Precise determination of the strangeness magnetic moment of the nucleon

A. G. Williams; A. W. Thomas; D. B. Leinweber; I. C. Cloet; J. B. Zhang; J. M. Zanotti; R. D. Young; S. Boinepalli

REVIEW

Precise determination of the strangeness magnetic moment of the nucleon

D. B. Leinweber, S. Boinepalli, I. C. Cloet, A. W. Thomas, A. G. Williams, R. D. Young, J. M. Zanotti, J. B. Zhang

High Energy Physics - Lattice · Submitted 1 Jun 2004 · 28 references

Pith's verdict: The sign of G_M^s is solid and the charge-symmetry consistency check is real, but the headline ±0.019 is set by a model estimate of the strange-to-light loop ratio, not by the lattice.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 13, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 7 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-lat/0406002 (version 2)

Pith IDVQ42S42O, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationA. G. Williams, A. W. Thomas, D. B. Leinweber, I. C. Cloet, J. B. Zhang, J. M. Zanotti, R. D. Young, S. Boinepalli. "Precise determination of the strangeness magnetic moment of the nucleon." arXiv:hep-lat/0406002 (2004). https://pith.science/paper/VQ42S42O

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Worth your time, with one caveat about what the number actually means. The paper combines charge-symmetry relations for the octet moments with new FLIC lattice data at pion masses down to ~0.3 GeV and the Adelaide finite-range-regulator chiral extrapolation, and lands on G_M^s = -0.046 ± 0.019 µN. The genuinely new pieces are the low-mass lattice ratios u_p/u_Σ = 1.092 ± 0.030 and u_n/u_Ξ = 1.254 ± 0.124, and the observation that the resulting point sits on the charge-symmetry constraint line of Fig. 2. That is not a trivial outcome, and the two independent routes, Eqs. (6) and (7), agreeing at about -0.045 is a real cross-check rather than a restatement. Fig. 7, where the chirally corrected quark sectors reproduce the measured octet moments, is a decent sanity check too. The algebra from charge symmetry to Eqs. (4)-(5) is clean and I have no quarrel with it. The sign claim is safe: the bracket in Eq. (6) is about -0.278, so G_M^s is negative for any lR_sd in (0,1). Where I part company with the framing is the magnitude. G_M^s is that bracket times lR_sd/(1-lR_sd), and lR_sd = 0.139 ± 0.042 comes from varying a dipole mass between 0.6 and 1.0 GeV inside the group's own model. That ratio alone propagates to roughly ±0.016 of the quoted ±0.019. The authors say this plainly in the text, so it is not hidden, but the abstract's 'precise determination' and 'an order of magnitude more precise' read as lattice-QCD precision when the precision is really in a model input. Second, I cannot reproduce ±0.019 from the numbers printed here. The bracket error from u_p/u_Σ = 1.092 ± 0.030 is already ±0.109, which scales to about ±0.018 before lR_sd is even included; the correlated-ratio treatment that shrinks this is deferred to ref. [27], a companion preprint. That is the one thing I would press a referee on: show the error budget, or soften the abstract. For anyone working on strangeness form factors or parity-violation experiments this is a useful reference and the sign is a real result. Send it out, but ask for the error analysis to be in this paper rather than the companion.

Referee report

Significance

The algebraic core of the paper is genuinely valuable. Eqs. (4) and (5) are exact consequences of charge symmetry plus the isospin decomposition of Eq. (1), and I have checked them: 2p + n = u_p + 3O_N and Σ+ − Σ− = u_Σ give Eq. (6) directly, and p + 2n = d_p + 3O_N and Ξ0 − Ξ− = u_Ξ give Eq. (7). The two independent routes agree (brackets of −0.278 and −0.282), which is a real and non-trivial consistency check, and the correlated-ratio technique used to form u_p/u_Σ and u_n/u_Ξ is a sensible way to suppress lattice-spacing and regulator systematics. The prediction is falsifiable and directly relevant to the forthcoming A4, G0 and HAPPEX2 measurements, and the agreement with the measured octet moments shown in Fig. 7 is a meaningful validation of the chiral extrapolation. The qualitative conclusion that G_M^s is negative and small is well supported. The quantitative claim of a 'precise determination' is weaker than the framing suggests, because the quoted uncertainty is dominated by a model input rather than by lattice QCD.

Major objections (4)

[Abstract (s0, s1) and the paragraph preceding Eq. (12)] The abstract's 'precise determination' and 'an order of magnitude more precise' attribute to lattice QCD a precision that is set largely by a model estimate. The text states plainly that 'it remains to set the magnitude. This requires an estimate of the strange to light sea-quark loop contributions, ℓR_sd,' and ℓR_sd = 0.139 ± 0.042 is obtained by varying the dipole mass over 0.6–1.0 GeV. Since G_M^s = [ℓR_sd/(1 − ℓR_sd)]·B with B ≈ −0.278, the sensitivity is dG/dℓR_sd = B/(1 − ℓR_sd)^2 ≈ −0.375, so ±0.042 in ℓR_sd propagates to roughly ±0.016 µ_N, i.e. most of the quoted ±0.019. The ±0.042 is moreover a spread over a subjectively chosen parameter window, not a statistically calibrated one-sigma error, and the same text notes that Λ = 0.8 GeV was selected as the best-fit value. The manuscript should either present an explicit error-budget table separating lattice, chiral-extrapolation and ℓR_sd contributions, or soften the abstract and the concluding sentence to make clear that the magnitude, though not the sign, is model-dependent.
[Paragraph preceding Eq. (12), and Refs. [10, 23]] The two dominant error sources may not be independent. ℓR_sd is estimated 'using the same successful model invoked to correct the quenched results to full QCD,' i.e. the same machinery of Refs. [10, 23] that produces the valence ratios u_p/u_Σ and u_n/u_Ξ of Eq. (11). The text then states that the total uncertainty is 'dominated by the statistical errors included in Eq. (11) and the uncertainty just noted for ℓR_sd,' which implies these are combined as if uncorrelated. If the model that fixes the central values of the ratios also fixes ℓR_sd, a shift in the model parameters moves both, and quadrature addition may misstate the total. The manuscript should state explicitly how the correlation between the two is treated, or demonstrate that it is negligible.
[Eqs. (6), (7) and Ref. [27]] The headline uncertainty cannot be reproduced from the Letter alone. Eq. (6) by itself gives B = 3.673 − (u_p/u_Σ)(3.618) = −0.278 ∓ 0.109 from the ±0.030 of Eq. (11), and Eq. (7) gives −0.282 ± 0.074 from the ±0.124; the reduction to a level consistent with the quoted ±0.019 requires the weighted combination of the two, which is deferred entirely to Ref. [27] (hep-lat/0502004), an arXiv preprint. Because the ±0.019 is the paper's central quantitative claim, at minimum a short table or a sentence in the text should show the individual contributions (statistical, chiral-fit, ℓR_sd, and the Eq. (6)/Eq. (7) combination) so that a reader can verify the arithmetic without consulting a separate, not-yet-published manuscript.
[Abstract (s0) and the paragraph beginning 'Using these techniques we determine, in full QCD'] The abstract and that paragraph describe the ratios as determined 'in full QCD', but the numerical input is quenched: 400 configurations of 20^3 × 40 at a = 0.128 fm with the FLIC action, i.e. QQCD. The passage to full QCD is made by the diagrammatic model of Fig. 5 and Refs. [24–26], in which quenched η′ contributions are removed and π and K loop coefficients adjusted. That is a model correction, not a full-QCD simulation, and the abstract should say so. As written, a reader encountering only the abstract would reasonably conclude that the ratios of Eq. (11) are dynamical-QCD results.

Minor objections (7)

[Paragraph following Eq. (11) and Fig. 2] The statement that the lattice point 'lies exactly on the constraint curve' is a consistency check between Eqs. (6) and (7), and it would be more informative if the two brackets were quoted side by side (−0.278 and −0.282) so the reader can judge how non-trivial the agreement is relative to the individual uncertainties.
[Paragraph following Eq. (11)] The sentence 'This result leaves no doubt that G_M^s is negative' would be better supported by an explicit significance: the bracket is negative at roughly four standard deviations once the Eq. (6) and Eq. (7) determinations are combined, and stating that number is more persuasive than the rhetorical phrasing.
[Eqs. (2) and (3)] The step ℓG_M^u = ℓG_M^d used to pass from Eq. (2) to Eq. (3) is an assumption about sea-quark loops, not a consequence of charge symmetry alone; it should be labelled as such and its expected accuracy indicated, since both Eqs. (4) and (5) inherit it.
[Paragraph following Eq. (3)] The range (0,1) for ℓR_sd is asserted rather than argued. Since the sign claim for G_M^s depends on ℓR_sd > 0, a sentence justifying the positivity (or a reference) would strengthen the otherwise robust sign conclusion.
[Eqs. (9) and (10)] The dipole-vertex regulator u(k, Λ) is named but its functional form is never written, and the exponent in Eq. (10) appears as '52' where 5/2 is intended. Please display u(k, Λ) explicitly and correct the exponent.
[Captions of Figs. 4 and 6] The extrapolated points at the physical pion mass are 'offset for clarity' but the size of the offset is not given; stating it in the caption would prevent misreading of the vertical axis.
[Whole manuscript] The version I read contains numerous broken words and spacing in the running text and equations ('magnetic moment o f', 'Matt er', 'Adelaid e', 'diﬀere nt', 'QC D', 'po ses', '0 .05', '1 .0', '0 .8 GeV', '− 23π'). If any of these survive into the version of record, a careful proofread is needed.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Charge symmetry plus chiral-corrected lattice QCD fixes the proton's strange magnetic moment at $G_M^s = -0.046$ nuclear magnetons, a value the authors say is ten times more precise than the experimental bounds and settles its sign as a two

The reading

The paper asks how much of the proton's magnetism comes from strange quarks, a contribution that appears only through quark-antiquark loops in the sea and that parity-violating electron-scattering experiments had so far only bounded loosely. The authors' route is indirect: charge symmetry ties the magnetic moments of the octet baryons to a small set of valence-quark contributions, so knowing how the same valence quark behaves inside different baryons lets one solve for the strange loop piece. Lattice simulations at pion masses of roughly 0.3 to 0.4 GeV, extrapolated to the physical pion mass with a resummed chiral expansion, supply the two ratios $u_p/u_Σ$ and $u_n/u_Ξ$. Feeding those into the charge-symmetry constraints gives $G_M^s = -0.046 ± 0.019 µ_N$, an order of magnitude tighter than the experimental bounds and with a definite sign. If the analysis holds, the next round of parity-violation experiments is aiming at a target whose value is already pinned to about 0.02 nuclear magnetons.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the charge-symmetry decomposition of the octet moments in Eq. (1), which writes each baryon moment as a sum of environment-dependent valence-quark moments plus a loop term $O_N = ^ℓG_M^s/3 · (1-^ℓR_{sd})/^ℓR_{sd}$, with $^ℓR_{sd} ≡ ^ℓG_M^s/^ℓG_M^d$ the strange-to-light sea-loop ratio. Equating the two independent expressions for $G_M^s$, Eqs. (4) and (5), converts the problem into measuring two ratios of valence-quark moments; those ratios are the correlated quantities the lattice computation is designed to deliver precisely, since taking ratios cancels lattice-spacing, regulator-mass and much of the statistical uncertainty. The second piece of machinery is the finite-range-regularized chiral extrapolation, which resums the chiral expansion through a dipole-vertex regulator (Λ = 0.8 GeV) and is corrected from quenched to full-QCD valence contributions by removing the negative-metric $η'$ piece and adjusting the $π$ and $K$ loop coefficients, including baryon mass splittings in the kaon loops.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the assumption of charge symmetry, the octet magnetic moments decompose into valence-quark pieces plus a common loop term $O_N$ that contains the strange loop contribution $^ℓG_M^s$. The authors show that this term can be isolated algebraically, giving $G_M^s$ as a multiplicative factor $^ℓR_{sd}/(1-^ℓR_{sd})$ times a bracket built from the experimental proton, neutron, $Σ$ and $Ξ$ moments and the ratios $u_p/u_Σ$ and $u_n/u_Ξ$. Those two ratios come from lattice QCD: from a 400-configuration sample at lattice spacing 0.128 fm with the FLIC fermion action and an $O(a)$-improved conserved current, extrapolated to the physical pion mass using finite-range-regularized chiral perturbation theory corrected from the quenched to the full-QCD valence sector. The extrapolations give $u_p/u_Σ = 1.092 ± 0.030$ and $u_n/u_Ξ = 1.254 ± 0.124$, and the resulting point falls on the charge-symmetry constraint line rather than at the environment-independent quark-model point $(1,1)$ — a consistency check the authors stress is nontrivial. The headline number is $G_M^s = -0.046 ± 0.019 µ_N$, which the authors state leaves no doubt that the strangeness magnetic moment of the proton is negative.

Load-bearing premise

The magnitude rests on the multiplicative factor $^ℓR_{sd}/(1-^ℓR_{sd})$, where the strange-to-light sea-loop ratio is estimated as $^ℓR_{sd} = 0.139 ± 0.042$ from the authors' own model by varying a dipole mass between 0.6 and 1.0 GeV rather than measured; a 30 percent shift in that ratio moves the central value by roughly 0.014 $µ_N$, comparable to the quoted total error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The strangeness magnetic moment of the proton is negative, not positive, so model predictions near $+0.05 µ_N$ are excluded and the sign question is closed.
Parity-violating electron scattering experiments at Mainz, Jefferson Lab and elsewhere now have a quantitative target of about $-0.046 µ_N$ to confirm or contradict at the 0.02 $µ_N$ level.
The charge-symmetry line in the $u_p/u_Σ$ versus $u_n/u_Ξ$ plane is a reusable consistency check: any future lattice determination of these ratios that misses the line signals either a lattice artefact or a breakdown of charge symmetry.
The same chirally-corrected quark-sector extrapolations reproduce the measured octet magnetic moments to within one standard deviation, which supports using the method for other baryon observables.
Because the extracted value depends on the sea-loop ratio through a multiplicative factor, an independent determination of the strange-to-light loop ratio would sharpen the magnitude without new lattice gauge configurations.

Reading between the lines

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

The most informative follow-up is not a better measurement of the valence ratios but a direct lattice evaluation of the disconnected strange-loop diagram, which would replace the model estimate of $^ℓR_{sd}$ with a computed number and test whether the multiplicative factor is really near 0.16.
The claim that the lattice point lands on the charge-symmetry line is a joint test of the lattice ratios and the experimental moments; if future measurements of the $Σ^-$ or $Ξ^0$ moments shift, the line moves and the agreement should be re-examined.
The method suggests a template for other flavour-separated matrix elements: wherever charge symmetry plus a shared loop term lets one solve for the disconnected piece, correlated lattice ratios can substitute for direct loop calculations.
A tension would be informative rather than fatal: if a future parity-violating measurement lands near $-0.02$ or $-0.08$ $µ_N$, the discrepancy would point at the sea-loop ratio rather than at the valence-ratio lattice input, since the latter is constrained by the octet spectrum.

Original abstract

By combining the constraints of charge symmetry with new chiral extrapolation techniques and recent low mass lattice QCD simulations of the individual quark contributions to the magnetic moments of the nucleon octet, we obtain a precise determination of the strange magnetic moment of the proton. The result, namely G_M^s = -0.046 +/- 0.019 mu_N, is consistent with the latest experimental measurements but an order of magnitude more precise. This poses a tremendous challenge for future experiments.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,973 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.05 · states limitation 0.22 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.06 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.94 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

By combining the constraints of charge symmetry with new chiral extrapolation techniques and recent low mass lattice QCD simulations of the individual quark contributions to the magnetic moments of the nucleon octet, we obtain a precise determination of the strange magnetic moment of the proton. The result, namely G_M^s = -0.046 +/- 0.019 mu_N, is consistent with the latest experimental measurements but an order of magnitude more precise. This poses a tremendous challenge for future experiments.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	By combining the constraints of charge symmetry with new chiral extrapolation techniques and recent low mass lattice QCD simulations of the individual quark contributions to the magnetic moments of the nucleon octet, we obtain a precise determination of the strange magnetic moment of the proton.	method 0.78	0.94	0.34	asserted 1.00
s1	The result, namely G_M^s = -0.046 +/- 0.019 mu_N, is consistent with the latest experimental measurements but an order of magnitude more precise.	result 0.99	0.93	0.90	asserted 0.57
s2	This poses a tremendous challenge for future experiments.	interpretation 0.92	0.14	0.05	asserted 0.99

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.62 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.79.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: Diagrams illustrating the two topologically differe

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: The constraint (dashed

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Diagrams providing the leading contributions to

**Figure 4.** illustrates a fit of FRR QχPT to the FLIC fermion lattice results (solid curve), where only the discrete momenta allowed in the finite volume of the lattice are summed in performing the loop integral. The longdashed curve that also runs through the lattice results corresponds to replacing the discrete momentum sum by the infinite-volume, continuous momentum integral. For all but the lightest quark mass, finite volume effects are negligible. The coefficients of the residual expansion, a Λ 0 , aΛ 2 , aΛ 4 , show excellent signs of convergence. For example, the fit to u Σ yields…

**Figure 5.** illustrates the considerations in correcting the quenched u-quark contribution to yield the valence uquark contribution in full QCD. The removal of quenched η ′ contributions and the appropriate adjustment of π and K loop coefficients [24, 25, 26] provides the dot-dash curve of

**Figure 7.** FIG. 7: The one standard deviation agreement between

Showing 6 of the paper's 7 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-lat/0406002 by the authors.

References

Works cited (28)

[27]

D. B. Leinweber, et al. , hep-lat/0502004

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[1]

K. A. Aniol et al. [HAPPEX Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 509, 211 (2001) [nucl-ex/0006002]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[2]

D. T. Spayde et al. [SAMPLE Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 583, 79 (2004) [arXiv:nucl-ex/0312016]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[3]

N. Mathur and S. J. Dong, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 94, 311 (2001) [hep-lat/0011015]; S. J. Dong, et al. , Phys. Rev. D58, 074504 (1998) [hep-ph/9712483]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[4]

R. Lewis, W. Wilcox and R. M. Woloshyn, Phys. Rev. D 67, 013003 (2003) [hep-ph/0210064]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[5]

J. M. Zanotti et al. [CSSM Lattice Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 65, 074507 (2002) [hep-lat/0110216]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[6]

D. B. Leinweber et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 18, 247 (2003) [nucl-th/0211014]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[7]

J. M. Zanotti, B. Lasscock, D. B. Leinweber, and A. G. Williams, hep-lat/0405015

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[8]

J. M. Zanotti, S. Boinepalli, W. Kamleh, D. B. Leinwe- ber, and A. G. Williams, hep-lat/0405026

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[9]

R. D. Young, D. B. Leinweber and A. W. Thomas, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 50, 399 (2003) [hep-lat/0212031]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[10]

R. D. Young, D. B. Leinweber and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 71, 014001 (2005) [arXiv:hep-lat/0406001]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[11]

G.A. Miller et al. , Phys. Rept. 194, 1 (1990)

View on Pith 1990
[12]

D.B. Leinweber, Phys. Rev. D53, 5115 (1996) [hep-ph/9512319]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[13]

D. B. Leinweber and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 62, 074505 (2000) [hep-lat/9912052]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[14]

Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. D66, 010001 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[15]

M. Falcioni et al. , Nucl. Phys. B251, 624 (1985)

View on Pith 1985
[16]

S. O. Bilson-Thompson et al. , Ann. Phys. 304, 1 (2003) [hep-lat/0203008]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[17]

G. Martinelli et al. , Nucl. Phys. B 358, 212 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[18]

D. B. Leinweber et al. , Phys. Rev. D43, 1659 (1991)

View on Pith 1991
[19]

M. Luscher and P. Weisz, Commun. Math. Phys. 97, 59 (1985) [ibid. 98, 433 (1985)]

View on Pith 1985
[20]

T. D. Cohen and D. B. Leinweber, Comments Nucl. Part. Phys. 21, 137 (1993) [hep-ph/9212225]; A.W. Thomas, Austral. J. Phys. 44, 173 (1991)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993
[21]

D. B. Leinweber, A. W. Thomas and R. D. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 242002 (2004) [hep-lat/0302020]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[22]

J. F. Donoghue, et al. , Phys. Rev. D59, 036002 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[23]

R. D. Young et al. , Phys. Rev. D 66, 094507 (2002) [hep-lat/0205017]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[24]

D. B. Leinweber, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 109A, 45 (2002) [hep-lat/0112021]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[25]

D. B. Leinweber, Phys. Rev. D 69, 014005 (2004) [hep-lat/0211017]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[26]

M. J. Savage, Nucl. Phys. A 700, 359 (2002) [nucl-th/0107038]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[28]

C. W. Wong, hep-lat/0103021

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Standard Model anatomy of WIMP dark matter direct detection II: QCD analysis and hadronic matrix elements
hep-ph 2014-09 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The paper provides a complete QCD matching and renormalization-group framework connecting weak-scale WIMP operators to three-flavor QCD operators, with new higher-order threshold corrections and hadronic matrix elemen...
Nucleon electromagnetic form factors from lattice QCD using a nearly physical pion mass
hep-lat 2014-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Lattice QCD at a nearly physical pion mass of 149 MeV, with excited-state contamination removed by three methods, reproduces the measured nucleon electric and magnetic form factors up to Q squared of 0.5 GeV squared.
Precision Electromagnetic Structure of Octet Baryons in the Chiral Regime
hep-lat 2006-04 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Quenched lattice QCD at quark masses down to 300 MeV shows environment-sensitive quark-sector charge radii and magnetic moments that follow the leading non-analytic curvature of quenched chiral perturbation theory.
Extracting nucleon strange and anapole form factors from world data
nucl-ex 2006-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A global fit of world parity-violating electron scattering data finds strange and anapole form factors consistent with zero individually, but only 8% probability that all vanish together.
The Long-Baseline Neutrino Experiment: Exploring Fundamental Symmetries of the Universe
hep-ex 2013-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

The LBNE collaboration presents the design and simulated physics reach of a 1,300 km neutrino beam paired with a 34 kt underground liquid argon detector, projecting decisive mass-ordering determination and broad CP-vi...

How the literature uses it

32 arXiv papers cite this in 52 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers whose main result relates to this one's

Found among the papers closest to this one by title and main claim. Pith's classifier compared each pair's main results and a second model family confirmed the relation; checked against two further families, shown conflicts agreed 118 times in 120 and shown same results 218 times in 239. The quoted sentence is the other paper's main claim.

States a conflicting result 1 paper

Our result is $G_M^s(0) = - 0.36 \pm 0.20 $.

Lattice Calculation of the Strangeness Magnetic Moment of the Nucleon · 0.87

Papers citing it · 32 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 4 papers

Then by using charge symmetry and the experimental proton and neutron form factors, we are able to extract a precise value of strange magnetic form factor using the techniques of Refs. [ref] .

Strange magnetic form factor of the proton at $Q^2 = 0.23$ GeV$^2$ · Introduction · 0.98
Turning our focus now to the specific phenomenology of baryon magnetic moments, we employ the approach of Ref. [ref] which includes the non-analytic behavior from photon couplings to $π$ and $K$ mesons in the presence of intermediate octet or decuplet baryons.

Chiral behavior of baryon magnetic moments · Finite Range Regularised Effective Field Theory · 0.99
We derive an estimate for the disconnected quark-loop ratio $=^ℓG^s/^ℓG^d$ using a model based on chiral effective field theory, as also done in Refs. [ref] .

Determination of the strange nucleon form factors · Introduction · 0.97

Uses its data or values 2 papers

For example, for the strangeness magnetic moment was determined by these means to be $-0.046 ±0.019 μ_N$ [ref] , which at just a few hundredths of a nuclear magneton represents a remarkably accurate determination.

Overview of Issues Surrounding Strangeness in the Nucleon · Vector Strange Form Factors · 0.99
Such a value defines a pion cloud contribution to masses [ref] , magnetic moments [ref] , and charge radii [ref] allowing for the correction of the sea-quark-loop contributions to the pion cloud which play a significant role, especially at small pion masses.

Magnetic Polarisability of Octet Baryons via Lattice QCD · Implementation · 0.94

Compares with it 6 papers

With or without the latter correction, this direct determination is clearly in excellent quantitative agreement with the earlier calculation of Leinweber et al. [ref] .

Overview of Issues Surrounding Strangeness in the Nucleon · Vector Strange Form Factors · 1.00
These full-QCD numbers align remarkably well with those determined in Ref. [ref] , given that that analysis was based on quenched lattice simulation results after the application of a theoretical `unquenching' formalism [ref] .

Determination of the strange nucleon form factors · Introduction · 1.00
which is in excellent agreement with earlier findings [ref] and recent JLab experiments [ref] .

Investigations of hadron structure on the lattice · Indirect strangeness · 0.96

Cites it as support 3 papers

This selected range of $Λ$ for the dipole has been found to give good quantitative estimates of quenching artifacts for baryon masses [ref] and magnetic moments [ref] .

Chiral extrapolation of octet-baryon charge radii · numerical results · 0.96
However, experimental evidence of environmental effects was highlighted in Ref. [ref] for the magnetic moments.

Quark mass effects in octet baryon magnetic polarisabilities via lattice QCD · Constituent quark model · 0.99
This is indeed the case for the octet magnetic moments [ref] , for example.

The First Moments of Nucleon Generalized Parton Distributions · Introduction · 1.00

Cites it as background 4 papers

The issue of the errors in the strange magnetic moment were, of course, a serious issue in the earlier paper [ref] , and there and in the companion papers [ref] we explained all of the sources of error, including possible charge symmetry violation.

Strange magnetic form factor of the proton at $Q^2 = 0.23$ GeV$^2$ · Introduction · 0.80
Quenched and partially-quenched FRR chiral EFT has been used to study baryon electromagnetic phenomena including charge radii, strange magnetic moments and strange form factors [ref] .

Chiral extrapolation of nucleon magnetic moments at next-to-leading-order · Introduction · 0.81
There have been many studies of the dependence of nucleon properties on the mass of the light quarks, from its mass [ref] to its electromagnetic [ref] and axial form factors [ref] , the properties of its excited states

Chiral Analysis of the Nucleon Mass and Sigma Commutator · Introduction · 0.98

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [27]

D. B. Leinweber, et al. , hep-lat/0502004

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[2] [1]

K. A. Aniol et al. [HAPPEX Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 509, 211 (2001) [nucl-ex/0006002]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[3] [2]

D. T. Spayde et al. [SAMPLE Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 583, 79 (2004) [arXiv:nucl-ex/0312016]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[4] [3]

N. Mathur and S. J. Dong, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 94, 311 (2001) [hep-lat/0011015]; S. J. Dong, et al. , Phys. Rev. D58, 074504 (1998) [hep-ph/9712483]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[5] [4]

R. Lewis, W. Wilcox and R. M. Woloshyn, Phys. Rev. D 67, 013003 (2003) [hep-ph/0210064]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[6] [5]

J. M. Zanotti et al. [CSSM Lattice Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 65, 074507 (2002) [hep-lat/0110216]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[7] [6]

D. B. Leinweber et al. , Eur. Phys. J. A 18, 247 (2003) [nucl-th/0211014]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[8] [7]

J. M. Zanotti, B. Lasscock, D. B. Leinweber, and A. G. Williams, hep-lat/0405015

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[9] [8]

J. M. Zanotti, S. Boinepalli, W. Kamleh, D. B. Leinwe- ber, and A. G. Williams, hep-lat/0405026

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[10] [9]

R. D. Young, D. B. Leinweber and A. W. Thomas, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 50, 399 (2003) [hep-lat/0212031]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[11] [10]

R. D. Young, D. B. Leinweber and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 71, 014001 (2005) [arXiv:hep-lat/0406001]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[12] [11]

G.A. Miller et al. , Phys. Rept. 194, 1 (1990)

View on Pith 1990

[13] [12]

D.B. Leinweber, Phys. Rev. D53, 5115 (1996) [hep-ph/9512319]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[14] [13]

D. B. Leinweber and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 62, 074505 (2000) [hep-lat/9912052]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[15] [14]

Particle Data Group, Phys. Rev. D66, 010001 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[16] [15]

M. Falcioni et al. , Nucl. Phys. B251, 624 (1985)

View on Pith 1985

[17] [16]

S. O. Bilson-Thompson et al. , Ann. Phys. 304, 1 (2003) [hep-lat/0203008]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[18] [17]

G. Martinelli et al. , Nucl. Phys. B 358, 212 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[19] [18]

D. B. Leinweber et al. , Phys. Rev. D43, 1659 (1991)

View on Pith 1991

[20] [19]

M. Luscher and P. Weisz, Commun. Math. Phys. 97, 59 (1985) [ibid. 98, 433 (1985)]

View on Pith 1985

[21] [20]

T. D. Cohen and D. B. Leinweber, Comments Nucl. Part. Phys. 21, 137 (1993) [hep-ph/9212225]; A.W. Thomas, Austral. J. Phys. 44, 173 (1991)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993

[22] [21]

D. B. Leinweber, A. W. Thomas and R. D. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 242002 (2004) [hep-lat/0302020]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[23] [22]

J. F. Donoghue, et al. , Phys. Rev. D59, 036002 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[24] [23]

R. D. Young et al. , Phys. Rev. D 66, 094507 (2002) [hep-lat/0205017]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[25] [24]

D. B. Leinweber, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 109A, 45 (2002) [hep-lat/0112021]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[26] [25]

D. B. Leinweber, Phys. Rev. D 69, 014005 (2004) [hep-lat/0211017]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[27] [26]

M. J. Savage, Nucl. Phys. A 700, 359 (2002) [nucl-th/0107038]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[28] [28]

C. W. Wong, hep-lat/0103021

View on Pith Pith review arXiv