On the 1/N expansion in chiral perturbation theory

H. Leutwyler (University of Bern)

REVIEW

On the 1/N expansion in chiral perturbation theory

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 20 Sep 1997 · 19 references

Pith's verdict: A short proceedings with real new content: two-angle η–η′ mixing and a clean low-energy theorem, but the singlet angle is quoted without the error bar its own O(δ) correction implies.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 11, 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 →

· 3 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-ph/9709408 (version 1)

Pith IDYCN5IBNU, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationH. Leutwyler (University of Bern). "On the 1/N expansion in chiral perturbation theory." arXiv:hep-ph/9709408 (1997). https://pith.science/paper/YCN5IBNU

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

This is a 1997 QCD 97 write-up by Leutwyler, and it is more than a talk summary. The genuinely new material is in sections 7–8: at first nonleading order in the joint 1/N_c, p, m expansion, the η and η′ decay constants need two mixing angles, and their difference is fixed by F_K − F_π through eq. (13). The two Gell-Mann-Okubo-like relations (11) and (12) are also new, and the extraction S = 26.6 from the measured η→γγ and η′→γγ rates is a real result, not a restatement of refs. [4–6]. The arithmetic checks out: eq. (11) with F_K = 1.22 F_π gives F8 = 1.28 F_π, and eq. (9) with the quoted c_η, c_η′ then gives ϑ8 = −20.5°, as stated. The section 4 predictions (c_η = 1.09, c_η′ = 1.34 against 0.944 and 1.242) are genuine predictions, with the mixing angle fixed from masses alone before the rates are compared. That is the right way round, and it works to better than 15% for all three transitions. Credit is due for that, and for the honest treatment of Δ_N in section 8: the author says plainly that a formally 1/N_c quantity is numerically about 1 for N_c = 3, and explains why the expansion still holds together. That is the kind of thing people usually bury. Two soft spots. First, eq. (13) carries an explicit (1 + O(δ)), and the effect it describes, sin(ϑ0 − ϑ8) ≈ 0.28, is the same size as the OZI-violating couplings quoted two pages later (Λ1 − 2Λ3 = 0.25, Λ2 − Λ3 = 0.28). So ϑ0 ≈ −4° is quoted to two figures with no propagated uncertainty; a fair reading is −4° ± 5° or so. The qualitative point, that the singlet angle is much smaller than the octet one, survives comfortably, but the number itself is not controlled at the quoted precision. Second, the detailed calculation behind the numerical couplings lives in ref. [16], a diploma work listed as in preparation, so a reader cannot audit those numbers from this text alone. Neither of these is fatal, and the first is at least flagged in the equation. This is worth reading if you work on η–η′ mixing or on large-N_c counting in ChPT; the two-angle scheme became standard and this is where the low-energy theorem comes from. It deserves a serious referee, with a request that the O(δ) uncertainty on ϑ0 be made explicit.

Referee report

Significance

If the two-angle result holds, single-angle η–η′ mixing is an incomplete description at first nonleading order, and the octet and singlet mixing angles differ by an amount tied to the observed F_K/F_π ratio. That is a genuine, parameter-free low-energy theorem at this order, and it is falsifiable: it predicts a specific relation among measured decay rates and masses. The photonic amplitudes of §4 are true predictions in the strict sense — the mixing angle is fixed from the masses alone and c_η, c_η′ are then computed and found to agree with the Particle Data Group values to better than 15% — which is a real success of the scheme and should be credited. The resolution of the Eq. (5) paradox as a statement about the κ ≫ 1 regime rather than about QCD is clean and correct. The §8 admission that Δ_N ≈ 1 for N_c = 3, while the expansion still organizes the results, is exactly the kind of self-scrutiny that makes the paper useful. I verified two of the numerical steps independently: Eq. (11) with F_K = 1.22 F_π gives F8 = 1.285 F_π, and Eq. (9) with c_η = 0.944, c_η′ = 1.242 and that F8 gives ϑ8 = −20.5° to the quoted accuracy, so the internal arithmetic is sound.

Major objections (3)

[§7, Eq. (13) and the value ϑ0 ≈ −4°] The headline new number is quoted to two significant figures with no uncertainty, yet Eq. (13) itself carries an explicit O(δ) correction and the effect it encodes is sin(ϑ0 − ϑ8) ≈ 0.28, while the OZI-violating couplings listed in the same section are Λ1 − 2Λ3 = 0.25 and Λ2 − Λ3 = 0.28. The neglected correction is therefore of the same order as the quantity being extracted. The qualitative conclusion — that the singlet angle is much smaller than the octet one — appears robust, but the quantitative value does not support two significant figures. The authors should either propagate an explicit uncertainty on ϑ0 or state plainly how large the O(δ) correction to Eq. (13) can be, and adjust the wording accordingly.
[§3, η mass formula and the 'four times too large' shift] The first correction to the Gell-Mann–Okubo value drives M_η from 566 MeV down to 494 MeV, whereas the observed value is 547 MeV; the correction overshoots the required shift by roughly a factor of four. The authors acknowledge this and argue that it still makes sense to treat the shift as a correction because κ ≈ 0.18 lies in the regime where standard ChPT applies. What remains unresolved is whether the same η–η′ mixing dynamics that produces this overshoot also contaminates the ϑ0 extraction of §7 and the S determination of Eq. (12). Since the paper's conclusion is that the 1/N_c expansion is a coherent scheme, this is the one place where convergence is directly testable against data, and the test is marginal; the manuscript should say what accuracy it claims for the η–η′ sector in light of it.
[§7, numerical values of τ, Λ1, Λ2, Λ3, F, L5, L7, L8] The numerical outputs τ/(1+Λ3)² = (195 MeV)⁴, Λ1 − 2Λ3 = 0.25, Λ2 − Λ3 = 0.28, F = 90.6 MeV, L5 = 2.2·10⁻³, L7 = −0.3·10⁻³, L8 = 1.0·10⁻³ are attributed to ref. [16], which is listed as a diploma work in preparation and a paper to be published. No fit inputs, procedure, or goodness-of-fit are given in the manuscript, so the reader cannot check these numbers or judge their stability. For a proceedings contribution this deferral is understandable, but the values should be flagged as preliminary and the essential inputs (which observables were fitted, which were held fixed) summarized in a sentence or two.

Minor objections (7)

[§7, 'remarkably close' for S = 26.6 versus 25.9] The determination of S uses ϑ8 fixed from the measured c_η and c_η′ through Eq. (9), so the comparison with the current-algebra value is a consistency check rather than an independent measurement. Figure 1 displays the sensitivity but no propagated uncertainty on S is quoted; a number with an error bar would let the reader judge whether the agreement is meaningful, and the phrase 'remarkably close' should be tempered accordingly.
[§4, photonic amplitudes] The agreement 'within 15%' for c_η and c_η′ is quoted at leading order, while §6 concedes that O(δ²) symmetry-breaking corrections to the Wess–Zumino–Witten term are being ignored. The text should state explicitly that the 15% comparison is subject to that omission, so the reader does not read it as a precision test.
[§2, symmetry group] The enlarged symmetry group is written as G = U(3)_R × U(3)_R; the second factor should presumably be U(3)_L. The same paragraph contains the phrase 'extended to first non–leading leading order', which needs correcting.
[§8, typographical errors] There are several typographical errors that should be fixed: 'eﬀectie lagrangian' in the paragraph beginning 'The leading contribution to Δ_N', 'desaster' in the same paragraph, 'W ork supported' in the footnote on the first page, and 'Sid lerstr.' in the author address.
[§7, novelty claim and refs. [17]–[19]] The statement 'To my knowledge, this is a new result' is plausible, but refs. [17]–[19] discuss related two-angle and OZI-violation phenomena in η–η′ mixing and are cited without any numerical or conceptual comparison. A short paragraph explaining how the present relation differs from, or is consistent with, those discussions would strengthen the novelty claim.
[Figure 1] The caption describes tilted lines of constant S and a rectangle for the experimental errors, but the figure as printed is difficult to read: the axis labels and units for the two decay rates should be stated unambiguously in the caption, and the meaning of the two panels (if there are two) should be spelled out.
[§6, renormalization group behaviour] The transformation rules B → Z_M B, τ → Z_A² τ, 1 + Λ1 → Z_A²(1 + Λ1), 1 + Λ2 → Z_A(1 + Λ2) are stated without showing that the combinations χ†U + U†χ and iψ⟨χ†U − U†χ⟩ are invariant under them. One explicit line of check would help the reader follow the argument.

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

The paper

The paper claims

Leutwyler argues that at first nonleading order in the $1/N_c$ expansion, the $F^8_P$ and $F^0_P$ decay constants of the $P = 2$ matrix element are not described by a single mixing angle: the octet and singlet mixing angles differ by an $F^

The reading

The paper asks what becomes of the low-energy theory of the strong interaction when the number of colours is sent to infinity, and what that limit buys for the phenomenology of the $P = 2$ matrix element. In that limit the anomaly that gives the $P = 2$ matrix element its mass is suppressed by $1/N_c$, so a ninth massless Goldstone boson appears and the effective field must be enlarged from $SU(3)$ to $U(3)$, with a new term carrying the topological susceptibility of pure gluodynamics. Leutwyler then works to first nonleading order in a joint expansion in $1/N_c$, momenta and quark masses, and shows that the resulting Lagrangian resolves an old paradox: the coupling $L_7$ appears to blow up as $N_c^2$ if the limit is taken at fixed quark masses, but that only signals that one has left the region where the standard eight-Goldstone theory applies. The payoff is a set of parameter-free relations among masses, decay constants and the $P = 2$ matrix element $P = 2$ matrix element rates, and the headline result that $P = 2$ matrix element mixing at this order requires two angles rather than one.

What carries the argument

Two pieces carry the argument. The first is the leading $U(3)$ Lagrangian, $P = 2$ matrix element$, where $P = 2$ matrix element$ is the singlet phase that houses the $P = 2$ matrix element, and $P = 2$ matrix element$ is the topological susceptibility of the gluonic vacuum, the mean square winding number per unit volume. The $P = 2$ matrix element$ term is what gives the $P = 2$ matrix element a mass at finite $N_c$ and what the anomaly supplies; it is the term that must be kept rather than integrated out. The second is the first-order correction $P = 2$ matrix element$, containing the familiar $L_5$ and $L_8$, the two OZI-violating couplings $P = 2$ matrix element$ (which rescales the singlet kinetic energy) and $P = 2$ matrix element$ (which rescales the octet–singlet interference), and the Wess-Zumino-Witten term. Diagonalizing the quadratic form in $P = 2$ matrix element$ gives the masses and, from the matrix that diagonalizes it, the decay constants $P = 2$ matrix element$ and $P = 2$ matrix element$; comparing the $P = 2$ matrix element$ sector — which $P = 2$ matrix element$ and $P = 2$ matrix element$ do not touch — with the eigenstate representation yields the two Gell-Mann–Okubo-like relations that fix $S$ and the mixing angles.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a $U(3)$ chiral Lagrangian truncated at first nonleading order in $1/N_c$ — the leading terms plus the OZI-violating couplings $P = 2$ matrix element and the topological susceptibility $P = 2$ matrix element — gives a coherent description of the pseudoscalar nonet, and that within it the octet and singlet components of the $P = 2$ matrix element decay constants mix with two different angles. The paper derives $P = 2$ matrix element, so the same term that makes $F_K$ differ from $F_$P = 2$ matrix element$ also splits the two angles, numerically $P = 2$ matrix element and $P = 2$ matrix element. Leutwyler flags this as new. Two Gell-Mann–Okubo-like relations for the octet decay constants, eqs. (11) and (12), let him extract $S = m_s/ P = 2$ matrix element = 26.6$ from the measured $P = 2$ matrix element rates, close to the current-algebra value 25.9, and the extended Lagrangian reproduces all three photonic amplitudes to better than 15%.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical outputs rest on the assumption, stated in section 6, that $P = 2$ matrix element$ is a decent approximation to the full effective Lagrangian, with symmetry-breaking corrections to the Wess-Zumino-Witten term at order $P = 2$ matrix element$ set aside.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The $P = 2$ matrix element must be treated as a dynamical field in any large-$N_c$ effective theory; integrating it out is only valid for $P = 2$ matrix element$, that is, for small quark masses.
The Kaplan-Manohar ambiguity in quark mass ratios is pushed to next-to-next-to-leading order, because the offending transformation of the mass matrix violates the OZI rule and is a change of order $P = 2$ matrix element$.
The measured $P = 2$ matrix element rates give $S = 26.6$, close to the current-algebra $25.9$, so the quark mass ratio extracted this way is stable against how the mixing is treated.
Single-angle $P = 2$ matrix element mixing is an incomplete description at first nonleading order; fits should carry separate octet and singlet angles, differing by roughly $16^P = 2$ matrix element$.
The downward shift of the $P = 2$ matrix element mass from $P = 2$ matrix element repulsion, about 70 MeV, is a second-order $SU(3)$-breaking effect whose size is consistent with the range where standard chiral perturbation theory applies.

Reading between the lines

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

If the two angles really differ by about $16^P = 2$ matrix element$, then processes dominated by the singlet component and processes dominated by the octet component should pull out systematically different mixing angles; comparing the two classes of channel would be a clean test of the two-angle picture.
The paper's own finding that $P = 2$ matrix element$ is formally $O(1/N_c)$ but numerically about 1 suggests the failure of naive term-by-term ordering is not confined to the pseudoscalar channel; a lattice determination of $P = 2$ matrix element$ and $P = 2$ matrix element$ would show whether OZI violation stays at the roughly 25% level quoted here or grows elsewhere.
Only the combinations $P = 2$ matrix element$, $P = 2$ matrix element$ and $P = 2$ matrix element$ are scale invariant, so any extraction of these constants from data must state the renormalization scheme; that is a testable bookkeeping prediction of the section 6 analysis.
The relation tying $P = 2$ matrix element$ to $F_K - F_$P = 2$ matrix element$ suggests a similar splitting should appear in any nonet with large $SU(3)$ breaking, such as the scalar or axial-vector nonets, where the same OZI-violating couplings would control the size of the effect.

Original abstract

Talk given at QCD 97, Montpellier, July 1997. In the first part of the talk, I presented a review of the results for the light quark masses obtained on the basis of chiral perturbation theory. As this material is described elsewhere, the following notes only concern the second part, which dealt with the behaviour of the effective theory in the large N_c limit.

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, 2,905 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.74 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.04 · compares with prior results 0.13 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Talk given at QCD 97, Montpellier, July 1997. In the first part of the talk, I presented a review of the results for the light quark masses obtained on the basis of chiral perturbation theory. As this material is described elsewhere, the following notes only concern the second part, which dealt with the behaviour of the effective theory in the large N_c limit.

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	Talk given at QCD 97, Montpellier, July 1997.	background 0.99	0.24	0.01	asserted 0.59
s1	In the first part of the talk, I presented a review of the results for the light quark masses obtained on the basis of chiral perturbation theory.	background 0.68	0.47	0.03	asserted 0.95
s2	As this material is described elsewhere, the following notes only concern the second part, which dealt with the behaviour of the effective theory in the large N_c limit.	limitation 0.63	0.55	0.04	asserted 0.92

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: review 0.80 · evidence from literature 0.80.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

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.** Sensitivity of the quark mass ratio S = ms/mˆ to the input used for the decay rates Γη→γγ and Γη′→γγ. stant values of S. The rectangle corresponds to the experimental errors quoted above. The calculation described in the preceding section gives rise to another paradox: According to ref. [5], the effective lagrangian we are using here leads an upper bound for S. The argument does not invoke the experimental information about the decay rates and implies that the current algebra value S = 25.9 represents an upper limit. Although this is within the uncertainties of the above result,

Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/9709408 by the authors.

References

Works cited (19)

[16]

R. Kaiser, diploma work, in preparation; R. Kaiser and H. Leutwyler, to be published

View on Pith
[1]

H. Leutwyler, Light Quark Masses , in Proc. NATO Advanced Study Institute on ”Masses of Fundamental Particles”, Carg` ese, Aug. 1996, eds. M. L´ evy, J. Iliopoulos, R. Gast- mans and J.-M. G´ erard, Plenum Press, hep- ph/9609467

View on Pith 1996
[2]

C. Vafa and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B234 (1984) 173

View on Pith 1984
[3]

G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B72 (1974) and B75 (1974) 461; G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B117 (1974) 519 and B159 (1979) 213; R. J. Crewther, Phys. Lett. 70B (1977) 349 and in Field Theoretical Methods in Particle Physics, ed. W. R¨ uhl (Plenum, New York, 1980); E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B156 (1979) 269 and B117 (1980) 57; P. Di Vecchia, Phys. Lett. 85B (1979) 357;...

View on Pith 1974
[4]

P. Di Vecchia and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B171 (1980) 253; C. Rosenzweig, J. Schechter and T. Trahern, Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 3388; E. Witten, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 128 (1980) 363

View on Pith 1980
[5]

H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B374 (1996) 163

View on Pith 1996
[6]

P. Herrera-Sikl´ ody, J.I. Latorre, P. Pascual and J. Taron, Chiral eﬀective lagrangians in the large-Nc limit: the nonet case , preprint UB-ECM-PF 96/16, hep-ph/9610549

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[7]

D. B. Kaplan and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 2004

View on Pith 1986
[8]

J.–M. Gerard, Mod. Phys. Lett. A5 (1990) 391

View on Pith 1990
[9]

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

View on Pith 1985
[10]

S. Peris and E. de Rafael, Phys. Lett. B348 (1995) 539

View on Pith 1995
[11]

Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 1

View on Pith 1996
[12]

H. Georgi, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 1666

View on Pith 1994
[13]

S. Peris, Phys. Lett. B324 (1994) 442, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 39B,C (1995) 266

View on Pith 1994
[14]

D. Espriu and R. Tarrach, Z. Phys. C16 (1982) 77

View on Pith 1982
[15]

B. Moussallam, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 4939

View on Pith 1995
[17]

J. Bijnens, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A18 (1993) 3045

View on Pith 1993
[18]

G. Grunberg, Phys. Lett. B388 (1996) 173

View on Pith 1996
[19]

M. Takizawa, Y. Nemoto and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 4083

View on Pith 1997

Forward citations

Cited by 24 Pith papers

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

Axion-like particle production from kaon decays within U(3) chiral theory
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A U(3) chiral perturbation theory calculation of K to pi a decay shows that a U(3)-specific weak operator can matter, and yields updated ALP coupling bounds.
Towards a consistent estimate of the chiral low-energy constants
hep-ph 2006-03 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The authors construct the most general chiral resonance Lagrangian and derive its contributions to all O(p^6) chiral low-energy constants, parametrizing the constants in terms of resonance parameters.
The role of the chiral anomaly in polarized deeply inelastic scattering III: Wess-Zumino-Witten contributions and chiral Ward identities for finite quark mass
hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A worldline computation shows the QED anomaly-pole cancellation by the PVV triangle does not extend to QCD, and the eta-prime mechanism yields only a few percent finite-mass correction to the Shore-Veneziano relation ...
Dispersion relation for hadronic light-by-light scattering: $\eta$ and $\eta'$ poles
hep-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A dispersive analysis of the eta and eta' transition form factors yields data-driven pole contributions to the muon g-2 of 14.7(9) x 10^-11 and 13.5(7) x 10^-11.
Superconnections in AdS/QCD and the hadronic light-by-light contribution to the muon $g-2$
hep-ph 2024-11 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

A scalar-extended Chern-Simons superconnection in hard-wall AdS/QCD improves f1-f1' mixing and photon rates while leaving the combined axial-vector plus excited-pseudoscalar HLBL contribution to muon g-2 stable near 32e-11.

Show 19 more citing papers

Bootstrapping Pions at Large $N$
hep-th 2022-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Imposing the full set of positivity constraints from pion scattering at large N yields rigorous two-sided bounds on the four-derivative chiral couplings, whose exclusion boundary has a sharp kink of unknown physical origin.
Masses and decay constants of the $\eta$ and $\eta^\prime$ mesons from lattice QCD
hep-lat 2021-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Continuum-extrapolated lattice QCD in Nf=2+1 gives F8 = 115.0(2.8) MeV, theta8 = -25.8(2.3) deg, F0(2 GeV) = 100.1(3.0) MeV, theta0 = -8.1(1.8) deg, and gluonic matrix elements a_eta = 0.0170(10) GeV^3, a_eta' = 0.038...
Longitudinal short-distance constraints for the hadronic light-by-light contribution to $(g-2)_\mu$ with large-$N_c$ Regge models
hep-ph 2019-10 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

An infinite tower of excited pseudoscalars, constrained by QCD short-distance limits and matched to the perturbative quark loop, raises the hadronic light-by-light contribution to muon g-2 by 13(6) x 10^-11, well belo...
The eta transition form factor from space- and time-like experimental data
hep-ph 2015-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A combined Padé fit to space- and time-like eta transition form factor data gives b_eta = 0.576(11)(4), c_eta = 0.339(15)(5), and the first determination d_eta = 0.200(14)(18).
An Update of the HLS Estimate of the Muon g-2
hep-ph 2012-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A global fit of a broken Hidden Local Symmetry Lagrangian to tau and multi-channel e+e- data yields a muon g-2 prediction that puts the experiment-theory discrepancy at 4.7 to 4.9 sigma.
Large N_c in chiral perturbation theory
hep-ph 2000-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The large-N_c counting rules of QCD fix the mesonic effective Lagrangian once suitable field variables are chosen, and they forbid the Kaplan-Manohar reparametrization to all orders in 1/N_c.
Phenomenology of GeV-scale Heavy Neutral Leptons
hep-ph 2018-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The paper assembles and revises the production and decay phenomenology of GeV-scale heavy neutral leptons, adds QCD corrections and previously omitted channels, and tabulates which channels matter at which mass.
A viable QCD axion in the MeV mass range
hep-ph 2017-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A variant QCD axion in the MeV mass range remains compatible with existing constraints because the kaon-decay bound rests on uncomputed next-to-leading-order chiral corrections.
\eta and \eta' transition form factors from rational approximants
hep-ph 2013-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Pade-approximant fits to space-like data give model-independent slopes, curvatures, and asymptotic limits for the eta and eta-prime transition form factors, with downstream estimates for eta-eta-prime mixing and the l...
Upgraded Breaking Of The HLS Model: A Full Solution to the tau-e+e- and phi Decay Issues And Its Consequences On g-2 VMD Estimates
hep-ph 2011-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Extending the BKY symmetry-breaking scheme of the Hidden Local Symmetry model to isospin resolves the e+e- versus tau discrepancy and the phi to K+K-/K0K0 ratio, and yields a muon g-2 hadronic contribution with roughl...
Meson Transition Form Factors in Light-Front Holographic QCD
hep-ph 2011-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A soft-wall AdS/QCD model with a Chern-Simons coupling reproduces the pion, eta and eta-prime transition form factors at low and moderate momentum transfer and the asymptotic QCD limit, but not the rising BaBar pion data.
Rare meson decays into very light neutralinos
hep-ph 2009-05 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

In the MSSM with minimal flavor violation, kaon and B decays into light neutralinos are far below experimental reach, so a massless neutralino survives; with non-minimal flavor violation the same decays bound squark m...
Review of lattice results concerning low energy particle physics
hep-lat 2010-11 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

The review sets quality criteria for lattice QCD calculations and uses them to produce recommended averages for light-quark masses, f+(0), fK/fpi, low-energy constants, and B_K.
FLAG Review 2021
hep-lat 2021-11 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The Flavour Lattice Averaging Group reviews lattice-QCD results published before 30 April 2021 and issues colour-coded, correlation-aware averages for quark masses, decay constants, form factors, mixing parameters, al...
FLAG Review 2019
hep-lat 2019-02 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

FLAG 2019 provides updated community averages of lattice-QCD quantities, including a new section on nucleon matrix elements, for use in CKM fits and Standard Model tests.
Review of lattice results concerning low-energy particle physics
hep-lat 2016-07 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

The FLAG collaboration compiles and averages published lattice QCD results into community-standard values for low-energy particle-physics quantities, including quark masses, decay constants, form factors, and alpha_s.
Review of lattice results concerning low energy particle physics
hep-lat 2013-10 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

FLAG's 2014 review fixes consensus lattice values for light-quark masses, f+(0), fK/fpi, BK, heavy-meson decay constants and alpha_s, and finds the first row of the CKM matrix unitary at the permille level.
FLAG Review 2024
hep-lat 2024-11 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

The FLAG 2024 review provides updated averages of lattice QCD determinations for quark masses, decay constants, form factors, mixing parameters, and nucleon matrix elements.
Precision tests of fundamental physics with $\eta$ and $\eta^\prime$ mesons
hep-ph 2020-07 accept novelty 1.0 of 10

The review argues that eta and eta-prime decays are a versatile, flavor-conserving laboratory for quark-mass, mixing, muon g-2, and beyond-Standard-Model physics, and maps the experiments that will exploit them.

How later papers used it

56 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 56 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 16 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 13 of the 104 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

3 later papers by other authors are listed below: 3 used its data or values.

Uses its data or values 3 of 9 papers with this label

Employed this paper's chiral singlet pseudoscalar mass m_0=850±50 MeV in its U(3)-SU(3) matching to obtain the SU(3) couplings.

High energy constraints in the octet SS-PP correlator and resonance saturation at NLO in 1/Nc (2009) · 0.80 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used f_8=1.28f_π, f_0≃1.25 f_π, θ_8≃-20°, θ_0≃-4° and Λ_2≃0.3 from this paper for its numerical analysis.

Chiral dynamics predictions for eta' -> eta pi pi (2010) · 1.00 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Used this paper's experimental values for the coefficients in its branching ratio expressions.

Pseudoscalar glueball and $\eta-\eta^\prime$ mixing (2009) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

54 arXiv papers cite this in 101 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 citing it · 65 sentences without a confident label

Contests it 2 papers

Thus anomaly constraint contradicts the preferred value [ref] $f_s=1.34f_π$ $(f_8=1.28f_π)$ which is used in [ref] .

Dispersive Approach to Abelian Axial Anomaly, Mixing of Pseudoscalar Mesons and Symmetries · Two-angle mixing schemes · contest 0.71
However, it is known for a long time that this treatment is inconsistent and gives a poor description of data [ref] .

Anatomy of Non-Leptonic Two-Body Decays of Charmed Mesons into Final States with $\eta'$ · Introduction · contest 0.90

Uses its method or tool 5 papers

In order to recover the traditional $SU(3)$ couplings one needs to make use of the matching equations [ref] , [equation]

High energy constraints in the octet SS-PP correlator and resonance saturation at NLO in 1/Nc · $$–subtraction scheme · 0.85
Study of the processes involving ALP and light pseudoscalar mesons $P$ will be perform using the effective Lagrangian, which was derived in Ref. [ref] after mapping of the QCD-level quark-gluon Lagrangian into meson ChPT Lagrangian [ref] .

Probing leptophobic dark sector with a pseudoscalar portal in the NA64 experiment at CERN · ALP-Pseudoscalar Mesons Effective Lagrangian · 0.93
To be more specific, we use the $δ$-expansion scheme to arrange the various contributions in $U(3)$ $$ by simultaneously considering the expansions in the momenta, light-quark masses and $1/N_C$ [ref] .

Axion-meson mixing in light of recent lattice $\eta$-$\eta'$ simulations and their two-photon couplings within $U(3)$ chiral theory · Axion $U(3)$ $$ up to next-to-leading order · 0.99

Uses its data or values 9 papers

We will use the formerly referred $_S=980 ±20$ MeV and $_P=1300±50$ MeV [ref] , $F=90±2$ MeV [ref] and the standard reference $χ$PT renormalization scale $μ_0=770$ MeV.

High energy constraints in the octet SS-PP correlator and resonance saturation at NLO in 1/Nc · Phenomenology with Ecker et al.'s lagrangian $_G+_R$ · 1.00
For the numerical analysis, we use $f_8=1.28f_π$, $f_0≃1.25 f_π$, $θ_8≃-20^∘$, $θ_0≃-4^∘$ and $Λ_2≃0.3$ from Ref. [ref] , and $m_π=137.3$ MeV, $m_η=547.9$ MeV and $m_η^'=957.8$ MeV from Ref. [ref] .

Chiral dynamics predictions for eta' -> eta pi pi · Next-to-leading order calculation · 1.00
Plugging in the numerical fit of the LECs obtained by [ref] yields: θ_aη__ud ≈ -1.9×10^-3/f_a/GeV ≈ 0.2× θ_aη__ud^(0) .

A viable QCD axion in the MeV mass range · Axion-Eta mixing · 0.99

Compares with it 3 papers

The decay constants and their mixing in the $η$-$η'$ sector as listed in Table [ref] require a two-angle scheme as introduced in [ref] : [equation] Comparing with the lattice results of [ref] , the results of the KS model (v1) agreed very well with the $f^8$ scale and reasonably with $θ_8$, with somewhat larger deviations for the $f^0$ scale and $θ_0$.

Superconnections in AdS/QCD and the hadronic light-by-light contribution to the muon $g-2$ · Ground-state pseudoscalars · 0.80
Our result is in line with previous findings [ref] and has competitive errors.

A theoretical study of meson transition form factors · The $η-η'$ mixing: $K_2=Λ_1 = Λ_3 = 0$ · 0.83
This gives in agreement with Ref. [ref] [equation] and numerically $θ≈-20^∘$.

Axion Dark Matter from Heavy Quarks · Axion-Photon Coupling · 0.81

Cites it as background 12 papers

A lot of theoretical and phenomenological work has thus been devoted to the $η$–$η'$ sector, see e.g. [ref] .

Application of Bayesian statistics to the sector of decay constants in three-flavour ChPT · Decay constants · 0.99
The mixing of the $η_8$ and $η_0$ with an angle $θ_P$ yields the physical $η$ and $η'$ states[We notice that more complicated schemes for $η-η'$ mixing involving two mixing angles have been studied in e.g., Refs. [ref] , which is commonly used to describe the two-photon decays well [ref] . ].

Amplitude analysis of the anomalous decay $\eta'\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ · Formalism of R$χ$T · 0.90
For $P=η,η'$ the analog relations depend on the details of $η$–$η'$ mixing [ref] , see Ref. [ref] for a review.

A dispersive analysis of $\eta'\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ and $\eta'\to \ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ · Introduction · 1.00

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] [16]

R. Kaiser, diploma work, in preparation; R. Kaiser and H. Leutwyler, to be published

View on Pith

[2] [1]

H. Leutwyler, Light Quark Masses , in Proc. NATO Advanced Study Institute on ”Masses of Fundamental Particles”, Carg` ese, Aug. 1996, eds. M. L´ evy, J. Iliopoulos, R. Gast- mans and J.-M. G´ erard, Plenum Press, hep- ph/9609467

View on Pith 1996

[3] [2]

C. Vafa and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B234 (1984) 173

View on Pith 1984

[4] [3]

G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B72 (1974) and B75 (1974) 461; G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B117 (1974) 519 and B159 (1979) 213; R. J. Crewther, Phys. Lett. 70B (1977) 349 and in Field Theoretical Methods in Particle Physics, ed. W. R¨ uhl (Plenum, New York, 1980); E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B156 (1979) 269 and B117 (1980) 57; P. Di Vecchia, Phys. Lett. 85B (1979) 357;...

View on Pith 1974

[5] [4]

P. Di Vecchia and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B171 (1980) 253; C. Rosenzweig, J. Schechter and T. Trahern, Phys. Rev. D21 (1980) 3388; E. Witten, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 128 (1980) 363

View on Pith 1980

[6] [5]

H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B374 (1996) 163

View on Pith 1996

[7] [6]

P. Herrera-Sikl´ ody, J.I. Latorre, P. Pascual and J. Taron, Chiral eﬀective lagrangians in the large-Nc limit: the nonet case , preprint UB-ECM-PF 96/16, hep-ph/9610549

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[8] [7]

D. B. Kaplan and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 2004

View on Pith 1986

[9] [8]

J.–M. Gerard, Mod. Phys. Lett. A5 (1990) 391

View on Pith 1990

[10] [9]

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

View on Pith 1985

[11] [10]

S. Peris and E. de Rafael, Phys. Lett. B348 (1995) 539

View on Pith 1995

[12] [11]

Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 1

View on Pith 1996

[13] [12]

H. Georgi, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 1666

View on Pith 1994

[14] [13]

S. Peris, Phys. Lett. B324 (1994) 442, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 39B,C (1995) 266

View on Pith 1994

[15] [14]

D. Espriu and R. Tarrach, Z. Phys. C16 (1982) 77

View on Pith 1982

[16] [15]

B. Moussallam, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 4939

View on Pith 1995

[17] [17]

J. Bijnens, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A18 (1993) 3045

View on Pith 1993

[18] [18]

G. Grunberg, Phys. Lett. B388 (1996) 173

View on Pith 1996

[19] [19]

M. Takizawa, Y. Nemoto and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 4083

View on Pith 1997