Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

Nuclear form factors suppress recoil corrections in hadronic vacuum polarization of light atoms

2026-07-09 03:28 UTC pith:VPP56YDK

load-bearing objection New hVP HFS evaluations for muonic hydrogen and helium-3 deviate significantly from prior work; errors identified in earlier calculations. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07658 v1 pith:VPP56YDK submitted 2026-07-08 physics.atom-ph hep-exhep-phnucl-th

Hadronic vacuum polarization in hydrogen-like atoms and ions amid the interplay of recoil and finite-size effects

Franziska Hagelstein , Vadim Lensky , Bogdan Malaescu , Vladimir Pascalutsa This is my paper
classification physics.atom-ph hep-exhep-phnucl-th PACS 31.30.jf32.10.Fn36.10.Dr13.40.Gp
keywords hadronic vacuum polarizationhyperfine splittingmuonic hydrogenmuonic helium-3nuclear form factorsrecoil correctionsfinite-size effectsLamb shift
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.

This paper evaluates the hadronic vacuum polarization (hVP) contribution to the Lamb shift and hyperfine splitting in ordinary and muonic hydrogen and helium-3 ions. The central finding is a mechanism: in systems with composite nuclei, the nuclear elastic form factors act as a soft cutoff on the loop integrals, suppressing the recoil corrections that would otherwise be logarithmically enhanced by the lepton-to-nucleus mass ratio. In muonium, where both constituents are pointlike, recoil corrections reduce the hVP contribution by more than a factor of five; in muonic hydrogen and helium, the form factors cut off the integral well below the nuclear mass scale, so the recoil correction becomes negligible. Using this insight and a data-driven dispersive evaluation of the R ratio, the authors obtain hVP contributions to the ground-state hyperfine splitting of 2.153(11) μeV in muonic hydrogen and −15.19(57) μeV in muonic helium-3. These results deviate from all prior evaluations, with the muonic hydrogen value differing by roughly ten times the precision targeted by upcoming CREMA and FAMU experiments. The paper attributes the discrepancies to two sources: a rescaling of muonic vacuum polarization that misstates the hVP-to-μVP ratio in the HFS context, and calculational errors in an earlier combined hVP–finite-size treatment. For the Lamb shift, the results agree with existing literature, and the paper provides a first evaluation of a subleading hVP–finite-size correction that is non-negligible in muonic helium-3.

Core claim

The paper identifies a quantitative criterion for when recoil corrections to a vacuum-polarization contribution matter: they are logarithmically enhanced only if the VP spectral function extends to scales comparable with the heavier constituent mass and no form-factor cutoff intervenes at a lower scale. For composite nuclei, the elastic form factors always provide the lower cutoff, so the recoil logarithm never develops. This mechanism explains why the full and non-recoil weighting functions are nearly indistinguishable in muonic hydrogen and helium, while in pointlike muonium they differ by more than a factor of five. Applying this with a dispersive data-driven evaluation yields hVP–HFS数值值在

What carries the argument

hadronic vacuum polarization (hVP): the non-perturbative QCD contribution to the photon self-energy, evaluated here via a dispersive integral over the empirical R ratio (the e+e− annihilation cross section into hadrons). The elastic electromagnetic form factors (Sachs G_E and G_M) of the proton and helion encode the nuclear finite-size effects and provide the cutoff mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The proton elastic form factors used for the finite-size calculation are taken from a specific fit that imposes the muonic-hydrogen Lamb-shift charge radius; an alternative dispersion-theoretical parametrization yields a 3.7% larger HFS correction, and the paper assigns a 4% model uncertainty that it does not fold into its tabulated errors.

What would settle it

If the CREMA or FAMU measurement of the muonic hydrogen ground-state HFS lands at a value inconsistent with the theory prediction that uses 2.153(11) μeV for the hVP piece, the discrepancy would point either to a problem in the hVP evaluation or to missing physics elsewhere in the theory compilation.

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

If this is right

  • Upcoming CREMA and FAMU measurements of the muonic hydrogen ground-state hyperfine splitting at 1 ppm precision will directly test the paper's revised hVP value of 2.153(11) μeV against prior estimates that differ by ~2 μeV.
  • The recoil-suppression criterion can be applied to other hydrogen-like systems with composite nuclei—including muonic deuterium and heavier muonic ions—to decide a priori whether recoil corrections to any VP contribution can be neglected.
  • The first evaluation of the O(Z⁵α⁶) hVP–finite-size correction in muonic helium-3 (6.7(2) μeV) sets a benchmark for theory compilations of n=2 levels in that system.
  • Correlations between hVP contributions across different observables (Lamb shift, HFS, muon g−2) arise from shared R-ratio input, and the paper's weighting-function analysis shows these observables probe similar spectral regions, opening paths for joint consistency checks.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript evaluates hadronic vacuum polarization (hVP) contributions to the Lamb shift and hyperfine splitting (HFS) in ordinary and muonic hydrogen and hydrogen-like helium-3 ions, using the dispersive data-driven approach with the DHMZ parametrization of the R-ratio. The central physical result is that nuclear elastic form factors suppress the recoil corrections to the hVP-HFS that are large in muonium (where both constituents are pointlike), rendering them negligible in composite-nucleus systems. The authors obtain 2.153(11) µeV for the hVP contribution to the µH ground-state HFS, deviating from previous evaluations by roughly ten times the anticipated CREMA/FAMU experimental precision. They attribute the discrepancies to (i) an incorrect hVP-to-µVP rescaling used in prior work and (ii) specific calculational errors in Ref. [9] (Faustov and Martynenko). Lamb shift results are shown to agree with the literature, and a first evaluation of the subleading O(Z^5 α^6) hVP–finite-size correction is presented.

Significance. The timing is excellent: CREMA and FAMU are pursuing the µH ground-state HFS at ~1 ppm precision, and a factor-of-ten discrepancy in the hVP contribution relative to prior evaluations is directly relevant to the interpretation of those measurements. The formalism is laid out clearly, with the master formula Eq. (10) supported by multiple consistency checks: it reduces to known results in the pointlike [Eq. (13)], structureless [Eq. (14)], and non-recoil [Eq. (12)] limits. The Mu HFS result (Table I) agrees with independent evaluations, providing a validation of the data-driven pipeline. The identification of specific errors in Ref. [9] (extra factor of 2 on F_2, missing factors of 1/2 and M/2m in Eqs. 25 and 26) is concrete and independently verifiable. The first evaluation of the O(Z^5 α^6) hVP–finite-size correction for the Lamb shift, particularly the 6.7(2) µeV effect in µ³He⁺, is a genuine addition. No free parameters are fitted; the results depend on empirical R-ratio data and external nuclear form factor parametrizations.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. V, Table II: The quoted uncertainty on the µH HFS result, 0.011 µeV, does not include the 4% proton FF model uncertainty (~0.086 µeV) that the authors themselves identify in Sec. V. The tabulated error thus substantially understates the full systematic budget. While the central claim of significant deviation from previous work remains valid—the ~2.6 µeV discrepancy with Borie's result far exceeds even the inflated uncertainty—the authors should either include the FF model uncertainty in the tabulated error or, at minimum, state the total inflated uncertainty explicitly in the table caption. As written, a reader taking Table II at face value would underestimate the uncertainty by nearly an order of magnitude.
  2. Sec. V: The treatment of the e⁺e⁻ data scatter and the a_µ discrepancy inflation factor (2.44) is described in prose but not propagated into the tabulated uncertainties. The text states that accounting for experimental scatter gives an extra factor of 2.51 for (µ)H and 1.06 for (µ)³He⁺, followed by an additional inflation factor of 2.42 and 1.25, respectively. It would strengthen the paper to provide a compact summary table or footnote giving the final inflated uncertainty for each system, so that the full systematic budget is transparent and not buried in narrative arithmetic from the prose.
minor comments (5)
  1. Sec. III: The criterion for when recoil corrections may be neglected is stated qualitatively ('the VP spectral function extends to scales comparable with the heavier mass, and no FF cutoff intervenes at a lower scale'). A more quantitative version, e.g., specifying the ratio √t₀/M or the FF cutoff scale Λ_FF, would be helpful.
  2. Fig. 2(b): The curves for W(t) and W_non-recoil(t) are stated to be 'on top of each other,' but the figure as presented makes it difficult to assess the actual size of the residual difference. A ratio plot or an inset showing the fractional difference would improve clarity.
  3. Table A1: The caption could clarify that the 'finite size' and 'pointlike' rows correspond to Eqs. (10)/(12) and Eqs. (13)/(14)/(16), respectively, to help the reader navigate the various limits.
  4. Sec. V, discussion of Ref. [9]: The statement that 'Eq. (12) of that reference appears to contain a mistake' is specific and useful. It would help the reader if the corresponding corrected expressions were written out explicitly, perhaps in a short appendix, so that the identification of errors is self-contained.
  5. The abstract states the µH result 'differs from previous evaluations by roughly ten times the experimental precision anticipated by the upcoming CREMA and FAMU measurements.' This is accurate, but the abstract could also mention that the quoted uncertainty itself is subject to additional systematic inflation, as discussed in Sec. V.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and for the constructive suggestions regarding the transparency of our uncertainty budget. Both major comments are well-taken and will be addressed in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Sec. V, Table II: The quoted uncertainty on the µH HFS result, 0.011 µeV, does not include the 4% proton FF model uncertainty (~0.086 µeV) that the authors themselves identify in Sec. V. The tabulated error thus substantially understates the full systematic budget. While the central claim of significant deviation from previous work remains valid—the ~2.6 µeV discrepancy with Borie's result far exceeds even the inflated uncertainty—the authors should either include the FF model uncertainty in the tabulated error or, at minimum, state the total inflated uncertainty explicitly in the table caption.

    Authors: The referee is correct. The 4% proton FF model uncertainty is discussed in Sec. V but is explicitly excluded from the numbers in Table II, as stated in the text ('This uncertainty is not included in the tables below'). We agree that this creates a risk of misinterpretation: a reader consulting Table II without reading the surrounding prose would underestimate the full systematic budget by nearly an order of magnitude. In the revised manuscript, we will add a footnote to Table II stating the total uncertainty including the FF model dependence explicitly. For µH, the 4% FF model uncertainty corresponds to approximately 0.086 µeV, which, added in quadrature with the quoted 0.011 µeV, gives a total of approximately 0.087 µeV. For H, the corresponding total is approximately 0.0039 kHz. We will also add the analogous statement for the (µ)H entries. We note that the central conclusion—that our result deviates from previous evaluations by far more than the anticipated experimental precision—remains valid under either uncertainty estimate, as the referee also acknowledges. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Sec. V: The treatment of the e⁺e⁻ data scatter and the a_µ discrepancy inflation factor (2.44) is described in prose but not propagated into the tabulated uncertainties. The text states that accounting for experimental scatter gives an extra factor of 2.51 for (µ)H and 1.06 for (µ)³He⁺, followed by an additional inflation factor of 2.42 and 1.25, respectively. It would strengthen the paper to provide a compact summary table or footnote giving the final inflated uncertainty for each system, so that the full systematic budget is transparent and not buried in narrative arithmetic from the prose.

    Authors: We agree that the current presentation buries the full uncertainty budget in narrative arithmetic, making it difficult for the reader to reconstruct the total inflated uncertainty for each system. In the revised manuscript, we will add a compact summary—either as a footnote to Table II or as a small additional table—listing, for each system, the quoted (statistical + R-ratio systematic) uncertainty, the scatter inflation factor, the a_µ-discrepancy inflation factor, and the final inflated uncertainty. Concretely, for µH the final inflated uncertainty including both the e⁺e⁻ data scatter and the a_µ discrepancy is approximately 0.011 × 2.51 × 2.42 ≈ 0.067 µeV; adding the 4% FF model uncertainty in quadrature gives approximately 0.11 µeV. For µ³He⁺, the corresponding inflated uncertainty is approximately 0.057 × 1.06 × 1.25 ≈ 0.075 µeV, which is still dominated by the helion FF scatter. We will present these numbers transparently so that the full systematic budget is immediately accessible. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper's central result — the hVP contribution to the µH HFS of 2.153(11) µeV — is derived from a dispersive master formula [Eq. (10)] that takes two independent empirical inputs: the DHMZ R-ratio parametrization [Ref. 20, from e+e- scattering data] and external nuclear form factor parametrizations [Borah et al. Ref. 26 for the proton; Amroun et al. Ref. 28 for the helion]. Neither input is defined in terms of the output observable. The DHMZ R-ratio is an independent compilation of e+e- cross-section data by a broad collaboration, and while Malaescu is a co-author of both this paper and the DHMZ parametrization, the R-ratio is externally falsifiable, code-reproduced, and parameter-independent with respect to the atomic HFS — it is not fitted to reproduce the HFS result. The form factors are taken from external fits to electron-proton scattering data constrained by the µH Lamb shift charge radius, not by the HFS. The paper validates its methodology through multiple independent consistency checks: the Mu HFS result (Table I) agrees with five independent literature evaluations (Sapirstein, Faustov, Czarnecki, Nomura-Teubner, Keshavarzi); the Lamb shift results (Table III) agree with prior calculations; the master formula reduces to known results in the pointlike [Eq. (13)], structureless [Eq. (14)], and non-recoil [Eq. (12)] limits; and the identification of calculational errors in Ref. [9] (extra factor 2 on F2, factors 1/2 and M/2m on Eqs. 25 and 26) is concrete and independently verifiable. The 4% FF model uncertainty from the Lin et al. dispersion-theoretical FFs is acknowledged but not included in tabulated errors — this is a correctness risk (understated systematic uncertainty), not a circularity issue, since the FFs are not fitted to the HFS output. The self-citation to Ref. [14] (Pachucki, Lensky, Hagelstein et al.) provides the theoretical framework but does not define the empirical inputs. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction. The minor self-citation to DHMZ methodology is not load-bearing for circularity because the R-ratio is independently validated against a_mu and multiple cross-section experiments. Score 2 reflects this minor self-citation without circularity in the central claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted. The axioms are standard dispersive relations and domain-specific FF parametrizations from external literature. No new particles, forces, or entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • None fitted in this paper = N/A
    The paper uses external inputs (R-ratio from DHMZ, nuclear FFs from Borah et al. and Amroun et al.) without fitting any parameters to the target observables.
axioms (3)
  • standard math Dispersive representation of hVP via the optical theorem: Im Π_hVP(s) = -α/3 · R(s)
    Eq. (5); standard dispersive approach using the R-ratio from e⁺e⁻ annihilation data.
  • domain assumption Sachs FF parametrizations for proton (Borah et al.) and helion (Amroun et al., Piarulli et al.) accurately describe low-Q² nuclear structure
    Sec. V; the proton FFs impose the µH Lamb shift charge radius, and the helion FFs are empirical/chiral EFT parametrizations. A 4% model uncertainty is assigned for the proton FFs.
  • domain assumption Factor of 2.44 inflation for systematic scatter in R-ratio data, derived from the aµ discrepancy
    Sec. IV; the same inflation factor from the muon g-2 evaluation is applied to all HFS/Lamb shift observables, justified by the similar shape of the weighting functions.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 23632 in / 2278 out tokens · 456246 ms · 2026-07-09T03:28:38.138797+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Hadronic vacuum polarization (hVP) enters simple atomic systems at a level that is small yet decisive for the precision spectroscopy now underway. We evaluate the hVP contributions to the Lamb shift and the hyperfine splitting (HFS) in ordinary and muonic hydrogen (H and $\mu$H) and hydrogen-like helium-3 ions ($^3$He$^+$ and $\mu^3$He$^+$), using the dispersive data-driven approach and state-of-the-art empirical parametrizations of the $R$ ratio. At the centre of the analysis is the interplay of recoil and finite-size effects: the recoil corrections that dominate the HFS in muonium (Mu), where both constituents are pointlike, are shown to be suppressed by the nuclear elastic form factors (FFs). Our results for the leading hVP contribution to the Lamb shift agree with the literature within uncertainties. Furthermore, we present a first evaluation of the subleading $O(Z^5\alpha^6)$ hVP-finite-size correction, which is by no means negligible in $\mu^3$He$^+$. Our results for the hVP contribution to the HFS deviate significantly from all previous evaluations. For the ground-state HFS, we obtain $2.153(11)~\mu$eV in $\mu$H and $-15.19(57)~\mu$eV in $\mu^3$He$^+$, as well as $0.0860(4)~$kHz and $-0.476(17)~$kHz in ordinary H and $^3$He$^+$, respectively. Notably, our result for $\mu$H differs from previous evaluations by roughly ten times the experimental precision anticipated by the upcoming CREMA and FAMU measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07658 by Bogdan Malaescu, Franziska Hagelstein, Vadim Lensky, Vladimir Pascalutsa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. One-photon-exchange (OPE) and two-photon-exchange (TPE) potentials with nuclear finite-size and VP corrections: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Weighting functions in Mu and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of weighting functions for the VP contribution to the HFS [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_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

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · 53 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Hadrons and Nuclei as Discovery Tools

    (it appears that [66] uses a slightly different prefactor≃0.667). While the numerical prefactor underestimates the ratio between the hVP andµVP contributions, the non-recoil limit without the finite-size effects gives a much bigger integral (as illustrated in Sec. III). This explains the discrepancy between our results forµH andµ 3He+ and those of [66]. F...

    work page

  2. [2]

    S. G. Karshenboim and V. A. Shelyuto, Hadronic vacuum-polarization contribution to various QED observables, Eur. Phys. J. D75, 49 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Laser excitation of the 1s-hyperfine transition in muonic hydrogen

    P. Amaroet al., Laser excitation of the 1s-hyperfine transition in muonic hydrogen, SciPost Phys.13, 020 (2022), arXiv:2112.00138 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    First operation of the FAMU experiment at the RIKEN-RAL high intensity muon beam facility

    A. Adamczaket al.(FAMU), First operation of the FAMU experiment at the RIKEN-RAL high intensity muon beam facility, Eur. Phys. J. A61, 284 (2025), arXiv:2509.10350 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Recoil corrections to $\mu$H hyperfine splitting

    A. Maro´ n, M. Pa´ ntak, and K. Pachucki, Recoil corrections to muonic hydrogen hyperfine splitting, Phys. Rev. A113, 062810 (2026), arXiv:2604.06930 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Model-independent determination of the two-photon exchange contribution to hyperfine splitting in muonic hydrogen

    C. Peset and A. Pineda, Model-independent determination of the two-photon exchange contribution to hyperfine splitting in muonic hydrogen, JHEP04, 060, arXiv:1612.05206 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  7. [7]

    The proton structure in and out of muonic hydrogen

    A. Antognini, F. Hagelstein, and V. Pascalutsa, The proton structure in and out of muonic hydrogen, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.72, 389 (2022), arXiv:2205.10076 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Chiral perturbation theory of the hyperfine splitting in (muonic) hydrogen

    F. Hagelstein, V. Lensky, and V. Pascalutsa, Chiral perturbation theory of the hyperfine splitting in (muonic) hydrogen, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 762 (2023), arXiv:2305.09633 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Hellwig, R

    H. Hellwig, R. F. C. Vessot, M. W. Levine, P. W. Zitzewitz, D. W. Allan, and D. J. Glaze, Measurement of the unperturbed hydrogen hyperfine transition frequency, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement19, 200 (1970)

    work page 1970

  10. [10]

    R. N. Faustov and A. P. Martynenko, Contribution of hadronic vacuum polarization to hyperfine splitting of muonic hydrogen, Phys. Atom. Nucl.61, 471 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9709374

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  11. [11]

    Rabi-Oscillation Spectroscopy of the Hyperfine Structure of Muonium Atoms

    S. Nishimuraet al.(MuSEUM), Rabi-oscillation spectroscopy of the hyperfine structure of muonium atoms, Phys. Rev. A 104, L020801 (2021), arXiv:2007.12386 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Precision measurements of muonium and muonic helium hyperfine structure at J-PARC

    P. Strasseret al.(MuSEUM), Precision measurements of muonium and muonic helium hyperfine structure at J-PARC, Eur. Phys. J. D79, 20 (2025), arXiv:2501.02736 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Liuet al., High precision measurements of the ground state hyperfine structure interval of muonium and of the muon magnetic moment, Phys

    W. Liuet al., High precision measurements of the ground state hyperfine structure interval of muonium and of the muon magnetic moment, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 711 (1999)

    work page 1999

  14. [14]

    M. I. Eides, Muonium hyperfine splitting uncertainty revisited, Modern Physics Letters A41, 2650074 (2026), arXiv:2510.07281 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    Comprehensive theory of the Lamb shift in light muonic atoms

    K. Pachucki, V. Lensky, F. Hagelstein, S. S. Li Muli, S. Bacca, and R. Pohl, Comprehensive theory of the Lamb shift in light muonic atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 015001 (2024), arXiv:2212.13782 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Theory of the 2S-2P Lamb shift and 2S hyperfine splitting in muonic hydrogen

    A. Antognini, F. Kottmann, F. Biraben, P. Indelicato, F. Nez, and R. Pohl, Theory of the 2S−2PLamb shift and 2S hyperfine splitting in muonic hydrogen, Annals Phys.331, 127 (2013), arXiv:1208.2637 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  17. [17]

    J. J. Krauth, M. Diepold, B. Franke, A. Antognini, F. Kottmann, and R. Pohl, Theory of then= 2 levels in muonic deuterium, Annals Phys.366, 168 (2016), arXiv:1506.01298 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Theory of the n=2 levels in muonic helium-3 ions

    B. Franke, J. J. Krauth, A. Antognini, M. Diepold, F. Kottmann, and R. Pohl, Theory of then= 2 levels in muonic helium-3 ions, Eur. Phys. J. D71, 341 (2017), arXiv:1705.00352 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    Theory of the Lamb shift and Fine Structure in muonic $\mathrm{^4He}$ ions and the muonic $\mathrm{^3He-^4He}$ Isotope Shift

    M. Diepold, B. Franke, J. J. Krauth, A. Antognini, F. Kottmann, and R. Pohl, Theory of the Lamb shift and Fine Structure in muonic 4He ions and the muonic 3He− 4He Isotope Shift, Ann. Phys.396, 220 (2018), arXiv:1606.05231 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    G. T. Bodwin and D. R. Yennie, Some Recoil Corrections to the Hydrogen Hyperfine Splitting, Phys. Rev. D37, 498 (1988)

    work page 1988

  21. [21]

    Tensions in $e^+e^-\to\pi^+\pi^-(\gamma)$ measurements: the new landscape of data-driven hadronic vacuum polarization predictions for the muon $g-2$

    M. Davier, A. Hoecker, A.-M. Lutz, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Tensions ine +e− →π +π−(γ) measurements: the new landscape of data-driven hadronic vacuum polarization predictions for the muong−2, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 721 (2024), arXiv:2312.02053 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    M. I. Eides, H. Grotch, and V. A. Shelyuto, Theory of light hydrogenic bound states, Phys. Rept.342, 63 (2001), arXiv:hep- ph/0002158

    work page arXiv 2001

  23. [23]

    S. G. Karshenboim, Precision physics of simple atoms: QED tests, nuclear structure and fundamental constants, Phys. Rept.422, 1 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0509010

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  24. [24]

    Nucleon Polarizabilities: from Compton Scattering to Hydrogen Atom

    F. Hagelstein, R. Miskimen, and V. Pascalutsa, Nucleon Polarizabilities: from Compton Scattering to Hydrogen Atom, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.88, 29 (2016), arXiv:1512.03765 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [25]

    New Spin Structure Constraints on Hyperfine Splitting and Proton Size

    D. Ruthet al., New spin structure constraints on hyperfine splitting and proton Zemach radius, Phys. Lett. B859, 139116 (2024), arXiv:2406.18738 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    J. R. Sapirstein, E. A. Terray, and D. R. Yennie, Radiative Recoil Corrections to Muonium and Positronium Hyperfine Splitting, Phys. Rev. D29, 2290 (1984)

    work page 1984

  27. [27]

    Parameterization and applications of the low-$Q^2$ nucleon vector form factors

    K. Borah, R. J. Hill, G. Lee, and O. Tomalak, Parameterization and applications of the low-Q2 nucleon vector form factors, 16 Phys. Rev. D102, 074012 (2020), arXiv:2003.13640 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    S. Li, V. Pascalutsa, and M. Pospelov, Leptong−2 non-universality of hadronic contributions and a sub-GeV window to New Physics (2026), arXiv:2606.08329 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Amrounet al., 3H and 3He electromagnetic form factors, Nucl

    A. Amrounet al., 3H and 3He electromagnetic form factors, Nucl. Phys. A579, 596 (1994)

    work page 1994

  30. [30]

    Reevaluation of the hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic anomaly using new e+e- -> pi+pi- cross section data from BABAR

    M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, C. Z. Yuan, and Z. Zhang, Reevaluation of the hadronic contribution to the muon magnetic anomaly using newe +e− →π +π− cross section data from BABAR, Eur. Phys. J. C66, 1 (2010), arXiv:0908.4300 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  31. [31]

    Reevaluation of the Hadronic Contributions to the Muon g-2 and to alpha(MZ)

    M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Reevaluation of the hadronic contributions to the muong−2 and to α(M2 Z), Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1515 (2011), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C72, 1874 (2012)], arXiv:1010.4180 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  32. [32]

    A new evaluation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment and to $\mathbf{\boldsymbol\alpha(m_Z^2)}$

    M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, A new evaluation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment and toα(m 2 Z), Eur. Phys. J. C80, 241 (2020), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C80, 410 (2020)], arXiv:1908.00921 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Radiative corrections and Monte Carlo tools for low-energy hadronic cross sections in $e^+ e^-$ collisions

    R. Alibertiet al., Radiative corrections and Monte Carlo tools for low-energy hadronic cross sections ine +e− collisions, SciPost Phys. Comm. Rep. 9 (2024), arXiv:2410.22882 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    J. P. Leeset al.(BaBar), Measurement of additional radiation in the initial-state-radiation processese +e− →µ +µ−γand e+e− →π +π−γat BABAR, Phys. Rev. D108, L111103 (2023), arXiv:2308.05233 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Measurement of the $e^+e^- \to \pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ cross section in the energy range 0.62-3.50 GeV at Belle II

    I. Adachiet al.(Belle-II), Measurement of thee +e− →π +π−π0 cross section in the energy range 0.62–3.50 GeV at Belle II, Phys. Rev. D110, 112005 (2024), arXiv:2404.04915 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update

    R. Alibertiet al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model: an update, Phys. Rept.1143, 1 (2025), arXiv:2505.21476 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model

    T. Aoyamaet al., The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model, Phys. Rept.887, 1 (2020), arXiv:2006.04822 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    D. P. Aguillardet al.(Muong−2), Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 127 ppb, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 101802 (2025), arXiv:2506.03069 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Hybrid calculation of hadronic vacuum polarization in muon g-2 to 0.48\%

    A. Boccalettiet al., Hybrid calculation of hadronic vacuum polarization in muong−2 to 0.48%, Nature653, 373 (2026), arXiv:2407.10913 [hep-lat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Precise measurement of the e+ e- to pi+ pi- (gamma) cross section with the Initial State Radiation method at BABAR

    B. Aubertet al.(BaBar), Precise measurement of thee +e− →π +π−(γ) cross section with the Initial State Radiation method at BABAR, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 231801 (2009), arXiv:0908.3589 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  41. [41]

    J. P. Leeset al.(BaBar), Precise Measurement of thee +e− →π +π−(γ) Cross Section with the Initial-State Radiation Method at BABAR, Phys. Rev. D86, 032013 (2012), arXiv:1205.2228 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  42. [42]

    F. V. Ignatovet al.(CMD-3), Measurement of the Pion Form Factor with CMD-3 Detector and its Implication to the Hadronic Contribution to Muon (g−2), Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 231903 (2024), arXiv:2309.12910 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    F. V. Ignatovet al.(CMD-3), Measurement of thee +e− →π +π− cross section from threshold to 1.2 GeV with the CMD-3 detector, Phys. Rev. D109, 112002 (2024), arXiv:2302.08834 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Measurement of $\sigma(e^+e^-\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma(\gamma))$ and the dipion contribution to the muon anomaly with the KLOE detector

    F. Ambrosinoet al.(KLOE), Measurement ofσ(e +e− →π +π−γ(γ)) and the dipion contribution to the muon anomaly with the KLOE detector, Phys. Lett. B670, 285 (2009), arXiv:0809.3950 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  45. [45]

    Measurement of sigma(e+ e- -> pi+ pi-) from threshold to 0.85 GeV^2 using Initial State Radiation with the KLOE detector

    F. Ambrosinoet al.(KLOE), Measurement ofσ(e +e− →π +π−) from threshold to 0.85 GeV2 using Initial State Radiation with the KLOE detector, Phys. Lett. B700, 102 (2011), arXiv:1006.5313 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  46. [46]

    Precision measurement of $\sigma(e^+e^-\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-\gamma)/\sigma(e^+e^-\rightarrow \mu^+\mu^-\gamma)$ and determination of the $\pi^+\pi^-$ contribution to the muon anomaly with the KLOE detector

    D. Babusciet al.(KLOE), Precision measurement ofσ(e +e− →π +π−γ)/σ(e+e− →µ +µ−γ) and determination of the π+π− contribution to the muon anomaly with the KLOE detector, Phys. Lett. B720, 336 (2013), arXiv:1212.4524 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  47. [47]

    M. N. Achasovet al.(SND), Measurement of thee +e− →π +π− process cross section with the SND detector at the VEPP-2000 collider in the energy region 0.525< √s <0.883 GeV, JHEP01, 113, arXiv:2004.00263 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  48. [48]

    R. R. Akhmetshinet al.(CMD-2), Measurement ofe +e− →π +π− cross-section with CMD-2 around rho meson, Phys. Lett. B527, 161 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0112031

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  49. [49]

    R. R. Akhmetshinet al.(CMD-2), High-statistics measurement of the pion form factor in the rho-meson energy range with the CMD-2 detector, Phys. Lett. B648, 28 (2007), arXiv:hep-ex/0610021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  50. [50]

    V. M. Aulchenkoet al.(CMD-2), Measurement of thee +e− →π +π− cross section with the CMD-2 detector in the 370–520 MeV c.m. energy range, JETP Lett.84, 413 (2006), [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.84, 491 (2006)], arXiv:hep-ex/0610016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  51. [51]

    V. M. Aulchenkoet al.(CMD-2), Measurement of the pion form-factor in the range 1.04 GeV to 1.38 GeV with the CMD-2 detector, JETP Lett.82, 743 (2005), [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.82, 841 (2005)], arXiv:hep-ex/0603021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  52. [52]

    Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Measurement of thee +e− →π +π− cross section between 600 and 900 MeV using initial state radiation, Phys

    M. Ablikimet al.(BESIII), Measurement of thee +e− →π +π− cross section between 600 and 900 MeV using initial state radiation, Phys. Lett. B753, 629 (2016), [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B812, 135982 (2021)], arXiv:1507.08188 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    M. N. Achasovet al.(SND), Study of the processe +e− →π +π− in the energy region 400< √s <1000 MeV, J. Exp. Theor. Phys.101, 1053 (2005), [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.128, 1201 (2005)], arXiv:hep-ex/0506076

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  54. [54]

    R. N. Faustov, A. Karimkhodzhaev, and A. P. Martynenko, Evaluation of hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to 17 muonium hyperfine splitting, Phys. Rev. A59, 2498 (1999)

    work page 1999

  55. [55]

    Muonium hyperfine structure and hadronic effects

    A. Czarnecki, S. I. Eidelman, and S. G. Karshenboim, Muonium hyperfine structure and hadronic effects, Phys. Rev. D 65, 053004 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0107327

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  56. [56]

    Hadronic contributions to the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and the hyperfine splitting of muonium

    D. Nomura and T. Teubner, Hadronic contributions to the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron and the hyperfine splitting of muonium, Nucl. Phys. B867, 236 (2013), arXiv:1208.4194 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  57. [57]

    The $g-2$ of charged leptons, $\alpha(M_Z^2)$ and the hyperfine splitting of muonium

    A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner,g−2 of charged leptons,α(M 2 Z) , and the hyperfine splitting of muonium, Phys. Rev. D101, 014029 (2020), arXiv:1911.00367 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    Variations on Photon Vacuum Polarization

    F. Jegerlehner, Variations on Photon Vacuum Polarization, EPJ Web Conf.218, 01003 (2019), arXiv:1711.06089 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    Jegerlehner,α QED,eff (s) for precision physics at the FCC-ee/ILC, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs3, 9 (2020)

    F. Jegerlehner,α QED,eff (s) for precision physics at the FCC-ee/ILC, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs3, 9 (2020)

    work page 2020

  60. [60]

    Pohlet al., The size of the proton, Nature466, 213 (2010)

    R. Pohlet al., The size of the proton, Nature466, 213 (2010)

    work page 2010

  61. [61]

    Antogniniet al., Proton Structure from the Measurement of 2S−2PTransition Frequencies of Muonic Hydrogen, Science339, 417 (2013)

    A. Antogniniet al., Proton Structure from the Measurement of 2S−2PTransition Frequencies of Muonic Hydrogen, Science339, 417 (2013)

    work page 2013

  62. [62]

    Precision calculation of the recoil--finite-size correction for the hyperfine splitting in muonic and electronic hydrogen

    A. Antognini, Y.-H. Lin, and U.-G. Meißner, Precision calculation of the recoil–finite-size correction for the hyperfine splitting in muonic and electronic hydrogen, Phys. Lett. B835, 137575 (2022), arXiv:2208.04025 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    New insights into the nucleon's electromagnetic structure

    Y.-H. Lin, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, New Insights into the Nucleon’s Electromagnetic Structure, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 052002 (2022), arXiv:2109.12961 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    Dispersion-theoretical analysis of the electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon: Past, present and future

    Y.-H. Lin, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Dispersion-theoretical analysis of the electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon: Past, present and future, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 255 (2021), arXiv:2106.06357 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  65. [65]

    Electromagnetic structure of A=2 and 3 nuclei in chiral effective field theory

    M. Piarulli, L. Girlanda, L. E. Marcucci, S. Pastore, R. Schiavilla, and M. Viviani, Electromagnetic structure ofA= 2 and 3 nuclei in chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C87, 014006 (2013), arXiv:1212.1105 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  66. [66]

    S. G. Karshenboim, Nuclear structure dependent radiative corrections to the hydrogen hyperfine splitting, Phys. Lett. A 225, 97 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9608484

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  67. [67]

    Lamb Shift in Light Muonic Atoms - Revisited

    E. Borie, Lamb shift in light muonic atoms: Revisited, Annals Phys.327, 733 (2012), arXiv:1103.1772 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  68. [68]

    Borie, Hadronic Vacuum Polarization Correction in Muonic Atoms, Z

    E. Borie, Hadronic Vacuum Polarization Correction in Muonic Atoms, Z. Phys. A302, 187 (1981)

    work page 1981

  69. [69]

    S. G. Karshenboim, Muonic vacuum polarization contribution to the energy levels of atomic hydrogen, J. Phys. B28, L77 (1995)

    work page 1995

  70. [70]

    J. L. Friar, J. Martorell, and D. W. L. Sprung, Hadronic vacuum polarization and the Lamb shift, Phys. Rev. A59, 4061 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9812053

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  71. [71]

    Pachucki, Theory of the Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen, Phys

    K. Pachucki, Theory of the Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen, Phys. Rev. A53, 2092 (1996)

    work page 2092

  72. [72]

    Proton structure effects in muonic hydrogen

    K. Pachucki, Proton structure effects in muonic hydrogen, Phys. Rev. A60, 3593 (1999), arXiv:physics/9906002

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  73. [73]

    R. N. Faustov and A. P. Martynenko, Hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to the Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen, Eur. Phys. J. direct1, 6 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9906315

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  74. [74]

    A. P. Martynenko and R. N. Faustov, Effects of vacuum polarization and of proton polarizability in the Lamb shift of muonic hydrogen, Phys. Atom. Nucl.64, 1282 (2001)

    work page 2001

  75. [75]

    A. A. Krutov, A. P. Martynenko, G. A. Martynenko, and R. N. Faustov, Theory of the Lamb shift in muonic helium ions, J. Exp. Theor. Phys.120, 73 (2015)

    work page 2015