Pion $\beta$ decay and $\tau\to\pi\pi\nu_\tau$ beyond leading logarithms

Martin Hoferichter; Nicola Valori; Vincenzo Cirigliano

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 143 references

Pion $\beta$ decay and $\tau\to\pi\pi\nu_\tau$ beyond leading logarithms

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that radiative corrections to pion beta decay can be matched beyond leading-logarithmic accuracy with a scheme-independent short-distance correction, cutting the V_ud theory uncertainty by a factor of three and making the ta

desk verdict Solid NLL matching work for pion beta decay and tau->pipi nu, with real new numbers and scheme cancellations shown; the main unresolved point is a ~3e-4 gap from the previous lattice-based central value that the paper does not itemize, plus an O(alpha_s) OPE subtraction that is estimated, not computed. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.11253 v2 pith:WTKH5VNG submitted 2026-02-11 hep-ph hep-exhep-latnucl-exnucl-th

Vincenzo Cirigliano , Martin Hoferichter , Nicola Valori This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-exhep-latnucl-exnucl-th

keywords pionbetadecayradiativecorrectionsgamma-WboxlatticeQCDCKMmatrixelementV_udtauleptondecayshadronicvacuumpolarizationnext-to-leadinglogarithms

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper shows that the radiative corrections to pion beta decay (π±→π0e±νe) and to the hadronic tau decay (τ±→π±π0ντ) can be organized beyond leading-logarithmic accuracy in a scheme-independent way. The key step is to package all short-distance electroweak effects into a single correction g_V^π(µχ) that combines the renormalized weak-interaction coefficient with a nonperturbative matrix element computed in lattice QCD; the scheme dependence from evanescent operators and the scale dependences cancel by construction. With this correction, the radiative factor in pion beta decay becomes Δ_RC = 0.03403 with a total error of 1.1×10^-4, a factor-of-three improvement in the theory uncertainty of the CKM element V_ud. The same correction, via lepton-flavor universality, fixes the short-distance part of isospin breaking in τ→ππν, leaving a negligible matching uncertainty in the hadronic-vacuum-polarization contribution to the muon's magnetic moment. If correct, this makes a clean V_ud measurement from pion beta decay possible and tightens tau-based determinations of the muon g-2.

What carries the argument

The central object is the scheme-independent short-distance correction g_V^π(µχ) = 1+Δ̃S_EW(µχ). The identity carrying the argument is Eq. (6): it factorizes the LEFT Wilson coefficient C̄_β^(3)(µ) from the nonperturbative γW-box matrix element □̄_V^π(µ0)—the photon–W loop exchange between the hadronic vector current and the leptonic current—with explicit logarithms arranged so that all dependences on the LEFT scale µ, the chiral scale µχ, and the factorization scale µ0 cancel at the working order. The nonperturbative input is the integral over the lattice-QCD/pQCD integrand M_π(Q²), with the asymptotic part subtracted via the operator product expansion at Q0=1.6 GeV.

What would settle it

Compute the complete O(α_s²) correction to the OPE subtraction kernel in Eq. (12) (i.e., to C_d(Q²) in Eq. (13)) and check whether it shifts Δ_RC by more than 1×10^-4; alternatively, measure the γW-box integrand M_π(Q²) directly on the lattice at Q² values above (1.6 GeV)² and check agreement with the assumed pQCD form.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the short-distance electroweak correction to any Fermi beta decay can be written as g_V^π(µχ)=1+Δ̃S_EW(µχ), defined in Eq. (6) as the product of the scheme-independent Wilson coefficient C̄_β^(3)(µ) and the combination of the nonperturbative γW-box matrix element □̄_V^π(µ0) with explicit logarithms of the scales µ, µχ, µ0. The authors show that this combination is independent of the evanescent-operator scheme and of the renormalization scales µ, µχ, µ0 at next-to-leading-logarithmic (and next-to-leading-logarithmic-in-α_s) order. They evaluate □̄_V^π(µ0) from lattice-QCD data supplemented by four-loop perturbative QCD at high momentum, obtaining 10^3 □̄_V^π(µ0) = 0.

Load-bearing premise

The result hinges on the assumption that the operator-product-expansion subtraction in Eq. (12) is accurate at Q ≥ 1.6 GeV, with the uncomputed O(α_s²) terms of the subtraction kernel no larger than the quoted total error of 1.1×10^-4; if those terms are bigger, the claimed factor-of-three improvement in V_ud weakens, and the soft-pion-theorem reduction also carries unquantified chiral corrections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The V_ud theory uncertainty from radiative corrections in pion beta decay drops from about 3×10^-4 to 1.1×10^-4, a factor-of-three improvement that leaves future experiments, the branching-fraction measurement, and the pion mass difference as the limiting uncertainties.
For τ→ππν, the short-distance matching contributes only 1×10^-10 to the isospin-breaking correction Δa_μ[ππ,τ] = −24.9×10^-10, negligible compared with the experimental and chiral uncertainties.
The same g_V^π(µχ) correction applies universally to the Fermi component of any beta decay (neutron, nuclear, pion) once the corresponding γW-box matrix element is supplied, so the machinery transfers directly to neutron and superallowed-decay analyses.
The scheme dependence from evanescent operators cancels exactly in physical rates, removing a previous source of systematic uncertainty.
With the linearized and LL/quadratic terms separated (Eq. (24)), the large-log resummation contributes about 5×10^-4 to the radiative correction, confirming that beyond-LL effects matter at this precision.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the paper identifies the O(α_s²) OPE-subtraction terms as the limiting uncertainty, a natural next step is a dedicated two-loop calculation of that subtraction kernel; a shift beyond ~1×10^-4 in Δ_RC would invalidate the quoted error budget.
The same matching logic should extend to the axial-vector channel and to K_ℓ3 decays, where analogous scheme-dependent short-distance corrections enter; the paper does not address those cases.
The pion-mass-difference term in the phase-space factor (I_πℓ uncertainty of 2.7×10^-4) will become the dominant theory-type limit for V_ud; improved measurements of M_π±−M_π0 would directly sharpen the extraction.
If the four-loop pQCD result in the intermediate region Q0≤Q≤Q1 is replaced by an alternative nonperturbative determination (e.g., from the same lattice ensembles at higher Q²), the stability of the central value could be tested without waiting for the O(α_s²) calculation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a serious referee. This is the first NLL(s) matching for the two-pion charged-current sector, and the authors do it carefully: two independent derivations (spurion, amplitude), explicit evanescent-scheme cancellation, and scale/μχ cancellations spelled out. The numerical updates (Δ_RC^πℓ = 0.03403(11), Δa_μ[ππ,τ] = −24.9(5)×10^−10) are genuinely new, and they use external lattice inputs that agree with each other rather than fitting to the target observables. I found no load-bearing algebraic error; the claimed factor-of-three uncertainty reduction is arithmetically consistent with the quoted error budget.

The soft spots are proportionate and mostly self-flagged. The one that worries me is the central-value shift vs. Ref. [64]: the text says the difference is due to low-energy RG and quadratic terms, but Eq. (24) only explains the increment from a linearized 0.0335 to 0.03403. The residual ~3×10^-4 gap between that linearized 0.0335 and the previous 0.0332(1) is never accounted for. If it is a convention difference (e.g., different treatment of the phase-space integral or the Sirlin function), the comparison is misleading as printed; if it is a missing contribution, the central value moves by several times the new total uncertainty. This needs a term-by-term reconciliation before the headline claim is fully credible. Second, the OPE subtraction in Eq. (12) is accurate only at O(α_s), with Q0 chosen by hand and the O(α_s^2) terms not computed; the paper says so explicitly, but that means the residual is an estimate (3-loop vs 4-loop difference), not a calculation. This is the stated precision limit, so it is not a hidden flaw, but the reader should not mistake the quoted 1.1×10^-4 for a fully computed number. Third, the soft-pion theorem in Appendix A enters the matching with unquantified chiral corrections; probably small, but at this claimed precision it deserves one sentence of error estimate.

The paper is written honestly and the methods are sound at the level presented. The central argument holds up; the unanswered questions are about how the new framework connects to the previous lattice-based value and about the size of the leading uncomputed term. I would send it to peer review and ask the authors to reconcile the shift vs. Ref. [64] term by term and to bound (or compute) the O(α_s^2) subtraction uncertainty. If those come back clean, this will be the reference for pion beta decay and tau→ππν short-distance corrections.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This Letter develops an EFT framework for the short-distance gamma-W box corrections in pion beta decay (pi+ -> pi0 e+ nu_e) and hadronic tau decays (tau -> pi pi nu_tau), matching the LEFT (with QCD and QED Wilson coefficients evolved to NLL and NLLs accuracy) onto ChPT. The central object is a scheme-independent short-distance factor g_V^pi(mu_chi) = 1 + Delta_tildeS_EW(mu_chi), in which the evanescent-operator parameter a and the dependence on the LEFT scale mu cancel between the Wilson coefficient and the matrix elements. The nonperturbative input BarBox_V^pi(mu0) is taken from two recent lattice-QCD determinations (Feng et al. 2020; Yoo et al. 2023), which agree (0.691(31) x 10^-3 vs 0.690(28) x 10^-3). Main numerical results: Delta_RC^{pi l} = 0.03403(11), a V_ud = 0.97346(283) with the theory error no longer dominant, and IB corrections to tau -> pi pi nu_tau of Delta a_mu[pi pi, tau] = -24.9(1)_exp(5)_th(1)_SD x 10^-10, for which the short-distance matching uncertainty becomes negligible. The matching conditions are derived twice (spurion method, Appendix A; amplitude matching, Appendix B), with the scheme/scale cancellations displayed.

Significance. If correct, the paper delivers the main ingredients for a precision program: a consistent NLL(NLLs) matching between short-distance QCD/QED corrections and lattice-QCD matrix elements with explicit cancellation of the evanescent scheme; a universal form of the short-distance correction applicable to any Fermi beta transition; and an updated tau -> pi pi nu_tau IB correction for the HVP contribution to a_mu. The factor-of-three reduction of the theory uncertainty in pion beta decay, if borne out, makes PIONEER's V_ud extraction experiment-limited, and the short-distance uncertainty in the tau-based HVP IB correction becomes negligible. Strengths of the work: the matching relations are derived by two independent methods that agree; the cancellation of the scheme parameter a is shown explicitly (Eqs. (5)-(6) and App. C); two independent lattice inputs are used and agree; and the 3-loop vs 4-loop pQCD difference is used as a systematic. I find no circularity: no output observable is used to fix a parameter. The main caveat is numerical: the itemization of the central-value shift relative to Ref. [64] is incomplete (Major Comment 1), and the robustness of the OPE-subtraction uncertainty

major comments (2)

[Sec. 3.1, Eq. (24) and preceding paragraph] The numerical comparison with Ref. [64] is not fully itemized. The paper states that the difference from Delta_RC^{pi l}|[64] = 0.0332(1)(3) is 'primarily due to the low-energy RG corrections and the quadratic terms,' but Eq. (24) quantifies only the increment from a 'fully linearized' starting point of 0.0335: +4.7 x 10^-4 (LL+quad.) and +0.6 x 10^-4 (NLL). The ~3 x 10^-4 gap between 0.0335 and 0.0332 is never explained, although it is three times the quoted total uncertainty of 1.1 x 10^-4. If this gap reflects a convention difference (e.g., the Sirlin-function definition, the choice of mu0, or updated phase-space/ChPT inputs), the comparison should say so; if it is a missing contribution, the central value shifts by several times the new error budget. A complete decomposition of the shift from 0.0332(1)(3) to 0.03403(11) is needed before the claimed factor-of-three improvement can be
[Sec. 2.3, Eqs. (12)-(15)] The residual uncertainty of the O(alpha_s)-accurate OPE subtraction in Eq. (12) is estimated in Eq. (15) by the difference between three-loop and four-loop C_d(Q^2). This probes the truncation of C_d, but not the sensitivity to the hand-chosen scales Q0 = mu0 = 1.6 GeV and Q1 set by C_d(Q1^2) = 1 - alpha_s(mu0)/pi. Since the paper itself notes (Sec. 2.3) that control of O(alpha_s^2) terms would be required to improve precision further, the error budget would be more convincing with a scale-variation test: vary Q0 in [1.4, 1.8] GeV (re-determining Q1 by the same criterion) and include the known c2 (alpha_s/pi)^2 term in the constant asymptotic form beyond Q1. Please report the resulting spread in BarBox_V^pi and in Delta_RC^{pi l}, demonstrating that the OPE-subtraction uncertainty lies below the quoted 1.1 x 10^-4.

minor comments (6)

[Eq. (8)] Unbalanced parenthesis in the pion theta function ('theta(mu_chi - M_pi)'); also specify whether the spin-0 sum runs over pi+, pi0 (and pi-).
[Sec. 2.2, footnote 3] The identification of the usual S_EW with 1+2Delta_tildeS_EW appears only as a parenthetical; a one-line definition in the main text would ease comparison with the Marciano-Sirlin convention.
[Eq. (15)] The averaging of the two lattice results (n_f = 3 and n_f = 4) into the central value and error of BarBox_V^pi is not described; state the averaging rule and whether correlations between the two determinations are assumed.
[Appendix A, Eq. (A.5)] The soft-pion theorem is used 'up to higher-order chiral corrections' without an estimate. Since Appendix B provides an independent cross-check, state explicitly the accuracy to which the two derivations agree, so that the omitted chiral corrections are bounded by the cross-check.
[Abstract vs Sec. 4] 'Theory uncertainties improved by a factor of three' and 'factor of five below the precision goal of PIONEER' compare different baselines; rephrase so that both comparison targets are explicit.
[Sec. 3.1, Eq. (24)] The term 'fully linearized form' and the label 'LL' for the (alpha/pi)^2 log^2 expression are not defined; clarify whether 'LL' refers to resummed leading logarithms or fixed-order log-squared terms.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the matching relations are derived from external lattice and RG inputs, and the evanescent-scheme dependence cancels explicitly rather than being fixed by the target observables.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The matching conditions (5) and (6) are obtained from LEFT-to-ChPT matching using the spurion method (Appendix A) and amplitude-level matching (Appendix B), with the nonperturbative matrix element □̄Vπ(µ0) taken from lattice QCD [64,66], not from the pion β decay rate or the τ→ππν rate. The evanescent parameter a enters the Wilson coefficient via Eq. (3) and the matrix element through Zs.c. in Eq. (C.8); the product in Eq. (C.7) shows the a-dependence cancels by construction, so no target observable is used to fix the scheme. The central numerical claims, Eqs. (23) and (32), are evaluations of these independent inputs: they do not fit any parameter to the decay rates, and the quoted uncertainties are propagated from lattice, perturbative, and chiral estimates. Citations to Refs. [26,35] provide the RG framework and NLL/NLLs ingredients, but the paper rederives the pion-specific matching and explicitly demonstrates the scheme cancellation; these citations are not invoked as a black-box uniqueness theorem and do not force the numerical output. The concerns raised about the OPE subtraction (Q0=1.6 GeV, uncomputed O(αs^2) terms) and the unexplained offset relative to Ref. [64] are accuracy and comparison issues, not circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on external lattice-QCD matrix elements (Refs [64,66]), the NLL/NLLs RG from Refs [26,35], standard chiral/EFT machinery, and the stated O(αs)-accurate OPE subtraction with Q0=1.6 GeV. No parameter is fitted to the target decay rates. The two manual scales (µ0, Q1) and the unquantified soft-pion-theorem corrections are the main inputs the reader did not pay for upstream; their residual effects are partly folded into the quoted uncertainties via scale variation and the 3/4-loop pQCD difference.

free parameters (2)

µ0 = Q0 (OPE subtraction / factorization scale) = 1.6 GeV (central choice; Ref. [64] used 2 GeV)
Sec. 2.3: 'We therefore choose µ0 = Q0 = 1.6 GeV'. Below Q0 the lattice integrand is used; between Q0 and Q1 full 4-loop pQCD; above Q1 the one-loop constant. Residual effects enter the quoted errors via the 3-loop vs 4-loop difference and scale variation; the paper states O(αs²) subtraction terms would be needed for further precision.
Q1 (transition scale to asymptotic subtraction) = 4.46 GeV (n_f=3), 4.53 GeV (n_f=4)
Determined by C_d(Q1²)=1−αs(µ0)/π 'to ensure a smooth transition to the asymptotic form' (Sec. 2.3). Not fitted to the target data, but a modeling choice for the matching window.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption SM with V−A charged-current operators and the LEFT operator basis of Ref. [60] (Eq. 1)
The whole matching is built in LEFT with n_f flavors; C_β(µ,a)=1+O(α) from Eq. (3).
domain assumption NLL/NLLs anomalous dimensions γ, γ~ from Refs [26,35,121] (Eqs. C.1–C.3)
The RG evolution of C_β to NLL(s) accuracy is imported; an error there propagates into Eq. (6).
domain assumption Universality of the O(αχ²) anomalous dimension [29,90] used in Eq. (7)
Enables NLL resummation of low-energy αχ logs; not re-derived here.
domain assumption Soft-pion theorem relation Γ_VV = −3/√2 T_3^[64] (Appendix A, Eq. A.5)
Connects the spurion-matching correlator to the lattice box; corrections are 'higher-order chiral' but unquantified in the error budget.
domain assumption Lattice-QCD results for M_π(Q²) from Refs [64,66] and four-loop pQCD coefficient C_d [91,92] are correct (Eqs. 12–14)
Nonperturbative input is external; the two lattice results agree (0.691(31) vs 0.690(28)) but share the O(αs) subtraction limitation.
ad hoc to paper The O(αs)-accurate subtraction kernel in Eq. (12) with O(αs²) terms neglected
Stated in Sec. 2.3: 'the subtraction in Eq. (12) is only accurate at O(αs)'; the residual is estimated by the 3-loop vs 4-loop difference, not computed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pion $\beta$ decay and $\tau\to\pi\pi\nu_\tau$ beyond leading logarithms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WTKH5VNG

@misc{pith2026260211253,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pion $\beta$ decay and $\tau\to\pi\pi\nu_\tau$ beyond leading logarithms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WTKH5VNG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.11253}
}

abstract

The consistent matching of short-distance contributions and hadronic matrix elements is crucial for precise predictions of weak processes involving hadrons. In this Letter, we address this point for charged-current processes involving two pions -- pion $\beta$ decay $\pi^\pm\to\pi^0 e^\pm\nu_e$ and hadronic $\tau$ decays $\tau^\pm\to\pi^\pm\pi^0\nu_\tau$ -- whose decay rates depend on the so-called $\gamma W$ box correction. Using recent results from lattice QCD, we show how to formulate the matching beyond leading-logarithmic accuracy, in particular, how to cancel the dependence on the scheme choice for evanescent operators. As main results, we obtain a prediction for the decay rate of pion $\beta$ decay with theory uncertainties improved by a factor of three, which renders theory uncertainties negligible for future determinations of $V_{ud}$ even beyond the reach of the PIONEER experiment, and an evaluation of isospin-breaking corrections to $\tau\to\pi\pi\nu_\tau$ with negligible uncertainty from the short-distance matching, as necessary for a future $\tau$-based determination of the hadronic-vacuum-polarization contribution to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.11253 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Resulting integrand Mπ(Q 2 ) for the lattice-QCD inputs from Ref. [64] (upper, nf = 3) and Ref. [66] (lower, nf = 4). In both cases, we show the lattice-QCD results up to 2 GeV, the pQCD curves above 1 GeV (green dashed and solid for three- and four-loop order), and the constant one-loop result above the respective values of Q1 (maroon dashed and solid). The resulting subtracted integrand as it enters in Eq. (12) is… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 97 linked inside Pith

[64]

X. Feng, M. Gorchtein, L.-C. Jin, P.-X. Ma, and C.-Y . Seng, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 192002 (2020), arXiv:2003.09798 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2020
[1]

Cabibbo, Phys

N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett.10, 531 (1963)

1963
[2]

Kobayashi and T

M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys.49, 652 (1973)

1973
[3]

J. C. Hardy and I. S. Towner, Phys. Rev. C102, 045501 (2020)

2020
[4]

Kinoshita and A

T. Kinoshita and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev.113, 1652 (1959)

1959
[5]

Sirlin, Phys

A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett.19, 877 (1967)

1967
[6]

Sirlin, Phys

A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev.164, 1767 (1967)

1967
[7]

E. S. Abers, D. A. Dicus, R. E. Norton, and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. 167, 1461 (1968)

1968

Show all 143 references

[8]

Jaus and G

W. Jaus and G. Rasche, Nucl. Phys. A143, 202 (1970)

1970
[9]

Sirlin, Rev

A. Sirlin, Rev. Mod. Phys.50, 573 (1978), [Erratum: Rev. Mod. Phys. 50, 905 (1978)]

1978
[10]

Sirlin, Nucl

A. Sirlin, Nucl. Phys. B196, 83 (1982)

1982
[11]

D. H. Wilkinson, Nucl. Phys. A377, 474 (1982)

1982
[12]

Sirlin and R

A. Sirlin and R. Zucchini, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 1994 (1986)

1994
[13]

I. S. Towner, Nucl. Phys. A540, 478 (1992)

1992
[14]

D. H. Wilkinson, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A335, 172 (1993)

1993
[15]

D. H. Wilkinson, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A335, 201 (1993)

1993
[16]

Czarnecki, W

A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D70, 093006 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0406324

2004 arXiv
[17]

W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 032002 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0510099

2006 arXiv
[18]

I. S. Towner and J. C. Hardy, Rept. Prog. Phys.73, 046301 (2010)

2010
[19]

C.-Y . Seng, M. Gorchtein, H. H. Patel, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 241804 (2018), arXiv:1807.10197 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[20]

C. Y . Seng, M. Gorchtein, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. D100, 013001 (2019), arXiv:1812.03352 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[21]

Gorchtein, Phys

M. Gorchtein, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 042503 (2019), arXiv:1812.04229 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[22]

Seng and M

C.-Y . Seng and M. Gorchtein, Phys. Rev. C107, 035503 (2023), arXiv:2211.10214 [nucl-th]

2023 arXiv
[23]

P.-X. Ma, X. Feng, M. Gorchtein, L.-C. Jin, K.-F. Liu, C.-Y . Seng, B.-G. Wang, and Z.-L. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 191901 (2024), arXiv:2308.16755 [hep-lat]

2024 arXiv
[24]

Seng and M

C.-Y . Seng and M. Gorchtein, Phys. Rev. C109, 044302 (2024), arXiv:2304.03800 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[25]

R. J. Hill and R. Plestid, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 021803 (2024), arXiv:2309.07343 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[26]

Cirigliano, W

V . Cirigliano, W. Dekens, E. Mereghetti, and O. Tomalak, Phys. Rev. D 108, 053003 (2023), arXiv:2306.03138 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[27]

Cirigliano, W

V . Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, S. Gandolfi, M. Hoferichter, and E. Mereghetti, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 211801 (2024), arXiv:2405.18469 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[28]

Cirigliano, W

V . Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, S. Gandolfi, M. Hoferichter, and E. Mereghetti, Phys. Rev. C110, 055502 (2024), arXiv:2405.18464 [nucl-th]

2024 arXiv
[29]

Borah, R

K. Borah, R. J. Hill, and R. Plestid, Phys. Rev. D109, 113007 (2024), arXiv:2402.13307 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[30]

Gennari, M

M. Gennari, M. Drissi, M. Gorchtein, P. Navratil, and C.-Y . Seng, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 012501 (2025), arXiv:2405.19281 [nucl-th]

2025
[31]

Vander Griend, Z

P. Vander Griend, Z. Cao, R. J. Hill, and R. Plestid, Phys. Lett. B868, 139678 (2025), arXiv:2501.17916 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[32]

G. B. King, J. Carlson, A. R. Flores, S. Gandolfi, E. Mereghetti, S. Pa- store, M. Piarulli, and R. B. Wiringa, (2025), arXiv:2509.07310 [nucl- th]

2025 arXiv
[33]

Z. Cao, R. J. Hill, R. Plestid, and P. Vander Griend, (2025), arXiv:2511.05446 [hep-ph]

2025
[34]

`O. L. Crosas and E. Mereghetti, (2025), arXiv:2511.05481 [hep-ph]

2025
[35]

Gorbahn, F

M. Gorbahn, F. Moretti, and S. J ¨ager, (2025), arXiv:2510.27648 [hep- ph]

2025
[36]

Belfatto, R

B. Belfatto, R. Beradze, and Z. Berezhiani, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 149 (2020), arXiv:1906.02714 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[37]

A. M. Coutinho, A. Crivellin, and C. A. Manzari, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 071802 (2020), arXiv:1912.08823 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[38]

Cheung, W.-Y

K. Cheung, W.-Y . Keung, C.-T. Lu, and P.-Y . Tseng, JHEP05, 117 (2020), arXiv:2001.02853 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[39]

Belfatto and Z

B. Belfatto and Z. Berezhiani, JHEP10, 079 (2021), arXiv:2103.05549 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[40]

G. C. Branco, J. T. Penedo, P. M. F. Pereira, M. N. Rebelo, and J. I. Silva-Marcos, JHEP07, 099 (2021), arXiv:2103.13409 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[41]

Crivellin, M

A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, M. Kirk, C. A. Manzari, and L. Schnell, JHEP10, 221 (2021), arXiv:2107.13569 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[42]

Crivellin, F

A. Crivellin, F. Kirk, C. A. Manzari, and M. Montull, JHEP12, 166 (2020), arXiv:2008.01113 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[43]

Kirk, Phys

M. Kirk, Phys. Rev. D103, 035004 (2021), arXiv:2008.03261 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[44]

Crivellin, M

A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and C. A. Manzari, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 071801 (2021), arXiv:2102.02825 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[45]

Crivellin and M

A. Crivellin and M. Hoferichter, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 111801 (2020), arXiv:2002.07184 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[46]

Crivellin, F

A. Crivellin, F. Kirk, C. A. Manzari, and L. Panizzi, Phys. Rev. D103, 073002 (2021), arXiv:2012.09845 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[47]

Capdevila, A

B. Capdevila, A. Crivellin, C. A. Manzari, and M. Montull, Phys. Rev. D103, 015032 (2021), arXiv:2005.13542 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[48]

Crivellin and M

A. Crivellin and M. Hoferichter, Science374, 1051 (2021), arXiv:2111.12739 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[49]

Crivellin, C

A. Crivellin, C. A. Manzari, M. Alguer ´o, and J. Matias, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 011801 (2021), arXiv:2010.14504 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[50]

Marzocca and S

D. Marzocca and S. Trifinopoulos, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 061803 (2021), arXiv:2104.05730 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[51]

A. K. Alok, A. Dighe, S. Gangal, and J. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D108, 113005 (2023), arXiv:2108.05614 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[52]

Cirigliano, W

V . Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, E. Mereghetti, and T. Tong, Phys. Rev. D106, 075001 (2022), arXiv:2204.08440 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[53]

Cirigliano, W

V . Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, E. Mereghetti, and T. Tong, JHEP 03, 033 (2024), arXiv:2311.00021 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[54]

Dawid, V

M. Dawid, V . Cirigliano, and W. Dekens, JHEP08, 175 (2024), arXiv:2402.06723 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[55]

Czarnecki, W

A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D100, 073008 (2019), arXiv:1907.06737 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[56]

C.-Y . Seng, X. Feng, M. Gorchtein, and L.-C. Jin, Phys. Rev. D101, 111301 (2020), arXiv:2003.11264 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[57]

Hayen, Phys

L. Hayen, Phys. Rev. D103, 113001 (2021), arXiv:2010.07262 [hep- ph]

2021 arXiv
[58]

Shiells, P

K. Shiells, P. G. Blunden, and W. Melnitchouk, Phys. Rev. D104, 033003 (2021), arXiv:2012.01580 [hep-ph]

2021 arXiv
[59]

Cirigliano, A

V . Cirigliano, A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, and M. Moulson, Phys. Lett. B838, 137748 (2023), arXiv:2208.11707 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[60]

Descotes-Genon and B

S. Descotes-Genon and B. Moussallam, Eur. Phys. J. C42, 403 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505077

2005 arXiv
[61]

Po ˇcani´cet al., Phys

D. Po ˇcani´cet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 181803 (2004), arXiv:hep- ex/0312030

2004
[62]

Cirigliano, M

V . Cirigliano, M. Knecht, H. Neufeld, and H. Pichl, Eur. Phys. J. C27, 255 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0209226

2003 arXiv
[63]

Czarnecki, W

A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D101, 091301 (2020), arXiv:1911.04685 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[65]

P.-X. Ma, X. Feng, M. Gorchtein, L.-C. Jin, and C.-Y . Seng, Phys. Rev. D103, 114503 (2021), arXiv:2102.12048 [hep-lat]

2021 arXiv
[66]

J.-S. Yoo, T. Bhattacharya, R. Gupta, S. Mondal, and B. Yoon, Phys. Rev. D108, 034508 (2023), arXiv:2305.03198 [hep-lat]

2023 arXiv
[67]

Altmannshoferet al.(PIONEER), (2022), arXiv:2203.01981 [hep- ex]

W. Altmannshoferet al.(PIONEER), (2022), arXiv:2203.01981 [hep- ex]

2022 arXiv
[68]

Adelmannet al.(PIONEER), (2025), arXiv:2504.06375 [hep-ex]

A. Adelmannet al.(PIONEER), (2025), arXiv:2504.06375 [hep-ex]

2025 arXiv
[69]

Alemany, M

R. Alemany, M. Davier, and A. Hoecker, Eur. Phys. J. C2, 123 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9703220

1998 arXiv
[70]

Cirigliano, G

V . Cirigliano, G. Ecker, and H. Neufeld, Phys. Lett. B513, 361 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0104267

2001 arXiv
[71]

Cirigliano, G

V . Cirigliano, G. Ecker, and H. Neufeld, JHEP08, 002 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0207310

2002 arXiv
[72]

Flores-Ba ´ez, A

F. Flores-Ba ´ez, A. Flores-Tlalpa, G. L ´opez Castro, and G. Toledo S ´anchez, Phys. Rev. D74, 071301 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0608084

2006
[73]

Davier, A

M. Davier, A. Hoecker, G. L ´opez Castro, B. Malaescu, X. H. Mo, G. Toledo S ´anchez, P. Wang, C. Z. Yuan, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C66, 127 (2010), arXiv:0906.5443 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[74]

J. A. Miranda and P. Roig, Phys. Rev. D102, 114017 (2020), arXiv:2007.11019 [hep-ph]. 10

2020 arXiv
[75]

G. L. Castro, A. Miranda, and P. Roig, Phys. Rev. D111, 073004 (2025), arXiv:2411.07696 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[76]

Aoyamaet al., Phys

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

2020 arXiv
[77]

Alibertiet al., Phys

R. Alibertiet al., Phys. Rept.1143, 1 (2025), arXiv:2505.21476 [hep- ph]

2025 arXiv
[78]

D. W. Hertzog and M. Hoferichter, (2025), arXiv:2512.16980 [hep-ph]

2025
[79]

Davier, A

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

2024 arXiv
[80]

Colangelo, M

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

2022 arXiv
[81]

Hoferichter, G

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

2023 arXiv
[82]

Colangelo, M

G. Colangelo, M. Cottini, M. Hoferichter, and S. Holz, (2025), arXiv:2510.26871 [hep-ph]

2025
[83]

Colangelo, M

G. Colangelo, M. Cottini, M. Hoferichter, and S. Holz, (2025), arXiv:2511.07507 [hep-ph]

2025
[84]

Tishchenkoet al.(MuLan), Phys

V . Tishchenkoet al.(MuLan), Phys. Rev. D87, 052003 (2013), arXiv:1211.0960 [hep-ex]

2013 arXiv
[85]

Brod and M

J. Brod and M. Gorbahn, Phys. Rev. D78, 034006 (2008), arXiv:0805.4119 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[86]

Dekens and P

W. Dekens and P. Stoffer, JHEP10, 197 (2019), [Erratum: JHEP11, 148 (2022)], arXiv:1908.05295 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[87]

R. J. Hill and O. Tomalak, Phys. Lett. B805, 135466 (2020), arXiv:1911.01493 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[88]

Knecht, H

M. Knecht, H. Neufeld, H. Rupertsberger, and P. Talavera, Eur. Phys. J. C12, 469 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9909284

2000 arXiv
[89]

Urech, Nucl

R. Urech, Nucl. Phys. B433, 234 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9405341

1995 arXiv
[90]

Ji and M

X.-D. Ji and M. J. Musolf, Phys. Lett. B257, 409 (1991)

1991
[91]

S. A. Larin and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Phys. Lett. B259, 345 (1991)

1991
[92]

P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. Kuhn, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 132004 (2010), arXiv:1001.3606 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[93]

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

2000 arXiv
[94]

Herren and M

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

2018 arXiv
[95]

Cirigliano, J

V . Cirigliano, J. de Vries, L. Hayen, E. Mereghetti, and A. Walker-Loud, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 121801 (2022), arXiv:2202.10439 [nucl-th]

2022 arXiv
[96]

Navaset al.(Particle Data Group), Phys

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

2024
[97]

Ferroglia, C

A. Ferroglia, C. Greub, A. Sirlin, and Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D88, 033012 (2013), arXiv:1307.6900 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[98]

M. Fael, L. Mercolli, and M. Passera, Phys. Rev. D88, 093011 (2013), arXiv:1310.1081 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[99]

R. E. Behrends and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett.4, 186 (1960)

1960
[100]

Ademollo and R

M. Ademollo and R. Gatto, Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 264 (1964)

1964
[101]

Gasser and H

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B250, 517 (1985)

1985
[102]

Gasser and H

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B250, 465 (1985)

1985
[103]

Bijnens and P

J. Bijnens and P. Talavera, JHEP03, 046 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0203049

2002 arXiv
[104]

Colangelo, M

G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, M. Niehus, and J. Ruiz de Elvira, Phys. Lett. B825, 136852 (2022), arXiv:2110.05493 [hep-ph]

2022 arXiv
[105]

J. F. Crawford, M. Daum, R. Frosch, B. Jost, P. R. Kettle, R. M. Mar- shall, B. K. Wright, and K. O. H. Ziock, Phys. Rev. D43, 46 (1991)

1991
[106]

Passera, K

M. Passera, K. Philippides, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D84, 094030 (2011), arXiv:1109.1069 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[107]

Kinoshita, J

T. Kinoshita, J. Math. Phys.3, 650 (1962)

1962
[108]

T. D. Lee and M. Nauenberg, Phys. Rev.133, B1549 (1964)

1964
[109]

Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(PiENu), Phys

A. Aguilar-Arevaloet al.(PiENu), Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 071801 (2015), arXiv:1506.05845 [hep-ex]

2015 arXiv
[110]

Czapeket al., Phys

G. Czapeket al., Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 17 (1993)

1993
[111]

D. I. Brittonet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 3000 (1992)

1992
[112]

V . P. Koptevet al., JETP Lett.61, 877 (1995)

1995
[113]

Numao, J

T. Numao, J. A. Macdonald, G. M. Marshall, A. Olin, and M. C. Fuji- wara, Phys. Rev. D52, 4855 (1995)

1995
[114]

W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett.56, 22 (1986)

1986
[115]

W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 1815 (1988)

1988
[116]

W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 3629 (1993)

1993
[117]

Braaten and C.-S

E. Braaten and C.-S. Li, Phys. Rev. D42, 3888 (1990)

1990
[118]

Erler, Rev

J. Erler, Rev. Mex. Fis.50, 200 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0211345

2004 arXiv
[119]

Davier, S

M. Davier, S. Eidelman, A. Hocker, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C27, 497 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0208177

2003 arXiv
[120]

Moussallam, Nucl

B. Moussallam, Nucl. Phys. B504, 381 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9701400

1997 arXiv
[121]

A. J. Buras and P. H. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B333, 66 (1990)

1990
[122]

Aokiet al.(FLAG), Phys

Y . Aokiet al.(FLAG), Phys. Rev. D113, 014508 (2026), arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]

2026 arXiv
[123]

Maltman, D

K. Maltman, D. Leinweber, P. Moran, and A. Sternbeck, Phys. Rev. D 78, 114504 (2008), arXiv:0807.2020 [hep-lat]

2008 arXiv
[124]

Aokiet al.(PACS-CS), JHEP10, 053 (2009), arXiv:0906.3906 [hep- lat]

S. Aokiet al.(PACS-CS), JHEP10, 053 (2009), arXiv:0906.3906 [hep- lat]

2009 arXiv
[125]

McNeile, C

C. McNeile, C. T. H. Davies, E. Follana, K. Hornbostel, and G. P. Lep- age, Phys. Rev. D82, 034512 (2010), arXiv:1004.4285 [hep-lat]

2010 arXiv
[126]

Chakraborty, C

B. Chakraborty, C. T. H. Davies, B. Galloway, P. Knecht, J. Koponen, G. C. Donald, R. J. Dowdall, G. P. Lepage, and C. McNeile, Phys. Rev. D91, 054508 (2015), arXiv:1408.4169 [hep-lat]

2015 arXiv
[127]

Bruno, M

M. Bruno, M. Dalla Brida, P. Fritzsch, T. Korzec, A. Ramos, S. Schaefer, H. Simma, S. Sint, and R. Sommer (ALPHA), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 102001 (2017), arXiv:1706.03821 [hep-lat]

2017 arXiv
[128]

Bazavov, N

A. Bazavov, N. Brambilla, X. Garcia i Tormo, P. Petreczky, J. Soto, A. Vairo, and J. H. Weber (TUMQCD), Phys. Rev. D100, 114511 (2019), arXiv:1907.11747 [hep-lat]

2019 arXiv
[129]

S. Cali, K. Cichy, P. Korcyl, and J. Simeth, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 242002 (2020), arXiv:2003.05781 [hep-lat]

2020 arXiv
[130]

Ayala, X

C. Ayala, X. Lobregat, and A. Pineda, JHEP09, 016 (2020), arXiv:2005.12301 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[131]

Petreczky and J

P. Petreczky and J. H. Weber, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 64 (2022), arXiv:2012.06193 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[132]

Dalla Brida, R

M. Dalla Brida, R. H ¨ollwieser, F. Knechtli, T. Korzec, A. Nada, A. Ramos, S. Sint, and R. Sommer (ALPHA), Eur. Phys. J. C82, 1092 (2022), arXiv:2209.14204 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[133]

R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. M ¨uller, Science360, 191 (2018), arXiv:1812.04130 [physics.atom-ph]

2018 arXiv
[134]

Morel, Z

L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Clad ´e, and S. Guellati-Kh ´elifa, Nature588, 61 (2020)

2020
[135]

X. Fan, T. G. Myers, B. A. D. Sukra, and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 071801 (2023), arXiv:2209.13084 [physics.atom-ph]

2023 arXiv
[136]

Sturm, Nucl

C. Sturm, Nucl. Phys. B874, 698 (2013), arXiv:1305.0581 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[137]

Davier, A

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

2020 arXiv
[138]

Keshavarzi, D

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

2020 arXiv
[139]

C `eet al., JHEP08, 220 (2022), arXiv:2203.08676 [hep-lat]

M. C `eet al., JHEP08, 220 (2022), arXiv:2203.08676 [hep-lat]

2022 arXiv
[140]

Erler and R

J. Erler and R. Ferro-Hern ´andez, JHEP12, 131 (2023), arXiv:2308.05740 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[141]

Conigli, D

A. Conigli, D. Djukanovic, G. von Hippel, S. Kuberski, H. B. Meyer, K. Miura, K. Ottnad, A. Risch, and H. Wittig, (2025), arXiv:2511.01623 [hep-lat]

2025
[142]

K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. K ¨uhn, and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. B482, 213 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9606230

1996 arXiv
[143]

Fanchiotti, B

S. Fanchiotti, B. A. Kniehl, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D48, 307 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9212285. 11

1993 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [64]

X. Feng, M. Gorchtein, L.-C. Jin, P.-X. Ma, and C.-Y . Seng, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 192002 (2020), arXiv:2003.09798 [hep-lat]

arXiv 2020

[2] [1]

Cabibbo, Phys

N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett.10, 531 (1963)

1963

[3] [2]

Kobayashi and T

M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys.49, 652 (1973)

1973

[4] [3]

J. C. Hardy and I. S. Towner, Phys. Rev. C102, 045501 (2020)

2020

[5] [4]

Kinoshita and A

T. Kinoshita and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev.113, 1652 (1959)

1959

[6] [5]

Sirlin, Phys

A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett.19, 877 (1967)

1967

[7] [6]

Sirlin, Phys

A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev.164, 1767 (1967)

1967

[8] [7]

E. S. Abers, D. A. Dicus, R. E. Norton, and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. 167, 1461 (1968)

1968