Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 47 references

A constant magnetic field modifies the u-π0-u vertex through Gaussian-Laguerre form factors in the Ritus basis, and the one-loop lowest-Landau-level correction computed with Ritus wave functions equals the Schwinger proper-time result; afte

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

2026-08-04 22:34 UTC pith:4CM76DDT

load-bearing objection The paper advertises a cross-check that the printed equations do not support; the underlying calculation is substantial but the central claim fails as written. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.01701 v1 pith:4CM76DDT submitted 2026-08-03 hep-ph

Magnetic field modifications to the pion-quark vertex in the Linear Sigma Model with quarks

Alejandro Ayala , Fl\'avia Fialho , Adri\'an Lara , Ana Mizher , Javier Rend\'on This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords magnetic fieldpion-quark vertexlinear sigma model with quarksRitus functionsSchwinger proper timeLandau levelslowest Landau levelform factor
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.

Working in the Linear Sigma Model with quarks, the authors ask how a constant magnetic field changes the uπ0u coupling, the vertex that controls pion emission and absorption by quarks in magnetized matter. Because charged quarks cannot be assigned plane waves in a magnetic field, the calculation uses Ritus wave functions labelled by Landau levels; this yields a vertex that is nonlocal already at tree level, taking the form of a Gaussian-Laguerre form factor. The paper then computes the one-loop vertex for arbitrary Landau levels and, for the lowest Landau level, shows that the Ritus result is identical to the result obtained independently with the Schwinger proper-time method. It also shows that when the vertex is sandwiched between plane-wave states and all Landau levels are summed, the tree-level magnetic modification collapses to exactly 1, leaving the one-loop piece as the only genuine magnetic dressing. If this is right, it provides a concrete and internally consistent recipe for building magnetic-field-dependent meson-quark vertices for effective models of QCD under extreme magnetic fields.

Core claim

The central claim is that the magnetic field dresses the uπ0u vertex in a way that depends on the basis used for external quarks. In the Ritus basis of fixed Landau levels, the tree-level vertex is multiplied by an exponential times a Laguerre polynomial form factor (Eq. (41)) that encodes the breaking of transverse momentum conservation by the field. The one-loop vertex is an infinite sum over intermediate Landau levels of products of these form factors, and Eq. (63) reduces the angular structure to a Bessel function with Kronecker-delta selection rules. For external quarks in the lowest Landau level the one-loop expression simplifies to Eq. (69); the independent Schwinger proper-time compu

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the Ritus eigenfunctions — the complete set of charged-fermion wave functions in a uniform magnetic field, each labeled by a Landau level k and parallel momentum — and the Schwinger proper-time representation of the magnetized propagator. The Ritus functions convert every non-translation-invariant vertex integral into a Gaussian-Laguerre form factor G_{k,k'}(l⊥), which carries the transverse-momentum transfer and the polarization dependence of the vertex. The argument closes with the completeness relation of these states: inserting it between plane-wave external states and summing Landau levels reconstructs the vacuum vertex at tree level, which is why the tree-l

Load-bearing premise

The numerical form factors assume that fixing the external quarks to the lowest Landau level and truncating the one-loop sums to that level captures the physical vertex; if higher Landau levels contribute significantly to the plane-wave amplitude, the plotted curves do not represent the physical vertex.

What would settle it

Compute the plane-wave one-loop form factor of Eq. (89) with the full Landau sums and take B_Q to 0 with 2kB_Q and 2k'B_Q fixed: if it does not tend to the vacuum coupling -ig gamma^5, or if adding the first excited Landau level changes the LLL result by more than its quoted size, the LLL-only vertex is not a reliable physical amplitude.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The one-loop vertex is available for arbitrary Landau levels, so computations of pion processes in magnetized matter can include intermediate levels beyond the LLL rather than truncating by hand.
  • Any apparent tree-level distortion of the pion-quark coupling computed at a fixed Landau level is a basis artifact: after summing over the complete Ritus spectrum, the tree-level form factor is exactly 1.
  • The equality of the Ritus and Schwinger one-loop results in the LLL provides a consistency benchmark that can be carried over to other effective models when magnetic-field vertices are needed.
  • The delta-function selection rules contained in Eq. (63) imply that pion emission or absorption in a magnetic background is constrained by the change in Landau-level index, which can shape transition rates in magnetized hadronic matter.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the LLL approximation would be to evaluate the full Landau sums in the one-loop plane-wave form factor and take B to 0 with 2kB fixed; reproducing the vacuum vertex would confirm that the plotted LLL curves are the leading term of a systematic expansion in 1/sqrt(eB).
  • The paper keeps the model parameters (m_f, m_pi, g) independent of B; promoting them to field-dependent values, as magnetic catalysis and inverse magnetic catalysis suggest, could alter the relative size of tree and one-loop contributions, so the numerical hierarchy should be regarded as preliminary.
  • If the one-loop correction dominates at LLL for eB around 1 GeV^2, the perturbative expansion in the Yukawa coupling may need resummation at stronger fields; a two-loop estimate would tell whether the dominance persists.
  • The selection rules visible in the Kronecker deltas of Eq. (63) could be checked against lattice or Dyson-Schwinger computations of pion transition form factors in magnetic fields, providing an external test of the form-factor shape.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper computes the magnetic-field-induced modification of the neutral pion--quark vertex in the Linear Sigma Model with quarks. The tree-level vertex is evaluated using Ritus wave functions for the charged quark states, and a one-loop calculation is presented for arbitrary Landau levels, with explicit LLL results. The advertised validation is the claimed equivalence between the LLL one-loop vertex obtained with Ritus wave functions and with the Schwinger proper-time method. The paper also discusses the relation between Ritus-basis matrix elements and physical plane-wave amplitudes, noting in Sec. VII that the tree-level modification reduces to unity once Landau levels are summed.

Significance. If correct, the calculation would provide a useful example of magnetic-field-induced vertex modifications in an effective QCD model and a non-trivial cross-check of two formalisms for charged-particle propagators in a magnetic field. The arbitrary-Landau-level construction is ambitious and the appendices contain a substantial amount of algebra. However, the central validation--the equality of Eqs. (69) and (84)--fails as printed, and the internal sign inconsistency in the LLL Feynman-parameter function undermines the advertised check. The paper's own Sec. VII also substantially qualifies the tree-level claim made in the abstract and in Sec. I.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. VI, Eqs. (69) and (84)] The statement immediately after Eq. (84), that it is identical to Eq. (69), is not supported by the printed expressions. Eq. (69) has an overall +1/(4\pi), while Eq. (84) has -1/(4\pi). Moreover, combining the two terms inside the bracket of Eq. (84) with \eta_LLL from Eq. (78) gives an additional -y z l_\perp^2 term relative to the numerator x(m_\pi^2 + w_\perp^2) in Eq. (69); using the sign-corrected \eta from Eq. (B6) also does not make the two expressions coincide as written. Since this equality is the central cross-check advertised in the abstract, the main validation of the one-loop result is not established.
  2. [Sec. V and Appendix B, Eqs. (68) and (B6)] The LLL Feynman-parameter function is internally inconsistent. Setting k=k'=k1=k2=0 and p_\perp=p'_\perp=0 in the general result Eq. (B6) gives \eta = y z l_\perp^2 + m^2(1-x)^2 + m_\pi^2(x-y z), with a plus sign in front of y z l_\perp^2. Equation (68), and likewise Eq. (78), use -y z l_\perp^2. Both the Ritus and the Schwinger LLL reductions rely on this same \eta, so the claimed agreement may be comparing two expressions that share the same sign error relative to the paper's own general Feynman-parameter result.
  3. [Sec. VII, Figs. 3 and 4] The numerical form factors are not physical plane-wave S-matrix elements. As the authors themselves explain, the correct B_Q \to 0 limit requires summing over all Landau levels, and at tree level that sum gives F=1 exactly, Eq. (91). The plotted fixed-LLL tree-level form factor is therefore a basis-dependent object, not the physical magnetic modification of the quark-pion coupling. The one-loop Landau sums in the figures are also truncated at the LLL with no convergence check against higher Landau levels. As a result, the quantitative claims based on Figs. 3 and 4, including the statement that the one-loop correction is almost an order of magnitude larger than the tree-level one, are not given a clear physical meaning.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (51)] The second delta function in I_z reads \delta(r'_2 - r_2 - q_2); from the definition of I_z with e^{-i l \cdot z} the argument should presumably use l_2 rather than q_2.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (43) and App. D] For k=0 and \lambda = -, the shifted Landau label k_{s\lambda} = -1 enters the factorial expressions. The text notes this only in the LLL discussion, but the general arbitrary-Landau-level expressions in Sec. IV should state the convention (e.g., that negative labels give vanishing Ritus functions) so that the formulas are well defined.
  3. [Sec. VII, parameter inputs] The numerical inputs m_f=0.3 GeV and m_\pi=0.14 GeV are treated as field-independent at B_Q=1 GeV^2, although the paper cites magnetic catalysis and inverse magnetic catalysis as significant at these field strengths. A brief estimate of the associated uncertainty would improve the interpretation of the figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the vertex calculation is a self-contained effective-field-theory derivation with no fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citations; the flawed Ritus–Schwinger identity is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper computes the u-pi0-u vertex in the LSMq using standard Ritus and Schwinger representations of charged propagators. No parameter is fitted to the target vertex and no external data are used; the result is an analytic one-loop expression depending only on the model parameters (m_f, m_pi, B_Q). Self-citations in the introduction and in Refs. [36,43,44] are contextual (magnetic catalysis, AMM approximations) and are not load-bearing for the derivation. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work; the Ritus and Schwinger proper-time representations are standard textbook material. The only concern resembling circularity is that the "independent" Schwinger check in Sec. VI uses an LLL propagator that Appendix D derives by starting from the Ritus representation (Eqs. D1-D22). Thus Eq. (84) is not an independent test of the Ritus calculation, but it is a legitimate consistency check within equivalent representations and does not make the one-loop vertex equivalent to its input by construction. Separately, as printed, Eq. (84) carries an overall minus sign relative to Eq. (69), so the claimed identity is not actually demonstrated; this is a verification/correctness defect, not a circularity, and does not raise the circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The calculation relies on standard Ritus/Schwinger techniques and the LSMq as an effective theory; the main structural assumptions are the fixed-Landau-level basis and the LLL truncation for numerics.

free parameters (1)
  • Illustrative numerical inputs = B_Q=1 GeV^2, m_f=0.3 GeV, m_pi=0.14 GeV
    Used only for Figures 3 and 4; the analytic claims do not depend on these values.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The Linear Sigma Model with quarks is a valid low-energy effective theory of QCD in the presence of a strong magnetic field.
    The entire calculation is defined within this model (Sec. II); possible B-dependent modifications of the effective Lagrangian are not included.
  • domain assumption Charged quark asymptotic states are described by Ritus eigenfunctions with a fixed Landau level index k, and the pion by a plane wave.
    The field expansion in Eqs. (26) and (30) assumes these bases; Sec. VII shows the fixed-k choice makes the tree-level result basis-dependent.
  • standard math The completeness relation for Ritus states, Eq. (88), and the Landau-gauge form of the Ritus functions in Eq. (15).
    Used in Sec. VII to relate fixed-Landau-level matrix elements to plane-wave matrix elements.
  • standard math The Feynman-parameter integral formulas in Eqs. (59)-(60) and the angular integral identity in Eq. (C12) hold as stated.
    Used in the one-loop reduction in Sec. IV B and Appendices B and C.
  • standard math The LLL projection H_{-1}(x)=0 and the resulting vanishing of the k=-1 Ritus function.
    Given in Appendix D, Eq. (D15), needed for the LLL truncation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 28584 in / 18075 out tokens · 185196 ms · 2026-08-04T22:34:35.239901+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic field modifications to the pion-quark vertex in the Linear Sigma Model with quarks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4CM76DDT

@misc{pith2026260801701,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic field modifications to the pion-quark vertex in the Linear Sigma Model with quarks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4CM76DDT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01701}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We compute the modification to the quark-neutral pion vertex, induced by a constant and uniform magnetic field, using the Linear Sigma Model with quarks as a low energy effective theory of QCD. The vertex is modified even at tree-level since, due to the loss of translational invariance, the calculation should be carried out in configuration space, with the quark described by Ritus wave functions instead of plane waves. We also compute the one-loop vertex modification. These modifications are found for arbitrary Landau levels occupied by the quark. We illustrate the result for the case where the quark occupies the lowest Landau level. To check the result, we also compute the one-loop vertex modification using the Schwinger proper-time method with the quark occupying the lowest Landau level and find the same result as in the case where the Ritus formalism is used.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01701 by Adri\'an Lara, Alejandro Ayala, Ana Mizher, Fl\'avia Fialho, Javier Rend\'on.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Feynman diagram corresponding to the tree-level magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Feynman diagram corresponding to the one-loop magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Strength of the form factor for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.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

47 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Case𝑘≥𝑘 1≥𝑘 2≥𝑘 ′ G=(2𝜋) 3 √︄ 𝑘′ 𝑠𝜆1 !𝑘 1𝑠𝜆2!𝑘 2𝑠𝜆3! 𝑘2𝑠𝜆1!𝑘𝑠𝜆2!𝑘 1𝑠𝜆3!𝑖𝑘−𝑘′ (−1)𝑘−𝑘 1𝑒 − ®𝑙2⊥ 4𝐵𝑄𝑒−𝑖𝑠𝜙𝑙(𝑘 1−𝑘2) ®𝑙2 ⊥ 2𝐵𝑄 !𝑘1−𝑘2 2 𝐿𝑘1−𝑘2 𝑘2𝑠𝜆3 ®𝑙2 ⊥ 2𝐵𝑄 ! 𝑒−𝑖𝑠𝜙𝑤(𝑘 2−𝑘′+𝑘−𝑘 1) 𝑒 − ®𝑤2⊥ 2𝐵𝑄 ®𝑤2 ⊥ 2𝐵𝑄 𝑘2−𝑘′+𝑘−𝑘 1 2 𝐿𝑘2−𝑘′ 𝑘′ 𝑠𝜆1 ®𝑤2 ⊥ 2𝐵𝑄 𝐿𝑘−𝑘 1 𝑘1𝑠𝜆2 ®𝑤2 ⊥ 2𝐵𝑄 (C8) Making a change of variable to polar coordinates and the angular change𝜙′ 𝑤 =𝜙 𝑤−𝜙𝑙,𝑑 2𝑤⊥=...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (71), (72) and (73)

    Case𝑘 ′≥𝑘 2≥𝑘 1≥𝑘 Performing the same procedure as before ∫ 𝑑2𝑤⊥ (2𝜋) 2 J1(𝑘′ 𝑠𝜆1 ,𝑘 2𝑠𝜆1)J2(𝑘 1𝑠𝜆2,𝑘 𝑠𝜆2)J3(𝑘 2𝑠𝜆3,𝑘 1𝑠𝜆3) 𝑓(|®𝑤⊥|) =(2𝜋) 2𝑒 𝑖 𝑠 2𝐵𝑄 𝑙1(𝑝 2+𝑝′ 2) √︄ 𝑘2𝑠𝜆1!𝑘𝑠𝜆2!𝑘 1𝑠𝜆3! 𝑘′ 𝑠𝜆1 !𝑘 1𝑠𝜆2!𝑘 2𝑠𝜆3!𝑖𝑘′−𝑘(−1)𝑘1−𝑘𝑒 − ®𝑙2⊥ 4𝐵𝑄𝑒𝑖𝑠𝜙𝑙(𝑘′−𝑘) ®𝑙2 ⊥ 2𝐵𝑄 !𝑘2−𝑘1 2 𝐿𝑘2−𝑘1 𝑘1𝑠𝜆3 ®𝑙2 ⊥ 2𝐵𝑄 ! × ∞∑︁ 𝑛=0 𝛿|𝑘 2−𝑘1+𝑘−𝑘′|,2𝑛−𝑠𝑔𝑛(𝑘 1−𝑘 2+𝑘′−𝑘)𝛿 |𝑘 2−𝑘1+𝑘−𝑘′|,2𝑛+1 × ∫...

    work page

  3. [3]

    J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.73, 416 (1948)

    1948

  4. [4]

    V. I. Ritus, Sov. Phys. JETP48, 788 (1978)

    work page 1978

  5. [5]

    D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran, and H. J. Warringa, Nucl. Phys. A803, 227 (2008), arXiv:0711.0950 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Skokov, A

    V. Skokov, A. Y. Illarionov, and V. Toneev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24, 5925 (2009), arXiv:0907.1396 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    Voronyuk, V

    V. Voronyuk, V. D. Toneev, W. Cassing, E. L. Bratkovskaya, V. P. Konchakovski, and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. C83, 054911 (2011), arXiv:1103.4239 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  8. [8]

    R. C. Duncan and C. Thompson, Astrophys. J. Lett.392, L9 19 (1992)

    work page 1992

  9. [9]

    Kouveliotouet al., Nature393, 235 (1998)

    C. Kouveliotouet al., Nature393, 235 (1998)

    work page 1998

  10. [10]

    Grasso and H

    D. Grasso and H. R. Rubinstein, Phys. Rept.348, 163 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0009061

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  11. [11]

    V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy, Nucl. Phys. B563, 361 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9908320

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  12. [12]

    Ayala, A

    A. Ayala, A. Bashir, A. Raya, and E. Rojas, Phys. Rev. D73, 105009 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  13. [13]

    G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, A. Schafer, and K. K. Szabo, JHEP02, 044 (2012), arXiv:1111.4956 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and A. Schafer, Phys. Rev. D86, 071502 (2012), arXiv:1206.4205 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  15. [15]

    Bruckmann, G

    F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, and T. G. Kovacs, JHEP04, 112 (2013), arXiv:1303.3972 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [16]

    R. L. S. Farias, K. P. Gomes, G. I. Krein, and M. B. Pinto, Phys. Rev. C90, 025203 (2014), arXiv:1404.3931 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  17. [17]

    Ferreira, P

    M. Ferreira, P. Costa, O. Lourenc ¸o, T. Frederico, and C. Provid ˆencia, Phys. Rev. D89, 116011 (2014), arXiv:1404.5577 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    Ayala, M

    A. Ayala, M. Loewe, and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D91, 016002 (2015), arXiv:1406.7408 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  19. [19]

    Ayala, C

    A. Ayala, C. A. Dominguez, L. A. Hernandez, M. Loewe, and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D92, 096011 (2015), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 92, 119905 (2015)], arXiv:1509.03345 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  20. [20]

    Ayala, M

    A. Ayala, M. Loewe, A. J. Mizher, and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D90, 036001 (2014), arXiv:1406.3885 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    R. L. S. Farias, V. S. Timoteo, S. S. Avancini, M. B. Pinto, and G. Krein, Eur. Phys. J. A53, 101 (2017), arXiv:1603.03847 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    Ayala, C

    A. Ayala, C. A. Dominguez, L. A. Hernandez, M. Loewe, A. Raya, J. C. Rojas, and C. Villavicencio, Phys. Rev. D94, 054019 (2016), arXiv:1603.00833 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    E. J. Ferrer, V. de la Incera, and X. J. Wen, Phys. Rev. D91, 054006 (2015), arXiv:1407.3503 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  24. [24]

    Finite temperature quark-gluon vertex with a magnetic field in the Hard Thermal Loop approximation

    A. Ayala, J. J. Cobos-Mart ´ınez, M. Loewe, M. E. Tejeda- Yeomans, and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D91, 016007 (2015), arXiv:1410.6388 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  25. [25]

    Thermo-magnetic evolution of the QCD strong coupling

    A. Ayala, C. A. Dominguez, S. Hernandez-Ortiz, L. A. Hernan- dez, M. Loewe, D. Manreza Paret, and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D98, 031501 (2018), arXiv:1805.08198 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Mueller, J

    N. Mueller, J. A. Bonnet, and C. S. Fischer, Phys. Rev. D89, 094023 (2014), arXiv:1401.1647 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  27. [27]

    Mueller and J

    N. Mueller and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D91, 116010 (2015), arXiv:1502.08011 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  28. [28]

    Bandyopadhyay and R

    A. Bandyopadhyay and R. L. S. Farias, Eur. Phys. J. ST230, 719 (2021), arXiv:2003.11054 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Sov. Phys. JETP19, 529 (1964)

    work page 1964

  30. [30]

    A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Sov. Phys. JETP19, 1191 (1964)

    work page 1964

  31. [31]

    G. S. Bali, B. B. Brandt, G. Endr ˝odi, and B. Gl ¨aßle, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 072001 (2018), arXiv:1805.10971 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Coppola, D

    M. Coppola, D. Gomez Dumm, S. Noguera, and N. N. Scoccola, Phys. Rev. D99, 054031 (2019), arXiv:1810.08110 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Coppola, D

    M. Coppola, D. Gomez Dumm, S. Noguera, and N. N. Scoccola, JHEP09, 058 (2020), arXiv:1908.10765 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Weak decays of magnetized charged pions in the symmetric gauge

    M. Coppola, D. Gomez Dumm, S. Noguera, and N. N. Scoccola, Phys. Rev. D101, 034003 (2020), arXiv:1910.10814 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    E. S. Fraga, L. F. Palhares, and C. Villavicencio, Phys. Rev. D 109, 116018 (2024), arXiv:2403.10641 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Magnetic correction to the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of Electron

    F. Lin and M. Huang, Commun. Theor. Phys.74, 055202 (2022), arXiv:2112.01051 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    V. N. Baier and V. M. Katkov, Phys. Lett. A280, 275 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0011340

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  38. [38]

    QED vertex and anomalous magnetic moment in the presence of a magnetic field

    A. Ayala, E. Mu ˜noz, M. Loewe, J. C. Rojas, and N. Scoccola, “QED vertex and anomalous magnetic moment in the presence of a magnetic field,” (2026), arXiv:2607.10015 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    W. R. Tavares, S. S. Avancini, R. L. S. Farias, and R. P. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D109, 016011 (2024), arXiv:2309.04055 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    R. L. S. Farias, W. R. Tavares, R. M. Nunes, and S. S. Avancini, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 674 (2022), arXiv:2109.11112 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Fayazbakhsh and N

    S. Fayazbakhsh and N. Sadooghi, Phys. Rev. D90, 105030 (2014), arXiv:1408.5457 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  42. [42]

    Coppola, D

    M. Coppola, D. Gomez Dumm, and N. N. Scoccola, Phys. Rev. D112, 054043 (2025), arXiv:2507.13560 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Brauner and S

    T. Brauner and S. V. Kadam, JHEP11, 103 (2017), arXiv:1706.04514 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  44. [44]

    Chiral Symmetry Breaking and Pion Decay in a Magnetic Field,

    P. Adhikari and B. C. Tiburzi, “Chiral Symmetry Breaking and Pion Decay in a Magnetic Field,” (2024), arXiv:2406.00818 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Ayala, J

    A. Ayala, J. L. Hern´andez, L. A. Hern´andez, R. L. S. Farias, and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D102, 114038 (2020), arXiv:2009.13740 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Ayala, J

    A. Ayala, J. L. Hern´andez, L. A. Hern´andez, R. L. S. Farias, and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D103, 054038 (2021), arXiv:2011.03673 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    Gomez Dumm, S

    D. Gomez Dumm, S. Noguera, and N. N. Scoccola, Phys. Rev. D108, 016012 (2023), arXiv:2306.04128 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023