Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 28 references

The paper argues that three families of counterterms — a two-quark one-photon term, a two-quark two-photon triangle term, and a full four-fermion term — renormalize the three-flavor lattice calculation of K_L→μ^+μ^-, with all coefficients f

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

2026-08-02 02:49 UTC pith:M2ZZIUJC

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful counter-term classification and matching prescription for the three-flavor K_L→μ^+μ^- calculation, but the central LEC-universality assumption is asserted rather than demonstrated and Class-C is only sketched. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14077 v1 pith:M2ZZIUJC submitted 2026-07-15 hep-lat hep-ph

Renormalizing a three-flavor lattice calculation of the two-photon contribution to K_Ltoμ^+μ^-

En-Hung Chao , Norman Christ , Ceran Hu This is my paper
classification hep-lat hep-ph MSC 81V0581T2581T80 PACS 12.38.Gc13.20.Eb
keywords K_L→μ+μ- decaytwo-photon exchangelattice QCDthree-flavor effective theorycharm-up cancellationlow-energy constantstriangle-graph ambiguityrenormalization
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.

A lattice QCD prediction for the rare decay K_L→μ^+μ^- normally requires keeping the charm quark, but practical calculations omit it, and omitting it removes the up-charm cancellation that keeps the theory finite. The paper's claim is that the resulting three-flavor theory can be made physical by adding a small set of counterterms, grouped into three classes, whose coefficients are fixed by matching three- and four-flavor lattice QCD in a small volume with heavier-than-physical u and d quarks. If that claim is right, the previously unrenormalized three-flavor lattice result becomes a complete Standard Model prediction for the two-photon long-distance amplitude, which is needed to compare theory with the measured decay rate. The argument hangs on the constants being independent of the light-quark masses and volume, a premise the paper defends from their short-distance origin.

Core claim

Using a three-flavor effective weak Hamiltonian with only u, d, s quarks plus electromagnetism, the two-photon contribution to K_L→μ^+μ^- contains divergent sub-diagrams that the up-charm cancellation would have removed in a four-flavor theory. The paper classifies the new divergences by degree of divergence: Class A (degree +2, two quark lines plus one photon), Class B (degree +1, two quark lines plus two photons, carrying the triangle-graph ambiguity), and Class C (degree 0, the entire quark-to-muon amplitude). For each class it constructs the needed local counterterms — three for a conserved electromagnetic current in Class A, a modified set for a local current with a heavy regulator quar

What carries the argument

The machinery is a degree-of-divergence power counting, organized as an expansion in α_s(m_c), applied to the five quark-line contraction topologies used in lattice QCD. Divergent sub-diagrams are grouped into the three classes and matched to their four-flavor counterparts using off-shell Green's functions renormalized in a momentum-subtraction scheme. The load-bearing identities are the three Class-A operators (an electroweak-penguin-type term, a magnetic-moment-type term, and a quark-mass term), the single triangle-ambiguity operator ζ (sγ^σ γ^5 d) ε^{μνσρ}(∂_ρ A_μ) A_ν whose coefficient is fixed by imposing conservation of both electromagnetic currents, and the Class-C four-fermion operat

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the extra counter-term coefficients are true constants — independent of the u, d, s quark masses and of the lattice volume — so values fixed on a small-volume heavy-quark ensemble carry over to the physical-mass calculation; the paper itself warns that the unphysical charm regulator needed for the simpler current may have to satisfy a mass window that 'may be difficult to meet.'

What would settle it

Match the three- and four-flavor theories on the proposed small-volume ensembles, extract the counter-term coefficients, and then recompute the three-flavor K_L→μ^+μ^- amplitude at a second, different heavy-light quark mass; if the renormalized amplitude changes beyond estimated errors, the coefficients are not mass-independent and the matching strategy collapses. A cheaper variant is to compare the Class-A matching Green's function at two heavy-light masses and check that the extracted coefficients agree.

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

If this is right

  • The unrenormalized three-flavor lattice amplitude from earlier work becomes a complete physical result once these counterterms are added, removing the lattice-spacing-dependent ambiguity left in that calculation.
  • The matching that fixes the constants can be done on a small volume with heavy u and d quarks, so the four-flavor input is far cheaper than a full physical four-flavor simulation.
  • The Class-B triangle ambiguity is resolved by a current-conservation condition on the corrected hadronic matrix element, giving a single correction proportional to f_K rather than an infinite family of constants.
  • The method works order-by-order in α_s(m_c): a zeroth-order calculation needs only two of the five quark-contraction topologies, and higher orders add the remaining ones systematically.
  • Below the charm scale, the renormalized three-flavor theory reproduces the four-flavor theory up to neglected 1/m_c^2 corrections, so the long-distance amplitude can be combined with the short-distance prediction and compared with the measured K_L→μ^+μ^- rate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same three-class counterterm structure should appear in any three-flavor lattice treatment of charmless ∆S=1 rare decays, making this a template for K→πℓ^+ℓ^- or K→πνν-type calculations rather than a one-off fix.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's own warning that the unphysical charm regulator must satisfy m_ec ≪ κ/a and m_ec ≫ Λ_QCD suggests the simpler local-current scheme may not be practical; the conserved-current scheme, with its propagator-reconstruction shortcut, may be the safer route.
  • Editorial inference: a direct numerical test of the central premise would be to determine the LECs at two different heavy-light masses on the small-volume ensembles; if they drift outside errors, the mass-independence assumption fails and the matching would need to be redone at physical masses.
  • Editorial inference: the compact analytic form of the dispersive leptonic kernel derived in the appendix could accelerate other two-photon lattice calculations such as π^0→e^+e^-.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a renormalization scheme for a three-flavor lattice QCD calculation of the long-distance two-photon contribution to K_L -> mu+ mu-. The three-flavor theory lacks the GIM cancellation of the four-flavor theory, so the paper identifies three classes of divergent sub-diagrams: Class A (two-quark/one-photon), Class B (two-quark/two-photon, including the Adler ambiguity), and Class C (the entire quark-to-muon amplitude). For each class it defines local counterterms and gives non-perturbative conditions for their coefficients: three-flavor/four-flavor matching of Green's functions (Eqs. 13-16), current-conservation conditions (Eqs. 22 and 28), and a comparison of the full decay amplitude for Class C (Sec. V). The key practical claim is that the low-energy constants are independent of the u,d,s quark masses and the lattice volume, so they can be determined on small-volume, heavy-quark ensembles and then transported to the physical-mass calculation of Ref. [6]. The paper also discusses a computationally convenient variant using a local electromagnetic current with an unphysical light charm quark, and provides technical appendices on the leptonic kernel and domain-wall propagator reconstruction.

Significance. If the proposed scheme works, it would supply the missing renormalization for the exploratory lattice calculation of Ref. [6] and would be an important step toward a complete lattice determination of the K_L -> mu+ mu- Standard Model amplitude. The paper has genuine strengths: the classification of divergent sub-diagrams and the relation to quark-contraction topologies (Table I) is careful; the current-conservation condition in Eq. (28) gives a concrete, testable non-perturbative criterion for the Adler ambiguity; and the RI/MOM-based strategy for Class A is explicitly formulated. The appendices provide useful technical machinery. However, the central transportability assumption - that the matched LECs are independent of light-quark masses and volume - is asserted rather than established, and the proposed matching ensembles are not actually unitary three- and four-flavor theories. These issues are load-bearing because the entire practical program depends on moving LECs from unphysical ensembles to the physical calculation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.A.2, Eq. (16), Conclusion] The central transportability assumption is asserted, not established. The text states that after matching the effective three-flavor theory 'will agree with the four-flavor theory at low-energy' and that agreement 'will hold for all variants of the three- and four-flavor theories with matching low energy properties,' and the Conclusion repeats that the counterterms are 'independent of the masses of the u,d and s quarks.' But the matching conditions - Eqs. (13)-(16), (24), (28), and the Class-C comparison in Sec. V - equate full off-shell Green's functions or physical amplitudes at a single kinematic point and a single set of quark masses. Those full amplitudes contain long-distance contributions (light-hadron poles and finite-volume effects) that depend on m_u,d,s and L. Nothing in the paper shows that the finite parts of C_i^A, zeta, and C_1^C determined this way are free of long-distan
  2. [Sec. III.A.2, Eqs. (13)-(16)] The proposed practical matching is not between a unitary three-flavor and a unitary four-flavor theory. The right-hand side of Eq. (16) is to be evaluated on the 32IF ensemble, which the paper concedes 'too is a three-flavor ensemble'; the charm quark is quenched, not dynamical. The left-hand side, to be evaluated on the 24ID ensemble, is partially quenched: the sea light-quark mass corresponds to a physical pion while the valence mass is set to give a 371 MeV pion. These mismatches are unquantified modifications of both sides and can affect the finite parts being matched. The paper should either use ensembles with the correct dynamical content or give a quantitative estimate of the resulting systematic error in C_i^A, zeta, and C_1^C before claiming a practical determination.
  3. [Sec. V] The Class-C section is only a sketch and contains no matching equation. Eq. (31) defines the counterterm, but the proposed determination by 'adjusting C_1^C to make the two results agree' leaves undefined the exact amplitude to be computed, the quark-mass/volume/kinematic scheme, and how the short-distance part is separated from unphysical heavy-light hadronic contributions. Since the paper's central claim is that all three classes of LECs can be determined from practical four-flavor calculations, the Class-C matching condition needs to be specified at the same level of detail as Eq. (16) or Eq. (24).
  4. [Sec. III.B.2] The local-current scheme with an unphysical light charm quark requires m_ec satisfying m_ec << kappa/a and m_ec >> Lambda_QCD. With the 24ID ensemble at 1/a = 1.023 GeV and kappa small, this appears to leave little or no window (kappa/a is at most a few hundred MeV if kappa is chosen to control discretization errors, while Lambda_QCD is about 300 MeV). The paper itself says the requirement 'may be difficult to meet,' but it provides no quantitative estimate of kappa or m_ec and no check that the expansion in (m_ec/k)^2 and the GIM suppression actually hold. Since this local-current scheme is presented as the computationally advantageous option, its feasibility needs to be demonstrated or an alternative scheme developed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.C, last paragraph] The text 'K K -> mu+ mu-' should be 'K_L -> mu+ mu-'.
  2. [Eq. (21)] The counter-term insertion in Eq. (21) appears to lack the explicit photon field/vertex and the x-integration that appear in Eq. (24). Please clarify the notation so that the dimensional and kinematic structure of the counterterm is unambiguous.
  3. [Sec. III.A.2] The two ensembles E^{Nf=3} and E^{Nf=4} are introduced with different lattice spacings, and the text says discretization errors can be ignored. Please state explicitly whether the matching should be interpreted as a continuum comparison or whether a continuum extrapolation is required; otherwise the matching conditions are not fully defined.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the low-energy constants are defined by renormalization/matching conditions and then used to renormalize a separate physical calculation; nothing reduces to its own input by construction.

full rationale

The paper is a renormalization/matching proposal, not a prediction of a physical observable. Its load-bearing steps are: (i) power-counting classification of divergent sub-diagrams (Sec. II), which is independent of any fitted data; (ii) determination of the Class-A coefficients by matching three- and four-flavor Green's functions (Eqs. 13-16) or, in the local-current scheme, by the current-conservation condition (Eq. 22) plus the four-flavor matching of the ec-c subtraction (Eq. 24); (iii) fixing the Class-B Adler-ambiguity constant zeta by imposing current conservation (Eq. 28); and (iv) fixing the Class-C coefficient by matching the entire unrenormalized three-flavor K_L -> mu+ mu- amplitude to the four-flavor theory at unphysical kinematics (Sec. V). In each case the coefficient is defined by a renormalization/matching condition, and the physical amplitude is then obtained by evaluating the three-flavor diagrams plus these counterterms. No step fits a parameter to the target observable and then reports that fit as a prediction. Citations to Refs. [5,6] supply the prior unrenormalized amplitude and kernel context, but the divergence analysis and counterterm conditions are derived in the paper and from standard anomaly literature (Refs. [9,14]), not imported from self-citations as an unverified premise. The paper's own caveats -- the assumed mass/volume independence of the LECs (Sec. III.A.2, Conclusion) and the difficulty of finding an unphysical charm mass satisfying both inequalities (Sec. III.B.2) -- are untested systematic-error assumptions, not constructional circularity: the derivation would remain non-circular even if those assumptions fail. The matching procedure is a well-posed definition of the counterterms, and the final physical calculation is not identical by construction to any of the matching inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 9 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard EFT power counting, a set of stated truncations (Cabibbo unitarity, 1/m_c^2, Q1-Q2 only), and two ad hoc assumptions: mass/volume-independent LECs and the existence of an unphysical charm mass window. The LECs themselves are free parameters to be fixed by matching, not derived from first principles.

free parameters (5)
  • C_1^A, C_2^A, C_3^A (or C_4^A ... C_7^A) = to be determined by 3/4-flavor matching (Eq. 16, 24)
    Dimension-6 counter-term coefficients for Class-A divergence.
  • ζ = determined by current conservation Eq. (28)
    Coefficient of Adler-ambiguity term Eq. (26).
  • C_1^C = to be determined by matching the full amplitude
    Coefficient of the (sγ^μγ5d)(μγ_μγ5μ) counter term Eq. (31).
  • m_ec = unspecified; must satisfy m_ec ≪ κ/a and m_ec ≫ Λ_QCD
    Unphysical charm mass in the ]GIM subtraction; chosen by hand.
  • κ = small (unspecified)
    Momentum split between Region I and Region II in Fig. 9; final result should be independent up to O(κ^2).
axioms (9)
  • domain assumption Neglect of the CKM ratio τ = |V_ts^* V_td / (V_us^* V_ud)| = 0.00163(5), i.e. Cabibbo unitarity.
    Required for the four-flavor theory to be GIM-cancelled and renormalizable; stated in Section I.
  • domain assumption Neglect of 1/m_c^2 corrections in the three-flavor effective theory.
    Stated in abstract; validity of the three-flavor description relies on charm being heavy.
  • domain assumption Only the current-current operators Q1 and Q2 are kept, neglecting gluonic penguin operators Q3-Q6 (largest coefficient 2.3% of Q2).
    Section II.A; truncation of the weak Hamiltonian.
  • standard math The classification of divergent sub-diagrams by continuum perturbative power counting applies to the lattice-regulated theory.
    Standard effective field theory; the paper maps lattice topologies to perturbative sub-diagrams (Section II.C).
  • ad hoc to paper The counter-term coefficients are independent of light-quark masses and volume (locality of short-distance counter terms).
    Stated in Section III.A.2 and Conclusion; not proven, load-bearing for the matching strategy.
  • ad hoc to paper The Adler ambiguity in the three-flavor lattice regulator is represented by the single local operator in Eq. (26) and can be removed by imposing current conservation Eq. (28).
    Section IV; assumes the regulator ambiguity is local and that one coefficient suffices at all orders.
  • domain assumption The 5D surface-to-bulk propagator reconstruction (Appendix B) correctly gives the conserved-current correlation functions from a 4D physical propagator.
    Relies on MDWF formalism of Ref. [12]; needed to implement the scheme.
  • domain assumption GIM mechanism in the four-flavor theory makes it renormalizable to first order in weak interactions and all orders in QED.
    Section I; standard result from Buchalla et al. [2].
  • ad hoc to paper There exists a mass m_ec satisfying m_ec ≪ κ/a and m_ec ≫ Λ_QCD so that the ]GIM subtraction is both discretization-error-free and local.
    Section III.B; the paper itself admits this window 'may be difficult to meet'.
invented entities (1)
  • Unphysical light charm quark (~c) no independent evidence
    purpose: Pauli-Villars-type regulator enabling a GIM-like subtraction with a local E&M current, reducing Class-A divergence from +2 to a single counter term
    A computational device whose mass must lie in a narrow window; not a physical particle.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19999 in / 17292 out tokens · 142743 ms · 2026-08-02T02:49:30.405148+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Standard Model prediction for the rare $K_L\to\mu^+\mu^-$ decay depends critically on the long-distance contribution coming from the exchange of two photons. Such a contribution can be computed using lattice QCD and an effective three-flavor theory including only the $u$, $d$ and $s$ quarks, provided terms falling as the inverse square of the omitted charm quark mass, $1/m_c^2$ are neglected. Because of the missing Glashow-Iliopoulos-Maiani cancelation, this three-flavor theory contains additional low-energy constants that depend on $m_c$. Here we show how these constants can be determined from a practical four-flavor lattice QCD calculation performed on a small volume with $u$ and $d$ quark masses that are heavier than physical.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14077 by Ceran Hu, En-Hung Chao, Norman Christ.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The three classes of sub-diagram with non-negative degree of divergence which will appear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The five types of Wick-contraction topology analyzed in this paper. From left to right, top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The dashed rectangles contain sub-diagrams with a non-negative degree of divergence. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The two classes of sub-diagram with non-negative degree of divergence which can appear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The large dashed rectangle encloses a sub-diagram of Class-B contained in diagrams of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The two types of sub-diagram enclosed by dashed rectangles have non-negative degree of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The dashed rectangle encloses the Class-B sub-diagram with degree of divergence +1 that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Identification of the two components of a general Class-A sub-diagram. While a particular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.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

28 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Class-A counter terms (conserved E&M current) 15

  2. [2]

    Local E&M current with unphysical light charm quark,ec20

    Class-A renormalization coefficients (conserved E&M current) 16 B. Local E&M current with unphysical light charm quark,ec20

  3. [3]

    Class-A counter terms (unphysical light charm quark) 20

  4. [4]

    Class-B sub-diagrams 25 A

    Class-A renormalization coefficients (unphysical light charm quark) 22 IV. Class-B sub-diagrams 25 A. Adler ambiguity 26 B. Resolving the three-flavor Adler ambiguity 27 V. Class-C sub-diagrams 29 2 VI. Conclusion 31 Acknowledgments 32 A. Analytic properties of the leptonic kernel 33 B. Reconstruction of a five-dimensional surface-to-bulk propagator from ...

  5. [5]

    Equation (3) is valid form c < µ < MW

    +z 2(Qu 2 −Q c 2) i mc < µ≪M W .(3) Herez 1 andz 2 depend on the renormalization scaleµused to define the four operatorsQ q i andθ c is the Cabbibo angle. Equation (3) is valid form c < µ < MW . Because of their u−cstructure these operators do not mix with the four gluonic penguin operators whose contribution is suppressed by a factor ofτ. Forµ < mc the G...

  6. [6]

    The left-most two diagrams appear in Type-1 quark contractions and the right- most in Type-2

    Class-A counter terms (conserved E&M current) Figure 8 shows three examples of Class-A sub-graphs that appear at zeroth and first order inα s(mc). The left-most two diagrams appear in Type-1 quark contractions and the right- most in Type-2. BecauseH ∆S=1 Nf =3 has dimension six, these three diagrams have a naive degree s s s d d d s s s d d d s s s d d d ...

  7. [7]

    As discussed above, we can determine the three coefficientsC A i from a four-flavor calculation performed under unphysical conditions on a comparison lattice ensemble,E Nf =4

    Class-A renormalization coefficients (conserved E&M current) Since to a good approximation the four-flavor theory ofK L →µ +µ− is well defined with- out additional renormalization constants (beyond those needed to renormalize the four-quark operators which appear inH ∆S=1 Nf =4 ), we can determine the coefficientsC A i by comparison with these well-define...

  8. [8]

    Class-A counter terms (unphysical light charm quark) Here we reduce the computational complexity of Class-A sub-diagrams by using the local, non-conserved E&M current. The +2 degree of divergence of these diagrams is reduced by introducing an unphysical light charm quarkecwith weak interaction couplings identical to those of the physical charm quark but w...

  9. [9]

    Adler ambiguity

    Class-A renormalization coefficients (unphysical light charm quark) The finite coefficientC A 4 of the counter term shown in Eq. (19) which should be added to each Class-A sub-diagram which appears in the three-flavor calculation is straight-forward 22 to determine. We need only adjustC A 4 so that after that counter term has been added, the E&M current i...

  10. [10]

    Ambroseet al.(E871), Improved branching ratio measurement for the decay K0(L) –> mu+ mu-, Phys

    D. Ambroseet al.(E871), Improved branching ratio measurement for the decay K0(L) –> mu+ mu-, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 1389 (2000)

    2000

  11. [11]

    Buchalla, A

    G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbacher, Weak Decays beyond Leading Logarithms, Rev. Mod. Phys.68, 1125 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9512380

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  12. [12]

    Gorbahn and U

    M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, Charm Quark Contribution to K(L) —>mu+ mu- at Next-to- Next-to-Leading, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 122002 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0605203

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  13. [13]

    N. H. Christ, X. Feng, L. Jin, C. Tu, and Y. Zhao, Lattice QCD calculation of the two-photon contributions toK L →µ +µ− andπ 0 →e +e− decays, PoSLA TTICE2019, 128 (2020). 36

    2020

  14. [14]

    Chao and N

    E.-H. Chao and N. Christ, Calculating the two-photon exchange contribution to KL→µ+µ- decay, Phys. Rev. D110, 054514 (2024), arXiv:2406.07447 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Boyle, E.-H

    P. Boyle, E.-H. Chao, N. Christ, C. Hu, L. Jin, and Y. Zhao, Exploratory calculation of KL→µ+µ- decay from lattice QCD at physical pion mass, Phys. Rev. D113, 074523 (2026), arXiv:2509.04346 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Tanabashiet al.(Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, Phys

    M. Tanabashiet al.(Particle Data Group), Review of Particle Physics, Phys. Rev. D98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  17. [17]

    T. Blum, P. A. Boyle, D. Hoying, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, C. Kelly, C. Lehner, A. Soni, and M. Tomii (RBC, UKQCD), ∆I=3/2 and ∆I=1/2 channels of K→ππdecay at the physical point with periodic boundary conditions, Phys. Rev. D108, 094517 (2023), arXiv:2306.06781 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    S. L. Adler, Axial vector vertex in spinor electrodynamics, Phys. Rev.177, 2426 (1969)

    1969

  19. [19]

    D’Ambrosio, D

    G. D’Ambrosio, D. Greynat, and M. Knecht, On the amplitudes for the CP-conserving K±(KS)→π ±(π0)ℓ+ℓ− rare decay modes, JHEP02, 049, arXiv:1812.00735 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    Martinelli, C

    G. Martinelli, C. Pittori, C. T. Sachrajda, M. Testa, and A. Vladikas, A general method for non-perturbative renormalization of lattice operators, Nucl. Phys. B445, 81 (1995), arXiv:hep-lat/9411010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  21. [21]

    Blumet al.(RBC, UKQCD), Domain wall QCD with physical quark masses, Phys

    T. Blumet al.(RBC, UKQCD), Domain wall QCD with physical quark masses, Phys. Rev. D93, 074505 (2016), arXiv:1411.7017 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    R. F. Dashen and D. J. Gross, The Relationship Between Lattice and Continuum Definitions of the Gauge Theory Coupling, Phys. Rev. D23, 2340 (1981)

    1981

  23. [23]

    J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, A PCAC puzzle:π 0 →γγin theσmodel, Nuovo Cim. A60, 47 (1969)

    1969

  24. [24]

    P. A. Boyle (UKQCD), Conserved currents for Mobius Domain Wall Fermions, PoSLA T- TICE2014, 087 (2015)

    2015

  25. [25]

    S. L. Adler and W. A. Bardeen, Absence of higher order corrections in the anomalous axial vector divergence equation, Phys. Rev.182, 1517 (1969)

    1969

  26. [26]

    Costa, J

    G. Costa, J. Julve, T. Marinucci, and M. Tonin, Nonabelian Gauge Theories and Triangle Anomalies, Nuovo Cim. A38, 373 (1977)

    1977

  27. [27]

    R. C. Brower, H. Neff, and K. Orginos, The M¨ obius domain wall fermion algorithm, Comput. Phys. Commun.220, 1 (2017), arXiv:1206.5214 [hep-lat]. 37

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Yin and R

    H. Yin and R. D. Mawhinney, Improving DWF Simulations: the Force Gradient Integrator and the M¨ obius Accelerated DWF Solver, PoSLA TTICE2011, 051 (2011), arXiv:1111.5059 [hep-lat]. 38

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011