Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

A strange contribution to the neutron EDM

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The strange quark dipole contributes at least a tenth as much as the up and down dipoles to the neutron EDM, making it the dominant term in many new-physics scenarios.

desk verdict A genuinely useful chiral calculation is being sold as a robust bound; the bound is actually an NDA assumption, and an O(1) counterterm can cancel it. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23402 v1 pith:6STTA4BP submitted 2025-06-29 hep-ph hep-lat

Luca Vecchi This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-lat
keywords neutronelectricdipolemomentstrangequarktensorchargeheavybaryonchiralperturbationtheorylargeNcexpansionmodelbeyondStandardCPviolationlatticeQCDcharges
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 the strange quark's electric dipole moment contributes far more to the neutron's measured EDM than current lattice simulations indicate. Combining naive dimensional analysis, large-Nc counting, a critical reassessment of the non-relativistic quark model, and a next-to-leading-order heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory calculation, the author concludes that the strange tensor charge is at least a tenth of the up and down tensor charges, barring accidental cancellations. In many beyond-the-Standard-Model scenarios, where quark dipoles scale with quark mass, this makes the strange contribution the dominant one in the neutron EDM. If correct, the result changes which new-physics models are excluded by tightening neutron EDM measurements and implies the small strange tensor charges found on the lattice would require unexplained cancellations.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the neutron tensor charge $g_i^{T n}$, defined by the matrix element $\langle n|(q_i i\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_5 q_i)_{\Lambda_{\rm UV}}|n\rangle$, which maps quark electric dipoles into the neutron EDM via $d_n = g_u^{T n}d_u + g_d^{T n}d_d + g_s^{T n}d_s$. The argument's engine is a next-to-leading-order heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory computation of the strange tensor charge, whose key result is a mixing of $g_s^{T n}$ with the valence charges $g_{u,d}^{T n}$ with coefficients of size $M_K^2/(16\pi^2 f_\pi^2)$: numerically $g_s^{T n}_{\rm NLO} \approx 0.14\,g_u^{T n}_{\rm LO} + 0.048\,g_d^{T n}_{\rm LO} + 1.7\,g_s^{T n}_{\rm LO} + 0.18\,B^K_{nn,s}$. The chiral quark model supplies the matching between constituent and bare quark dipoles through two coefficients, $c_1$ and $c_2$, with the strange charge set by the trace part $c_2$ that large-Nc counting says is $O(1/N_c)$, and the three-loop gluonic diagram fixes the radiative scale of $c_2$. Together these pieces show that the strange matrix element is of natural size, at least a tenth of the valence matrix elements.

What would settle it

Compute the neutron tensor charges on the lattice with controlled disconnected diagrams and a continuum extrapolation through a window $\Lambda_{\rm UV} \gg \Lambda \gg 1/a$, and measure $g_s^{T n}$ at several strange-quark masses; if $g_s^{T n}$ stays below one percent of $g_{u,d}^{T n}$ and shows no $M_K^2 \ln M_K^2$ dependence, the bound (58) is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the neutron's tensor charges satisfy $|g_s^{T n}/g_{u,d}^{T n}| \gtrsim 0.1$ unless unnatural cancellations occur. The strange tensor charge $g_s^{T n}$ is controlled by infrared-sensitive diagrams of order $1/N_c$ that involve quark-mass and quark-condensate insertions, and at the GeV scale these diagrams are unsuppressed. A next-to-leading-order heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory calculation shows that $g_s^{T n}$ mixes with the valence tensor charges at order $M_K^2/\Lambda_\chi^2 \approx 0.2$, and the large-Nc expansion, the chiral quark model, and naive dimensional analysis all point to the same scale. The paper therefore concludes that the strange EDM provides the dominant contribution to the neutron EDM in many beyond-the-Standard-Model scenarios, and that a ratio much smaller than $0.1$ can only arise from a mass-dependent cancellation among unrelated quantities.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that all unknown strong-interaction coefficients are of natural size (order one) and do not cancel the calculable chiral contributions; if the lattice-QCD values $|g_s^{T n}/g_{u,d}^{T n}| \approx 0.002$-$0.01$ are the exact answer, the central claim fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $|g_s^{T n}/g_{u,d}^{T n}| \gtrsim 0.1$, then in mass-proportional new-physics scenarios the strange dipole, not up or down, sets the neutron EDM; reinterpreting the current bound $|d_n| \le 1.8\times10^{-26}\,e\,{\rm cm}$ in that way directly constrains the strange sector.
  • Exclusion limits on new physics scales would be stronger by a factor of 4 to 6 compared to a world with a negligible strange tensor charge.
  • The small lattice values of order $10^{-2}$ to $10^{-3}$ would require a strange-mass-dependent cancellation among independent quantities, rather than a generic suppression.
  • Lattice determinations should be re-examined: matching the discretized tensor charge to the continuum at scales near the GeV must include the finite-threshold diagrams of Section 2.2, and tests of the $M_K$ dependence of $g_s^{T n}$ are a critical consistency check.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the author leaves implicit: because $d_n$ is a single linear combination of three tensor charges, a lone neutron EDM measurement cannot separate the strange dipole from the up and down ones; extracting $g_s^{T n}$ requires additional experimental input or a combined lattice-experiment global fit.
  • A neighboring prediction: the same chiral-loop mechanism that produces the roughly ten percent strange tensor charge should also generate a comparable sea-quark contribution to other C-odd nucleon observables, which could be probed in transversity-sensitive measurements.
  • A testable consequence that is not developed in the paper: the size of $g_s^{T n}$ should track the strange quark mass through the $M_K^2\ln M_K^2$ terms in Eq. (56); scanning $m_s$ on the lattice over a range of values would reveal that curvature and test the claim without relying on the naturalness assumption.
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. The paper analyzes the contribution of hypothetical quark electric dipole moments to the neutron EDM, focusing on the strange quark tensor charge g_s^T_n. The author combines large-N_c counting, a constituent chiral quark model, and a next-to-leading-order heavy-baryon chiral perturbation theory calculation to argue that, barring accidental cancellations, |g_s^T_n / g_{u,d}^T_n| ≳ 0.1, implying that the strange EDM could dominate the neutron EDM in many new-physics scenarios. The HBChPT result (Eq. (56)) contains a parameter-free non-analytic contribution proportional to M_K^2 log(M_n^2/M_K^2) that mixes g_u^T_n and g_d^T_n into g_s^T_n. The paper contrasts this with lattice QCD results (Eq. (11)) that find |g_s^T_n/g_{u,d}^T_n| ≈ 0.002–0.01.

Significance. The question addressed—whether the strange quark EDM contributes non-negligibly to the neutron EDM—is phenomenologically important: if |g_s^T_n/g_{u,d}^T_n| is truly O(0.1), many BSM constraints are strengthened by factors of a few and lattice determinations would need critical re-examination. The paper's strongest asset is the explicit NBChPT calculation of the non-analytic chiral-logarithm mixing term in Eq. (56), which is a genuine, parameter-free result within the stated power counting, and the detailed appendices make the algebra transparent and reproducible. If the central claim were established, the paper would have substantial impact. However, the quantitative lower bound (58) rests on naturalness assumptions for incalculable counterterms, and the paper itself concedes (Section 5.2) that M_K^2/Λ_χ^2 ≈ 0.2 is 'not very small.' The value of the paper lies in pointing out a plausible and largely overlooked mechanism, not in a rigorous exclusion of the small strange tensor charge.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2, Eqs. (56)–(58)] The central claim, |g_s^T_n/g_{u,d}^T_n| ≳ 0.1 in Eq. (58), is presented as a lower bound but is in fact a naturalness assumption. The displayed NLO formula (57) contains an incalculable counterterm B^K_nn,s multiplying M_K^2/(16π^2 f_π^2) ≈ 0.18. Since NDA constrains B^K_nn,s only to be of order unity, taking B^K_nn,s ≈ −1 (well within the 'natural range') gives a contribution −0.18 that cancels the entire calculable mixing 0.14 g_u^T_n,LO + 0.048 g_d^T_n,LO for typical valence charges. Thus Eq. (58) is not a derived inequality; it is a restatement of the assumption that the counterterm is not tuned to cancel the chiral log. The paper's own wording 'barring unnatural cancellations' concedes this, but the discussion in Section 6 goes further and states that a small g_s^T_n 'can only be the result of a m_s-dependent cancellation'—this is logically true only if one excludes the NLO counterterm itself, which is also m_s-dependent (∝ M_K^2). I request that the claim be reframed as an NDA-based expectation, with an explicit demonstration of how the result changes as B^K_nn,s ranges over its natural values.
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (40)–(46)] The chiral quark model estimate |g_s^T_n/g_{u,d}^T_n| ∼ 0.1–0.3 depends on the coefficient c_2 in Eq. (40) being of order unity and on the loop estimate (45) being representative. The leading-log result δc_2|LL in Eq. (45) is scale-dependent; the quoted numerical value δc_2|LL ∼ 0.2 c_1 uses µ = 1 GeV, and a different choice of the soft scale (e.g., µ ≈ m_ψs ≈ 540 MeV) would reduce the estimate. This does not invalidate the estimate, but it means the model does not provide independent quantitative confirmation of the chiral result; it is consistent with it only under the same naturalness logic. I suggest the text in Section 4 and the discussion in Section 6 be moderated to avoid presenting (46) as a separate quantitative determination rather than an illustration of the NDA expectation.
  3. [Section 6 and Eq. (11)] The paper states that a hypothetical suppression of |g_s^T_n/g_{u,d}^T_n| 'can only be the result of a m_s-dependent cancellation' and uses this to argue that the lattice results (11) require a 'ms-dependent cancellation' that is unlikely. However, the lattice value |g_s^T_n/g_{u,d}^T_n| ≈ 0.002–0.01 is perfectly compatible with the NLO formula (57) if the counterterm B^K_nn,s is moderately negative—a value that is not excluded by any calculation in the paper. The conflict with lattice is therefore not resolved by the chiral argument; it is deferred to the unknown counterterm. I recommend that the discussion in Section 6 explicitly acknowledge this and present the chiral result as an estimate whose quantitative robustness depends on the naturalness of B^K_nn,s, rather than as a firm lower bound.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'perturbative QCD' as one of the methods; Section 2.2 actually presents NDA and operator-counting arguments, not a perturbative QCD calculation. Please rephrase to avoid overclaiming.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (20)] The relation g_u^T_n + g_d^T_n + g_s^T_n = O(1) in Eq. (20) is stated as a consequence of flavor SU(3)_V plus large N_c; it would help to clarify that the O(1) term is relative to the O(N_c) size of the individual charges, as is done later in the text.
  3. [Section 5.2, Eq. (57)] The numerical coefficient 1.7 multiplying g_s^T_n,LO in Eq. (57) includes the '1' from the LO term plus the chiral correction; this is correct but could be confusing to a reader who expects the LO term to be displayed separately.
  4. [Section 2.1] The statement that Eq. (11) is 'surprisingly close' to the naive NRQM value in Eq. (10) is made without noting that the lattice value includes disconnected-diagram contributions that the NRQM neglects; a brief clarification would be useful.
  5. [Appendix B, Eq. (80)] In Eq. (80), the coefficient B^K_a'b' is stated to include decuplet loops and counterterms, but the notation B^K_nn in the main text is defined only for the neutron; please add an explicit statement that B^K_nn,s is a free parameter of order unity, as is eventually said in Section 5.2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the chiral-log mixing term is parameter-free and the counterterm dependence is explicitly caveated.

full rationale

I find no circular step that reduces a prediction to its own inputs. The central quantitative claim, Eq. (58), is explicitly conditional ('Barring unnatural cancellations') and rests on the NDA estimate that the incalculable counterterm B^K_nn,s is of order unity. That is a naturalness assumption, not a fitted parameter, and not a disguised restatement of the target result. The genuinely new content is the parameter-free non-analytic mixing in Eq. (56), whose coefficients are fixed by D, F, f_pi, and M_K; this term would be present even if gs_T^n,LO vanished and is not imported from any self-citation. The paper is transparent about the limitations: Section 5.2 concedes that M_K^2/Lambda_chi^2 = 0.2 is 'not very small' and explicitly states that the counterterms are incalculable within the EFT, with NDA suggesting they are of order unity. These are robustness concerns, not evidence of circularity. The large-Nc, chiral-quark-model, and heavy-baryon EFT estimates share the NDA/naturalness prior, so their mutual consistency is partly inherited from that shared input, but each line contains independent calculable content, such as the 1/Nc counting and the leading-log meson-loop estimate. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited EFT and large-Nc techniques (Dashen-Jenkins-Manohar, Luty-March-Russell, Manohar-Georgi) are external works. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, no known result is merely renamed, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the author's prior work. I therefore score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on unknown matching coefficients and counterterms (c1, c2, κ1-3, B), all assumed natural O(1) rather than determined; on the validity of the chiral expansion in MK/Λχ ≈ 0.2, which the paper itself questions; on the large-Nc and SU(3)V approximations used for the counting arguments; and on the Georgi-Manohar prescription as a faithful mapping of the NRQM. No new particles or forces are introduced; the conclusions are driven by naturalness assumptions about standard QCD matrix elements rather than by invented degrees of freedom.

free parameters (3)
  • c1, c2 (chiral quark model matching coefficients) = not fitted; assumed natural O(1), with c2/c1 ~ 0.1-0.3 from radiative corrections
    Eqs. (37)-(41): the strange tensor charge gs_T = c2 and the valence charges are linear in these unknown coefficients; the central estimate of the ratio depends on their relative size.
  • κ1, κ2, κ3 (HBChPT LO dipole couplings) = not fitted; assumed natural O(1)
    Eqs. (51)-(53): the NLO result (56) is expressed in terms of gu,d,s_LO which are combinations of these unknown couplings; the lower bound (58) holds only if they are of natural size.
  • B^K_nn,u, B^K_nn,d, B^K_nn,s (NLO counterterms) = assumed O(1)
    Eqs. (80), (87)-(89): incalculable counterterms of order M_K^2/(16π^2 fπ^2); the claim that the NLO terms are not numerically reduced by cancellations assumes these are natural.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The NDA assumption that nonperturbative coefficients saturate their naive dimensional analysis bounds, i.e., are of order unity.
    Section 2.2 and Eq. (58): the central estimate relies on it; if counterterms are anomalously small the bound fails.
  • domain assumption The chiral expansion in ms/(4πfπ) ~ MK/Λχ ~ 0.2 is a valid expansion for the tensor charges.
    Section 5, Eq. (47)-(48): the paper concedes the expansion may not be fully trustable because MK/Λχ ≈ 0.2 is not very small.
  • domain assumption Flavor SU(3)V is a good approximate symmetry for the leading large-Nc relations (20)-(21).
    Section 3, Eq. (20): needed to derive gd/gu = -1 + O(1/Nc) and the O(1/Nc) scaling of gs.
  • domain assumption The neutron at large Nc is an isospin doublet with strangeness |S| much smaller than O(Nc), Eq. (28).
    Section 3, around Eq. (28): needed for the counting gu,d = O(Nc), gs = O(1).
  • domain assumption The Georgi-Manohar chiral quark model with parameters mψ ~ 360 MeV, gA ~ 0.75, g2/(4π) ~ 0.3 provides a faithful prescription for the NRQM.
    Section 4, Eqs. (35)-(40): the entire NRQM reassessment depends on this prescription; the paper acknowledges the arbitrariness of the choice.
  • domain assumption The incalculable O(md) counterterms in the chiral EFT do not cancel the calculable non-analytic contributions.
    Section 5.2 and Eq. (58): the lower bound |gs/gu,d| ≳ 0.1 follows only if the B^K counterterms are natural and do not conspire to cancel the loop terms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A strange contribution to the neutron EDM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6STTA4BP

@misc{pith2026250623402,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A strange contribution to the neutron EDM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6STTA4BP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23402}
}
read the original abstract

We analyze the contribution of hypothetical quark electric dipoles to the electric dipole moment (EDM) of the neutron. Particular emphasis is devoted to the strange quark contribution. Considerations based on perturbative QCD, the large N expansion, a critic reassessment of the non-relativistic quark model as well as a next to leading order calculation in heavy baryon effective field theory, all consistently indicate that, barring accidental cancellations, the matrix element of the strange quark dipole should be of order a tenth of those of the valence quarks. This implies that the strange EDM provides the dominant contribution to the neutron EDM in many scenarios beyond the Standard Model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23402 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of the first class of diagrams contributing to g s T n. The wavy line represents the external electric field and is attached to a closed strange loop. The horizontal solid lines are valence quarks and the curly lines are virtual gluons. It should however be noticed that, while suggestive, this observation cannot explain the small g s T n quoted in (11). The conclusion that g s T n(Λ) vanishes relies entirel… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 1-loop diagram describing the additive renormalization of c2 in the chiral quark model (see (38)). introduces the desired dependence of dψ on Tr[dψ]. The diagram is UV-divergent, and the divergence is cancelled by a local counterterm in (37). If we assume a sharp cutoff at the maximum scale Mχ, taken for simplicity ≫ mψs , MK, the size of c2 would be δc2|NDA ∼ c1g 2 A M2 χ 16π 2f 2 π ∼ c1 Nc . (44) Recalling (41) an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Next to leading order contributions to the baryon dipole moments. Double lines indicate baryons, dashed lines refer to the light mesons and the wavy line to the external electric field. is somewhat special since, in the absence of SU(3)V breaking, the condition g u T n+g d T n+g s T n = 0 is RG-invariant. The reason is that when such relation holds the trace Tr[d] decouples from (51), and only the traceless part sur… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. Abel, S. Afach, N. J. Ayres, C. A. Baker, G. Ban, G. Bison, K. Bodek, V. Bon- dar, M. Burghoff and E. Chanel, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) no.8, 081803 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.081803 [arXiv:2001.11966 [hep-ex]]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Alarcon, J

    R. Alarcon, J. Alexander, V. Anastassopoulos, T. Aoki, R. Baartman, S. Baeßler, L. Bar- toszek, D. H. Beck, F. Bedeschi and R. Berger, et al. [arXiv:2203.08103 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Borasoy and U

    B. Borasoy and U. G. Meissner, Annals Phys. 254 (1997), 192-232 doi:10.1006/aphy.1996.5630 [arXiv:hep-ph/9607432 [hep-ph]]

    work page arXiv 1997

  4. [4]

    Aoki et al

    Y. Aoki et al. [Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)], [arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    M. J. Savage and J. Walden, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997), 5376-5384 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.5376 [arXiv:hep-ph/9611210 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1997

  6. [6]

    Bhattacharya, V

    T. Bhattacharya, V. Cirigliano, S. Cohen, R. Gupta, H. W. Lin and B. Yoon, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) no.5, 054508 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.054508 [arXiv:1606.07049 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Gupta, B

    R. Gupta, B. Yoon, T. Bhattacharya, V. Cirigliano, Y. C. Jang and H. W. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.9, 091501 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.091501 [arXiv:1808.07597 [hep-lat]]. 30

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    S. Park, R. Gupta, T. Bhattacharya, F. He, S. Mondal, H. W. Lin and B. Yoon, [arXiv:2503.07100 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    V. M. Khatsimovsky, I. B. Khriplovich and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Z. Phys. C 36 (1987), 455 doi:10.1007/BF01573940

    1987 doi

  2. [10]

    Hisano and Y

    J. Hisano and Y. Shimizu, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004), 093001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.093001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0406091 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Fuyuto, J

    K. Fuyuto, J. Hisano and N. Nagata, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) no.5, 054018 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.054018 [arXiv:1211.5228 [hep-ph]]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [12]

    H. x. He and X. D. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995), 2960-2963 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.2960 [arXiv:hep-ph/9412235 [hep-ph]]

    1995 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Pospelov and A

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001), 073015 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.073015 [arXiv:hep-ph/0010037 [hep-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Hisano, J

    J. Hisano, J. Y. Lee, N. Nagata and Y. Shimizu, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012), 114044 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.114044 [arXiv:1204.2653 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  7. [15]

    S. Aoki, M. Doui, T. Hatsuda and Y. Kuramashi, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997), 433-436 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.433 [arXiv:hep-lat/9608115 [hep-lat]]

    1997 arXiv

  8. [16]

    T. Falk, K. A. Olive, M. Pospelov and R. Roiban, Nucl. Phys. B 560 (1999), 3-22 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00471-X [arXiv:hep-ph/9904393 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  9. [17]

    R. L. Jaffe and X. D. Ji, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (1991), 552-555 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.552

    1991 doi

  10. [18]

    J. R. Ellis and R. A. Flores, Phys. Lett. B 377 (1996), 83-88 doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(96)00312-7 [arXiv:hep-ph/9602211 [hep-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Y. Ema, T. Gao and M. Pospelov, JHEP 07 (2022), 106 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2022)106 [arXiv:2205.11532 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    D. B. Kaplan and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986), 2004 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.56.2004

    1986 doi

  13. [21]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 160 (1979), 57-115 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90232-3

    1979 doi

  14. [22]

    R. F. Dashen, E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994), 4713 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995), 2489] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.2489 [arXiv:hep-ph/9310379 [hep-ph]]

    1994 arXiv

  15. [23]

    R. F. Dashen, E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995), 3697-3727 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.3697 [arXiv:hep-ph/9411234 [hep-ph]]

    1995 arXiv

  16. [24]

    M. A. Luty and J. March-Russell, Nucl. Phys. B 426 (1994), 71-93 doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(94)90126-0 [arXiv:hep-ph/9310369 [hep-ph]]

    1994 arXiv

  17. [25]

    M. A. Luty, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995), 2322-2331 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.2322 [arXiv:hep-ph/9405271 [hep-ph]]. 31

    1995 arXiv

  18. [26]

    S. J. Brodsky, J. R. Ellis and M. Karliner, Phys. Lett. B 206 (1988), 309-315 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88)91511-0

    1988 doi

  19. [27]

    J. M. Olness, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993), 2136-2139 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.2136 [arXiv:hep-ph/9207274 [hep-ph]]

    1993 arXiv

  20. [29]

    A. G. Grozin, I. B. Khriplovich and A. S. Rudenko, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 72 (2009), 1203- 1205 doi:10.1134/S1063778809070138 [arXiv:0811.1641 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  21. [30]

    E. E. Jenkins and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B 255 (1991), 558-562 doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(91)90266-S

    1991 doi

  22. [31]

    I. B. Khriplovich, Phys. Lett. B 173 (1986), 193-196 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)90245-5

    1986 doi

  23. [32]

    Czarnecki and B

    A. Czarnecki and B. Krause, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997), 4339-4342 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.4339 [arXiv:hep-ph/9704355 [hep-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Martinelli, C

    G. Martinelli, C. Pittori, C. T. Sachrajda, M. Testa and A. Vladikas, Nucl. Phys. B 445 (1995), 81-108 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00126-D [arXiv:hep-lat/9411010 [hep-lat]]

    1995 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 223 (1983), 433-444 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90064-0

    1983 doi

  26. [35]

    T. H. R. Skyrme, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 260 (1961), 127-138 doi:10.1098/rspa.1961.0018

    1961

  27. [36]

    L. J. Dixon, A. Langnau, Y. Nir and B. Warr, Phys. Lett. B 253 (1991), 459-464 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(91)91752-H

    1991 doi

  28. [37]

    Salomonson, B

    P. Salomonson, B. S. Skagerstam and A. Stern, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 6 (1991), 3647-3652 doi:10.1142/S0217732391004218

    1991 doi

  29. [38]

    Guadagnini, Nucl

    E. Guadagnini, Nucl. Phys. B 236 (1984), 35-47 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90523-6

    1984 doi

  30. [39]

    G. S. Adkins and C. R. Nappi, Nucl. Phys. B 249 (1985), 507-518 doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(85)90089-6

    1985 doi

  31. [40]

    Chemtob, Nucl

    M. Chemtob, Nucl. Phys. B 256 (1985), 600-608 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90409-2

    1985 doi

  32. [41]

    G. S. Adkins, C. R. Nappi and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 228 (1983), 552 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90559-X

    1983 doi

  33. [42]

    J. J. de Swart, Rev. Mod. Phys. 35 (1963), 916-939 [erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys. 37 (1965) no.2, 326-326] doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.35.916

    1963 doi

  34. [43]

    P. S. J. McNamee and F. Chilton, Rev. Mod. Phys. 36 (1964), 1005-1024 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.36.1005

    1964 doi

  35. [44]

    T. D. Cohen and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004), 096015 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.096015 [arXiv:hep-ph/0408342 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  36. [45]

    de Vries, R

    J. de Vries, R. G. E. Timmermans, E. Mereghetti and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B 695 (2011), 268-274 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.11.042 [arXiv:1006.2304 [hep-ph]]. 32

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.