paper sets out to complete the dispersive, i.e., analyticity-based, evaluation of the hadronic light-by-light contribution to the muon's anomalous magnetic moment. Its central result is that the subleading effects—axial-vector mesons, tensor mesons, heavy scalars, the matching to perturbative QCD, and the transition region between low and high photon virtualities—sum to $33.2(7.2)\times10^{-11}$, which combined with previously evaluated contributions gives $a_\mu^{\mathrm{HLbL}}=101.9(7.9)\times10^{-11}$. This matters because the muon $g-2$ experiment is expected to report a final value with roughly twice the current precision, so the theory error on this hadronic piece must shrink accordingly. The paper presents this as the most complete dispersive evaluation available, with uncertainties propagated from data, matching-scale variation, and a deliberate estimate of hadronic states not explicitly included.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the optimized basis of scalar functions $\bar{\Pi}_i$ for the hadronic light-by-light tensor, which lets axial-vector states with $J=1$ and tensor mesons be evaluated without kinematic singularities while leaving previously computed pieces unchanged. On top of this basis, the matching procedure divides the photon-virtuality space into three regions: below a scale $Q_0$ the explicit hadronic states are summed; above $Q_0$ a perturbative QCD quark loop with $\alpha_s$ corrections is used; and where two virtualities are large while the third is small, an operator-product expansion relates the tensor to the vector–vector–axial-vector correlator through the longitudinal and transverse form factors $w_L$ and $w_T$. Effective poles—one pseudoscalar and one axial-vector—with couplings set by the asymptotic matching condition estimate the low-energy effect of hadronic states not listed explicitly.

What would settle it

Replacing the simplified tensor transition form factors by a dispersive calculation in triangle kinematics, specifically the D-wave $\pi\pi$ rescattering contribution to the $f_2(1270)$, would test the total directly: if the resulting $a_\mu$ shifts by more than the quoted effective-pole error of $3.9\times10^{-11}$, the simplified tensor treatment is invalid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the dispersive framework can now account for every significant subleading contribution to hadronic light-by-light scattering without modeling the transition to the short-distance region by hand. In the optimized scalar basis, the narrow-resonance contributions of axial-vector, tensor, and heavy scalar states are evaluated with transition form factors; the high-virtuality region is described by the perturbative quark loop; and the mixed region is constrained through the operator product expansion and the vector–vector–axial-vector correlator. The sum of all these pieces matches the short-distance constraints reasonably well, and the remaining mismatch is estimated with effective poles whose couplings are fixed by the asymptotic matching. The resulting subleading contribution is $a_\mu^{\mathrm{HLbL}}|_{\mathrm{subleading}}=33.2(7.2)\times10^{-11}$, and adding the previously evaluated dispersive contributions and the charm loop gives $a_\mu^{\mathrm{HLbL}}|_{\mathrm{total}}=101.9(7.9)\times10^{-11}$. The paper finds good agreement with the previous consensus evaluation and with one lattice determination, with a slightly lower central value than two other lattice calculations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single effective pseudoscalar pole and a single effective axial-vector pole, with couplings chosen so that the explicit hadronic states plus these poles reproduce the known high-energy behavior when all three photon virtualities are large and equal, capture the low-energy effect of every hadronic state not explicitly listed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the result stands, the dispersive prediction for the hadronic light-by-light contribution is $101.9(7.9)\times10^{-11}$, with an uncertainty small enough to make this part of the muon $g-2$ theory competitive with the forthcoming final measurement.
  • The subleading effects are not a small correction: axial-vector mesons, tensor mesons, heavy scalars, and the short-distance matching together contribute $33.2(7.2)\times10^{-11}$, roughly one third of the total.
  • The result is stable under variation of the matching scale $Q_0\in[1.2,2.0]$ GeV and the operator-product-expansion parameter $r\in[1/8,1/2]$, so the quoted uncertainty is not dominated by the matching-scale choice.
  • Heavy scalars contribute almost nothing, while tensor mesons cancel strongly between the two groups of scalar basis functions, making the simplified tensor transition form factors the most pressing input to replace.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the effective-pole estimate is essentially right, the largest remaining route to precision is experimental: better axial-vector transition form factor data would directly reduce the dominant experimental and $U(3)$-symmetry systematic errors, since the matching-scale error is already subdominant.
  • One could test the effective-pole construction outside the symmetric limit by matching along the asymmetric line $Q_1^2\gg Q_2^2=Q_3^2$; the paper reports that this would require axial-vector couplings about $2.8$ times larger, so an independent determination of an excited axial-vector two-photon coupling would discriminate between the two implementations.
  • A full dispersive treatment of the tensor-meson channel in triangle kinematics, replacing the simplified tensor form factor assumption, could shift the central value by more than the current tensor error because the tensor contribution is a difference of two larger numbers; this is the most direct computation that would sharpen the final number.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents an evaluation of the subleading hadronic light-by-light (HLbL) contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment within the dispersive approach. The authors combine axial-vector transition form factors from Ref. [90], scalar and tensor narrow-resonance estimates, perturbative QCD above a matching scale Q0, and OPE constraints in the mixed region using the VVA correlator analysis of Ref. [91]. Missing higher states are modeled by effective pseudoscalar and axial-vector poles whose couplings are fixed by matching to short-distance constraints. The main result is a_mu^HLbL|_subleading = 33.2(7.2) x 10^-11, and when combined with previously evaluated dispersive contributions and the charm loop, a_mu^HLbL|_total = 101.9(7.9) x 10^-11 (Eq. 4.2). The paper gives a detailed error decomposition into experimental, matching-scale, systematic, and effective-pole uncertainties, and studies the dependence on Q0 and r in Figs. 5 and 6.

Significance. If the result stands, this is the most complete dispersive evaluation of HLbL to date and the first to integrate axial-vector states, tensor mesons, and short-distance constraints in a single framework with a sub-8 x 10^-11 total uncertainty. The paper is transparent: the error budget in Eq. (4.1) is explicit, the matching scale and OPE parameter r are varied, and the authors state the limitations of the tensor TFF approximation and the effective-pole construction. The use of the dispersive VVA analysis of Ref. [91] is a genuine improvement over earlier models. However, the central value and its uncertainty rest on two model-dependent elements, the effective-pole estimate and the simplified tensor TFFs, whose low-energy validation is incomplete. These elements are acknowledged in the text but are not yet demonstrated to be robust enough to support the claimed precision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3 and App. C] The effective-pole construction is the load-bearing element of the final error budget: it contributes 2.0 x 10^-11 to the central subleading value and 3.9 x 10^-11 to its uncertainty in Eq. (4.1). The couplings are fixed by matching the sum of explicit states plus poles to the pQCD short-distance constraints in the symmetric asymptotic limit, but the a_mu integral is dominated by photon virtualities around 1 GeV, where the asymptotic condition has little leverage. The paper itself shows that asymmetric matching changes the required couplings by factors of about 1.5 (pseudoscalar) and 2.8 (axial-vector) (App. C, Eqs. C.3-C.7), and it notes that the contribution from Pi-bar_3-12 can change sign between four-point and triangle kinematics (Sec. 2 and App. C). This indicates that the single-pole ansatz is not demonstrated to represent the low-energy effect of the omitted continuum. The assigned 3.9 x 10^-11 error only covers variations within this ansatz, not failure of the ansatz itself. I request a concrete validation or a more conservative treatment: for example, comparing the effective-pole low-energy contribution with an explicit dispersive estimate of the f2(1270) via pi-pi D-wave rescattering, or testing stability under several pole masses, TFF shapes, and matching directions simultaneously.
  2. [App. B, Eq. (B.3)] The OPE matching sets the ambiguity coefficients c_5^(2), c_6^(2), c_7^(5), and c_9^(3) to zero. The text correctly states that this strict identification holds only for asymptotically large q3^2 and that finite-q3^2 contributions from higher-dimensional operators are expected (App. B, discussion after Eq. B.3). However, the OPE region contributes 10.9 x 10^-11 to the central value in Table 4, which is a substantial part of the subleading result, and no explicit uncertainty is assigned to the c_i^(n)=0 assumption in the final error budget. The matching uncertainty in Eq. (4.1) is defined as the variation from Q0 and r only. I ask the authors to quantify the sensitivity of the OPE-region contribution to the neglected ambiguity terms, for example by using the VVA dispersive analysis of Ref. [91] or by assigning a systematic uncertainty based on the size of the residual mismatches discussed in App. B.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.2)] The tensor-meson contributions are estimated with the simplified TFFs F_2-5^T = 0 and a dipole form with Lambda_T = M_rho. The paper acknowledges this is a drastic approximation and adds a 100% uncertainty on the total tensor contribution, but the central value and the sign of the tensor contribution are controlled by the strong cancellation between a_mu[Pi_1,2] and a_mu[Pi_3-12] that this form produces (Table 1). A 100% uncertainty on the sum does not necessarily cover a different shape or sign of the individual basis-function contributions if the cancellation is altered. Since the f2(1270) is a broad pi-pi resonance, the narrow-resonance approximation with a quark-model TFF should be tested against existing gamma* gamma* -> pi-pi helicity amplitudes or by varying the TFF parametrization (monopole vs dipole, different Lambda_T). This is a load-bearing point for the subleading central value and should be addressed before final publication.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4 and Table 4] The footnote to Table 4 clarifies that the errors in the main part of the table exclude the systematic and effective-pole uncertainties, but this is easy to miss; I suggest adding one sentence in Sec. 4 stating explicitly that the experimental and pQCD errors in Table 4 must be combined with the matching, systematic, and effective-pole errors from Eq. (4.1).
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.2)] Please define more explicitly how F_1^T(0,0) is normalized to the two-photon width and how the sign of F_1^T is chosen; currently the reader has to reconstruct this from Ref. [86] and Table 1.
  3. [App. A] The parameters beta and gamma in Eq. (A.6) are introduced with only a brief motivation; please state explicitly which values are used in the numerical analysis (gamma = 1.5 is mentioned, but beta is not numerically specified in the main text).
  4. [Sec. 2] The sentence in the introduction 'In this work, describing the details of Ref. [94]' is confusing; if Ref. [94] is the companion Letter, please rephrase to avoid the appearance that this paper merely describes the Letter rather than being a full account.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central value is grounded in external data, pQCD/OPE short-distance constraints, and dispersive inputs; the effective-pole estimate is model-dependent but not circular.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: the subleading a_mu result in Eq. (4.1) is built from narrow-resonance TFFs normalized to measured two-photon widths and axial-vector TFF parameters fitted to e+e- and radiative-decay data (Tables 1-2), pQCD quark-loop and alpha_s corrections from Ref. [96] in the asymptotic region (Table 3), OPE constraints matched to the dispersive VVA analysis of Ref. [91] (App. B), and a scale-variation procedure in Q0 and r. The effective poles of Sec. 3 and App. C are constructed to satisfy the SDCs in the symmetric (and, for error estimates, asymmetric) asymptotic limit, and their low-energy contributions to a_mu are then computed from the resulting TFFs and added with a separate 3.9 x 10^-11 uncertainty. This is an estimate of omitted-state effects, explicitly labeled as such, not a quantity forced by construction: the asymptotic matching fixes the product of coupling and TFF scale (Eqs. C.3-C.7), while the low-energy integral is dominated by Q^2 around 1 GeV^2 and depends on the chosen masses and TFF scales, which the paper varies and reports as an ambiguity. The choice of the f1 -> phi gamma-free axial-vector fit is made on the basis of the SDC matching quality, a model-selection step that does not reduce to the final a_mu claim. Prior work by the same authors (optimized basis Ref. [92], axial-vector TFF analyses Refs. [88-90], VVA dispersive analysis Ref. [91]) is cited for explicit, published derivations whose assumptions do not include the target value of a_mu; these citations are independent support, not load-bearing self-citations. The main caveat, that a single-pole ansatz may not represent the true low-energy effect of the omitted continuum, is a model-dependence and correctness concern rather than circularity, and it is acknowledged in the paper's own discussion of future improvements.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The evaluation rests on a chain of external inputs: axial-vector TFF couplings fitted to data in Ref. [90], two-photon widths from the PDG, pQCD quark-loop results from Ref. [96], the dispersive VVA analysis of Ref. [91], and lattice/OPE inputs. On top of these, the paper introduces several ad hoc modeling choices: the narrow-resonance saturation of the hadronic sum, the quark-model tensor TFF shape, the selection of the axial-vector fit variant without f1 -> phi gamma, the effective-pole representation of missing states, and the matching-scale variations used as uncertainties. Most of these are propagated into the final error, but the central value depends on them.

free parameters (12)
  • s_m = 1.5 GeV^2 (central), varied to 2.0 GeV^2
    Transition scale in asymptotic axial-vector TFFs; fixed by comparing VMD+asym model to the dispersive a1 TFF (Sec. 2, Fig. 1).
  • F_A^eff = from light-cone sum rules [88,124]
    Effective axial-vector decay constant in asymptotic TFF (App. A); central value not quoted in this paper.
  • beta = not stated numerically
    Corrects singly-virtual coefficient of asymptotic axial-vector TFF at finite values (App. A, Eq. A.6); chosen so low-energy VMD contribution remains valid.
  • gamma = 1.5
    Adjusts smooth behavior of asymptotic axial-vector TFF at small virtualities (App. A).
  • Q0 = 1.5 GeV central, varied in [1.2,2.0] GeV
    Matching scale separating hadronic and pQCD/OPE regions; used as matching uncertainty (Sec. 3).
  • r = 1/4 central, varied to 1/8 and 1/2
    Parameter controlling validity of OPE condition (Eq. 3.1).
  • M_eff^P, M_eff^A = 2.2 GeV, 1.7 GeV
    Masses of effective poles representing missing higher states (Sec. 3, footnote 1).
  • Lambda_P, Lambda_A (effective pole TFF scales) = 1.5 GeV central, varied in Q0 range
    TFF scales of effective poles; scale variation contributes to effective-pole uncertainty (App. C).
  • Lambda_S, Lambda_T = Lambda_S = Lambda_T = M_rho
    VMD scales in scalar and tensor TFFs (Sec. 2, Eqs. 2.1, 2.2).
  • Axial-vector TFF couplings C_s, C_a1, C_a2, theta_A = from global fit in Ref. [90]
    Determine normalizations and mixing of f1, f1', a1 TFFs; experimental uncertainties propagated (Sec. 2, Table 2).
  • Two-photon widths of scalars/tensors = PDG values in Table 1
    Normalize F_1^S and F_1^T at zero virtualities (Sec. 2, Table 1).
  • Tensor TFF functional form = F_1^T = (Lambda_T^2/(Lambda_T^2 - q1^2 - q2^2))^2, F_2-5 = 0
    Quark-model-inspired simplified shape for tensor-meson TFFs (Sec. 2, Eq. 2.2); no uncertainty propagated except 100% overall.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Dispersion relations reconstruct the HLbL tensor from its singularities, expressed in terms of experimentally accessible TFFs.
    Invoked in Sec. 1 and throughout; basis of the dispersive program.
  • domain assumption The optimized basis of Ref. [92] is free of kinematic singularities for J<=1 and for tensor mesons when only F_1^T is nonzero.
    Used in Sec. 2 to evaluate scalar functions.
  • ad hoc to paper Below Q0, the hadronic spectrum is saturated by the explicit narrow resonances (pseudoscalars, axial vectors, heavy scalars, tensors) plus effective poles; no other intermediate states contribute significantly.
    Central modeling assumption (Secs. 2,3).
  • domain assumption Tensor-meson TFFs have only F_1^T nonzero, as predicted by the quark model (Ref. [110]).
    Eq. (2.2); it is the basis for the first tensor estimate.
  • ad hoc to paper U(3) symmetry relates f1, f1', a1 TFFs, and the f1 -> phi gamma constraint is excluded in the central fit.
    Sec. 2, Table 2, and the 30% systematic.
  • domain assumption In the OPE matching, the ambiguity coefficients c_5^(2)=c_6^(2)=c_7^(5)=c_9^(3)=0; at finite q3^2, these ambiguities cancel in the a_mu integral as argued in Ref. [98].
    App. B, Eqs. (B.1)-(B.3).
  • ad hoc to paper The effective-pole couplings are determined by matching the sum of all states to the pQCD SDCs in the symmetric asymptotic limit, and this construction captures the low-energy effect of missing states.
    App. C, Eqs. (C.3)-(C.7).
  • domain assumption The quark-loop result with NLO alpha_s corrections from Ref. [96] describes the pQCD region.
    Used in Sec. 3 and Table 3; also relies on alpha_s from [125,126].
invented entities (2)
  • Effective pseudoscalar pole P(2200)
    purpose: Represents the combined effect of heavier pseudoscalar states missed by the explicit hadronic sum; improves matching to pQCD.
    No data or independent prediction for this pole; its coupling is fixed by requiring the hadronic sum plus pole to match SDCs asymptotically (App. C).
  • Effective axial-vector pole A(1700)
    purpose: Represents missing heavier axial-vector states and improves matching in Pi_4,7,17,39.
    Same construction; its mass is motivated by the a1(1640), but the coupling is fixed by the symmetric asymptotic SDC matching (Sec. 3, App. C).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dispersion relation for hadronic light-by-light scattering: subleading contributions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4AEEEUDJ

@misc{pith2026241200178,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dispersion relation for hadronic light-by-light scattering: subleading contributions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4AEEEUDJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00178}
}
abstract

In this work, we present an evaluation of subleading effects in the hadronic light-by-light contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. Using a recently derived optimized basis, we first study the matching of axial-vector contributions to short-distance constraints at the level of the scalar basis functions, finding that also the tails of the pseudoscalar poles and tensor mesons play a role. We then develop a matching strategy that allows for a combined evaluation of axial-vector and short-distance constraints, supplemented by an estimate of tensor-meson contributions based on simplified assumptions for their transition form factors. Uncertainties are primarily propagated from the axial-vector transition form factors and the variation of the matching scale, but we also consider estimates of the low-energy effect of hadronic states not explicitly included. In total, we obtain $a_\mu^\text{HLbL}\big|_\text{subleading}=33.2(7.2)\times 10^{-11}$, which in combination with previously evaluated contributions in the dispersive approach leads to $a_\mu^\text{HLbL}\big|_\text{total}=101.9(7.9)\times 10^{-11}$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 11 Pith papers

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

  1. Precision evaluation of the $\eta$- and $\eta'$-pole contributions to hadronic light-by-light scattering in the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon

    hep-ph 2024-11 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    A new dispersive analysis of the eta and eta-prime transition form factors gives a_mu(eta-pole) = 14.7(9) x 10^-11 and a_mu(eta'-pole) = 13.5(7) x 10^-11, with combined pseudoscalar poles at 91.2(+2.9,-2.4) x 10^-11.

  2. Tensor meson transition form factors in holographic QCD and the muon $g-2$

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Holographic QCD predicts a positive tensor-meson contribution of about +11e-11 to the muon g-2, driven by a previously omitted doubly-virtual form factor.

  3. Complete dispersive evaluation of the hadronic light-by-light contribution to muon $g-2$

    hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Using a dispersive formalism with experimental transition form factors and short-distance constraints, the authors obtain a_mu^HLbL = 101.9(7.9) x 10^-11, halving the previous uncertainty.

  4. HadroTOPS: A Monte Carlo Event Generator For Hadron Production In Two-Photon Scattering In Electron Positron Collisions

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new Monte Carlo generator, HadroTOPS, implements the fully differential exclusive e+e- -> e+e- M1M2 cross-section with azimuthal modulations and covers pi+pi-, pi0pi0, pi0eta, K+K-, KsKs, eta eta, and f1(1285) modes.

  5. Longitudinal short-distance constraints on hadronic light-by-light scattering and tensor meson contributions to the muon $g-2$

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In hard-wall holographic QCD, the infinite tower of tensor mesons fills most of the missing symmetric longitudinal short-distance constraint and yields a total hadronic light-by-light contribution of about +11 x 10^-1...

  6. Dispersive analysis of the pion vector form factor without zeros

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Imposing the absence of complex zeros in the pion vector form factor reduces the dominant systematic uncertainty and makes the tensions between CMD-3 and other e+e- data sets appear sharper, including in the pion char...

  7. Hadronic vacuum polarization for the muon $g-2$ from lattice QCD: Long-distance and full light-quark connected contribution

    hep-lat 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The light-quark connected hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to muon g-2 is determined to 0.69% precision, 655.2(4.5) x 10^-10, from lattice QCD.

  8. Dispersion relation for hadronic light-by-light scattering: $\eta$ and $\eta'$ poles

    hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dispersive analysis of the eta and eta' transition form factors yields data-driven pole contributions to the muon g-2 of 14.7(9) x 10^-11 and 13.5(7) x 10^-11.

  9. Superconnections in AdS/QCD and the hadronic light-by-light contribution to the muon $g-2$

    hep-ph 2024-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A scalar-extended Chern-Simons superconnection in hard-wall AdS/QCD improves f1-f1' mixing and photon rates while leaving the combined axial-vector plus excited-pseudoscalar HLBL contribution to muon g-2 stable near 32e-11.

  10. Constraints on the hadronic light-by-light tensor in corner kinematics for the muon $g-2$

    hep-ph 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In corner kinematics, the hadronic light-by-light tensor including gluonic corrections reduces at the studied order to a compact integrand depending only on axial-current form factors.

  11. Muon lifetime and Fermi constant: an update

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 4.5 of 10

    Updated Δq = (−4 384 678 ± 34)×10^{-9} reduces theory error on the muon lifetime by an order of magnitude and gives G_F = 1.166 378 59(59)×10^{-5} GeV^{-2}.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 11 Pith papers

  1. [90]

    Hoferichter, B

    M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, and M. Zanke, JHEP08, 209 (2023), arXiv:2307.14413 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [91]

    Lüdtke, M

    J. Lüdtke, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, (2024), arXiv:2410.11946 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Aoyama et al., Phys

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

    arXiv 2020

  4. [2]

    Aoyama, M

    T. Aoyama, M. Hayakawa, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 111808 (2012), arXiv:1205.5370 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2012

  5. [3]

    Aoyama, T

    T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Atoms7, 28 (2019). – 21 –

    2019

  6. [4]

    Czarnecki, W

    A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano, and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D67, 073006 (2003), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D73, 119901 (2006)], arXiv:hep-ph/0212229

    arXiv 2003

  7. [5]

    Gnendiger, D

    C. Gnendiger, D. Stöckinger, and H. Stöckinger-Kim, Phys. Rev. D88, 053005 (2013), arXiv:1306.5546 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2013

  8. [6]

    Davier, A

    M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 827 (2017), arXiv:1706.09436 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 141 references
  1. [7]

    Keshavarzi, D

    A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D97, 114025 (2018), arXiv:1802.02995 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Colangelo, M

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, and P. Stoffer, JHEP02, 006 (2019), arXiv:1810.00007 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Hoferichter, B.-L

    M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, and B. Kubis, JHEP08, 137 (2019), arXiv:1907.01556 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Davier, A

    M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 241 (2020), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C80, 410 (2020)], arXiv:1908.00921 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Keshavarzi, D

    A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D101, 014029 (2020), arXiv:1911.00367 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [12]

    B.-L. Hoid, M. Hoferichter, and B. Kubis, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 988 (2020), arXiv:2007.12696 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [13]

    A. Kurz, T. Liu, P. Marquard, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B734, 144 (2014), arXiv:1403.6400 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Melnikov and A

    K. Melnikov and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D70, 113006 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0312226

    2004 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Colangelo, M

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, JHEP09, 091 (2014), arXiv:1402.7081 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Colangelo, M

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

    2014 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Colangelo, M

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

    2015 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Masjuan and P

    P. Masjuan and P. Sánchez-Puertas, Phys. Rev. D95, 054026 (2017), arXiv:1701.05829 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Colangelo, M

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 232001 (2017), arXiv:1701.06554 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Colangelo, M

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, JHEP04, 161 (2017), arXiv:1702.07347 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [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]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Hoferichter, B.-L

    M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, B. Kubis, S. Leupold, and S. P. Schneider, JHEP10, 141 (2018), arXiv:1808.04823 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Gérardin, H

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

    2019 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Bijnens, N

    J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, and A. Rodríguez-Sánchez, Phys. Lett. B798, 134994 (2019), arXiv:1908.03331 [hep-ph]. – 22 –

    2019 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Colangelo, F

    G. Colangelo, F. Hagelstein, M. Hoferichter, L. Laub, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Rev. D101, 051501 (2020), arXiv:1910.11881 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Colangelo, F

    G. Colangelo, F. Hagelstein, M. Hoferichter, L. Laub, and P. Stoffer, JHEP03, 101 (2020), arXiv:1910.13432 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [27]

    T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, and C. Lehner (RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 132002 (2020), arXiv:1911.08123 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Colangelo, M

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, A. Nyffeler, M. Passera, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Lett. B735, 90 (2014), arXiv:1403.7512 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [29]

    Colangelo et al., (2022), arXiv:2203.15810 [hep-ph]

    G. Colangelo et al., (2022), arXiv:2203.15810 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Crivellin, M

    A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, C. A. Manzari, and M. Montull, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 091801 (2020), arXiv:2003.04886 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Keshavarzi, W

    A. Keshavarzi, W. J. Marciano, M. Passera, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D102, 033002 (2020), arXiv:2006.12666 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Malaescu and M

    B. Malaescu and M. Schott, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 46 (2021), arXiv:2008.08107 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Colangelo, M

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Lett. B814, 136073 (2021), arXiv:2010.07943 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Stamen, D

    D. Stamen, D. Hariharan, M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, and P. Stoffer, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 432 (2022), arXiv:2202.11106 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Colangelo, A

    G. Colangelo, A. X. El-Khadra, M. Hoferichter, A. Keshavarzi, C. Lehner, P. Stoffer, and T. Teubner, Phys. Lett. B833, 137313 (2022), arXiv:2205.12963 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Colangelo, M

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

    2022 arXiv

  31. [37]

    Hoferichter, G

    M. Hoferichter, G. Colangelo, B.-L. Hoid, B. Kubis, J. Ruiz de Elvira, D. Schuh, D. Stamen, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 161905 (2023), arXiv:2307.02532 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Hoferichter, B.-L

    M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, B. Kubis, and D. Schuh, JHEP08, 208 (2023), arXiv:2307.02546 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [39]

    Stoffer, G

    P. Stoffer, G. Colangelo, and M. Hoferichter, JINST18, C10021 (2023), arXiv:2308.04217 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Davier, A

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

    2024 arXiv

  35. [41]

    F. V. Ignatovet al. (CMD-3), Phys. Rev. D109, 112002 (2024), arXiv:2302.08834 [hep-ex]

    2024

  36. [42]

    F. V. Ignatovet al. (CMD-3), Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 231903 (2024), arXiv:2309.12910 [hep-ex]

    2024

  37. [43]

    T. P. Leplumey and P. Stoffer, (2025), arXiv:2501.09643 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Campanario, H

    F. Campanario, H. Czyż, J. Gluza, T. Jeliński, G. Rodrigo, S. Tracz, and D. Zhuridov, Phys. Rev. D100, 076004 (2019), arXiv:1903.10197 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [45]

    Ignatov and R

    F. Ignatov and R. N. Lee, Phys. Lett. B833, 137283 (2022), arXiv:2204.12235 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Colangelo, M

    G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, J. Monnard, and J. Ruiz de Elvira, JHEP08, 295 (2022), [Erratum: JHEP 09, 177 (2024)], arXiv:2207.03495 [hep-ph]. – 23 –

    2022 arXiv

  41. [47]

    Monnard, Radiative corrections for the two-pion contribution to the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g − 2, Ph.D

    J. Monnard, Radiative corrections for the two-pion contribution to the hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the muon g − 2, Ph.D. thesis, Universität Bern (2021)

    2021

  42. [48]

    Abbiendi et al., (2022), arXiv:2201.12102 [hep-ph]

    G. Abbiendi et al., (2022), arXiv:2201.12102 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [49]

    J. P. Leeset al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D108, L111103 (2023), arXiv:2308.05233 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Aliberti et al., (2024), arXiv:2410.22882 [hep-ph]

    R. Aliberti et al., (2024), arXiv:2410.22882 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Borsányi et al

    S. Borsányi et al. (BMWc), Nature593, 51 (2021), arXiv:2002.12347 [hep-lat]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Cè et al., Phys

    M. Cè et al., Phys. Rev. D106, 114502 (2022), arXiv:2206.06582 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Alexandrou et al

    C. Alexandrou et al. (ETM), Phys. Rev. D107, 074506 (2023), arXiv:2206.15084 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (Fermilab Lattice, HPQCD, MILC), Phys. Rev. D107, 114514 (2023), arXiv:2301.08274 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [55]

    Blum et al

    T. Blum et al. (RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. D108, 054507 (2023), arXiv:2301.08696 [hep-lat]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Boccaletti et al

    A. Boccaletti et al. (BMWc), (2024), arXiv:2407.10913 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [57]

    Blum et al

    T. Blum et al. (RBC, UKQCD), (2024), arXiv:2410.20590 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [58]

    Djukanovic, G

    D. Djukanovic, G. von Hippel, S. Kuberski, H. B. Meyer, N. Miller, K. Ottnad, J. Parrino, A. Risch, and H. Wittig, (2024), arXiv:2411.07969 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [59]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (Fermilab Lattice, HPQCD, MILC), (2024), arXiv:2412.18491 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [60]

    D. P. Aguillardet al. (Muon g − 2), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 161802 (2023), arXiv:2308.06230 [hep-ex]

    2023

  55. [61]

    D. P. Aguillardet al. (Muon g − 2), Phys. Rev. D110, 032009 (2024), arXiv:2402.15410 [hep-ex]

    2024

  56. [62]

    Grange et al

    J. Grange et al. (Muon g − 2), (2015), arXiv:1501.06858 [physics.ins-det]

    2015 arXiv

  57. [63]

    Pauk and M

    V. Pauk and M. Vanderhaeghen, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3008 (2014), arXiv:1401.0832 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  58. [64]

    Danilkin and M

    I. Danilkin and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D95, 014019 (2017), arXiv:1611.04646 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [65]

    Jegerlehner, The Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon , Vol

    F. Jegerlehner, The Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon , Vol. 274 (Springer, Cham, 2017)

    2017

  60. [66]

    Knecht, S

    M. Knecht, S. Narison, A. Rabemananjara, and D. Rabetiarivony, Phys. Lett. B787, 111 (2018), arXiv:1808.03848 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [67]

    Eichmann, C

    G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, and R. Williams, Phys. Rev. D101, 054015 (2020), arXiv:1910.06795 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [68]

    Roig and P

    P. Roig and P. Sánchez-Puertas, Phys. Rev. D101, 074019 (2020), arXiv:1910.02881 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [69]

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

    2021 arXiv

  64. [70]

    E.-H. Chao, R. J. Hudspith, A. Gérardin, J. R. Green, and H. B. Meyer, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 664 (2022), arXiv:2204.08844 [hep-lat]

    2022 arXiv

  65. [71]

    T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, C. Lehner, and C. Tu (RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. D111, 014501 (2025), arXiv:2304.04423 [hep-lat]. – 24 –

    2025 arXiv

  66. [72]

    Fodor, A

    Z. Fodor, A. Gérardin, L. Lellouch, K. K. Szabó, B. C. Toth, and C. Zimmermann (BMWc), (2024), arXiv:2411.11719 [hep-lat]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [73]

    Hoferichter, G

    M. Hoferichter, G. Colangelo, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser.35, 1460400 (2014), arXiv:1309.6877 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  68. [74]

    S. P. Schneider, B. Kubis, and F. Niecknig, Phys. Rev. D86, 054013 (2012), arXiv:1206.3098 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  69. [75]

    Hoferichter, B

    M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, and D. Sakkas, Phys. Rev. D86, 116009 (2012), arXiv:1210.6793 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  70. [76]

    Hoferichter, B

    M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, S. Leupold, F. Niecknig, and S. P. Schneider, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3180 (2014), arXiv:1410.4691 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  71. [77]

    Hoferichter, B.-L

    M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, B. Kubis, and J. Lüdtke, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 172004 (2022), arXiv:2105.04563 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  72. [78]

    Stollenwerk, C

    F. Stollenwerk, C. Hanhart, A. Kupść, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Wirzba, Phys. Lett. B707, 184 (2012), arXiv:1108.2419 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  73. [79]

    Hanhart, A

    C. Hanhart, A. Kupść, U.-G. Meißner, F. Stollenwerk, and A. Wirzba, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2668 (2013), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C75, 242 (2015)], arXiv:1307.5654 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  74. [80]

    Kubis and J

    B. Kubis and J. Plenter, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 283 (2015), arXiv:1504.02588 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  75. [81]

    S. Holz, J. Plenter, C.-W. Xiao, T. Dato, C. Hanhart, B. Kubis, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Wirzba, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1002 (2021), arXiv:1509.02194 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [82]

    S. Holz, C. Hanhart, M. Hoferichter, and B. Kubis, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 434 (2022), [Addendum: Eur. Phys. J. C82, 1159 (2022)], arXiv:2202.05846 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  77. [83]

    Holz, The Quest for the η and η′ Transition Form Factors:A Stroll on the Precision Frontier, Ph.D

    S. Holz, The Quest for the η and η′ Transition Form Factors:A Stroll on the Precision Frontier, Ph.D. thesis, University of Bonn (2022)

    2022

  78. [84]

    S. Holz, M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, and B. Kubis, (2024), arXiv:2411.08098 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [85]

    S. Holz, M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, and B. Kubis, (2024), arXiv:2412.16281 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [86]

    Danilkin, M

    I. Danilkin, M. Hoferichter, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Lett. B820, 136502 (2021), arXiv:2105.01666 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  81. [87]

    Deineka, I

    O. Deineka, I. Danilkin, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D111, 034009 (2025), arXiv:2410.12894 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  82. [88]

    Hoferichter and P

    M. Hoferichter and P. Stoffer, JHEP05, 159 (2020), arXiv:2004.06127 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  83. [89]

    Zanke, M

    M. Zanke, M. Hoferichter, and B. Kubis, JHEP07, 106 (2021), arXiv:2103.09829 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Hoferichter, P

    M. Hoferichter, P. Stoffer, and M. Zillinger, JHEP04, 092 (2024), arXiv:2402.14060 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Lüdtke, M

    J. Lüdtke, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, JHEP04, 125 (2023), arXiv:2302.12264 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Hoferichter, P

    M. Hoferichter, P. Stoffer, and M. Zillinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 061902 (2025), arXiv:2412.00190 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Bijnens, N

    J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, L. Laub, and A. Rodríguez-Sánchez, JHEP10, 203 (2020), arXiv:2008.13487 [hep-ph]. – 25 –

    2020 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Bijnens, N

    J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, L. Laub, and A. Rodríguez-Sánchez, JHEP04, 240 (2021), arXiv:2101.09169 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Bijnens, N

    J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, and A. Rodríguez-Sánchez, JHEP02, 167 (2023), arXiv:2211.17183 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Bijnens, N

    J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, and A. Rodríguez-Sánchez, (2024), arXiv:2411.09578 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Knecht, JHEP08, 056 (2020), arXiv:2005.09929 [hep-ph]

    M. Knecht, JHEP08, 056 (2020), arXiv:2005.09929 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Masjuan, P

    P. Masjuan, P. Roig, and P. Sánchez-Puertas, J. Phys. G49, 015002 (2022), arXiv:2005.11761 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Lüdtke and M

    J. Lüdtke and M. Procura, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1108 (2020), arXiv:2006.00007 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Colangelo, F

    G. Colangelo, F. Hagelstein, M. Hoferichter, L. Laub, and P. Stoffer, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 702 (2021), arXiv:2106.13222 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Leutgeb and A

    J. Leutgeb and A. Rebhan, Phys. Rev. D101, 114015 (2020), arXiv:1912.01596 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Cappiello, O

    L. Cappiello, O. Catà, G. D’Ambrosio, D. Greynat, and A. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D102, 016009 (2020), arXiv:1912.02779 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Leutgeb and A

    J. Leutgeb and A. Rebhan, Phys. Rev. D104, 094017 (2021), arXiv:2108.12345 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Leutgeb, J

    J. Leutgeb, J. Mager, and A. Rebhan, Phys. Rev. D107, 054021 (2023), arXiv:2211.16562 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Colangelo, F

    P. Colangelo, F. Giannuzzi, and S. Nicotri, Phys. Rev. D109, 094036 (2024), arXiv:2402.07579 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Leutgeb, J

    J. Leutgeb, J. Mager, and A. Rebhan, (2024), arXiv:2411.10432 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Eichmann, C

    G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, T. Haeuser, and O. Regenfelder, (2024), arXiv:2411.05652 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  102. [110]

    G. A. Schuler, F. A. Berends, and R. van Gulik, Nucl. Phys. B523, 423 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9710462

    1998 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  104. [112]

    García-Martín and B

    R. García-Martín and B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C70, 155 (2010), arXiv:1006.5373 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Hoferichter, D

    M. Hoferichter, D. R. Phillips, and C. Schat, Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1743 (2011), arXiv:1106.4147 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Moussallam, Eur

    B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C73, 2539 (2013), arXiv:1305.3143 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Danilkin and M

    I. Danilkin and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Lett. B789, 366 (2019), arXiv:1810.03669 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Hoferichter and P

    M. Hoferichter and P. Stoffer, JHEP07, 073 (2019), arXiv:1905.13198 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Danilkin, O

    I. Danilkin, O. Deineka, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D101, 054008 (2020), arXiv:1909.04158 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Lu and B

    J. Lu and B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 436 (2020), arXiv:2002.04441 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Schäfer, M

    H. Schäfer, M. Zanke, Y. Korte, and B. Kubis, Phys. Rev. D108, 074025 (2023), arXiv:2307.10357 [hep-ph]. – 26 –

    2023 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Achardet al

    P. Achardet al. (L3), Phys. Lett. B526, 269 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0110073

    2002 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Achardet al

    P. Achardet al. (L3), JHEP 03, 018 (2007)

    2007

  114. [122]

    Aubert et al

    B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D76, 092005 (2007), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D77, 119902 (2008)], arXiv:0708.2461 [hep-ex]

    2007 arXiv

  115. [123]

    J. P. Leeset al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D107, 072001 (2023), arXiv:2207.10340 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Yang, Nucl

    K.-C. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B776, 187 (2007), arXiv:0705.0692 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Herren and M

    F. Herren and M. Steinhauser, Comput. Phys. Commun.224, 333 (2018), arXiv:1703.03751 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  118. [126]

    K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kühn, and M. Steinhauser, Comput. Phys. Commun.133, 43 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0004189

    2000 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Vainshtein, Phys

    A. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B569, 187 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212231

    2003 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Knecht, S

    M. Knecht, S. Peris, M. Perrottet, and E. de Rafael, JHEP03, 035 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311100

    2004 arXiv

  121. [129]

    C. F. Redmer, Nuovo Cim. C47, 247 (2024)

    2024

  122. [130]

    Ablikim et al

    M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Chin. Phys. C44, 040001 (2020), arXiv:1912.05983 [hep-ex]

    2020

  123. [131]

    Altmannshofer et al

    W. Altmannshofer et al. (Belle-II), PTEP 2019, 123C01 (2019), [Erratum: PTEP2020, 029201 (2020)], arXiv:1808.10567 [hep-ex]

    2019

  124. [132]

    Adam, The Hadronic Light-By-Light Contribution to the Muon g − 2 in Triangle Kinematics at Short Distances , Master’s thesis, Universität Wien (2023)

    M. Adam, The Hadronic Light-By-Light Contribution to the Muon g − 2 in Triangle Kinematics at Short Distances , Master’s thesis, Universität Wien (2023)

    2023

  125. [133]

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

    1969

  126. [134]

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

    1969

  127. [135]

    G. S. Baliet al., Phys. Rev. D86, 094512 (2012), arXiv:1209.6015 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  128. [136]

    Dürr et al

    S. Dürr et al. (BMWc), Phys. Lett. B701, 265 (2011), arXiv:1011.2403 [hep-lat]

    2011 arXiv

  129. [137]

    Arthur et al

    R. Arthur et al. (RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. D87, 094514 (2013), arXiv:1208.4412 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  130. [138]

    Bazavov et al

    A. Bazavov et al. (Fermilab Lattice, MILC, TUMQCD), Phys. Rev. D98, 054517 (2018), arXiv:1802.04248 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  131. [139]

    A. T. Lytle, C. T. H. Davies, D. Hatton, G. P. Lepage, and C. Sturm (HPQCD), Phys. Rev. D 98, 014513 (2018), arXiv:1805.06225 [hep-lat]

    2018 arXiv

  132. [140]

    Bruno et al

    M. Bruno et al. (ALPHA), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 169 (2020), arXiv:1911.08025 [hep-lat]

    2020 arXiv

  133. [141]

    Alexandrou et al

    C. Alexandrou et al. (ETM), Phys. Rev. D104, 074515 (2021), arXiv:2104.13408 [hep-lat]. – 27 –

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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