Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

This paper establishes selection rules for the magnetic-field-induced transverse anomalous magnetic moment in QED: it vanishes between lowest Landau levels, changes sign under reversal of the Landau-level transition, and is infrared finite

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 07:24 UTC pith:PNWH3QIB

load-bearing objection The paper has a genuine new computation and careful algebra, but the central k≠k′ results are evaluated at a kinematic point (l=0) that its own delta function forbids, so the transition selection rules are not physical as presented. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.10015 v3 pith:PNWH3QIB submitted 2026-07-10 hep-ph hep-th

QED vertex and anomalous magnetic moment in the presence of a magnetic field

Alejandro Ayala , Enrique Mu\~noz , Marcelo Loewe , Juan Cristobal Rojas , Norberto Scoccola This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-th
keywords quantum electrodynamicsmagnetic fieldanomalous magnetic momentLandau levelsselection rulestime-reversal symmetry breakinginfrared regulatorone-loop correction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper computes the electron-photon vertex in quantum electrodynamics placed in a constant magnetic field, at one-loop order and for arbitrary field strength. It shows that the field breaks Lorentz symmetry, splitting the electron's anomalous magnetic moment into longitudinal, transverse, and mixed pieces. Focusing on the purely transverse piece, it derives selection rules: transitions between the lowest Landau level and itself are forbidden, transitions between neighboring levels carry opposite signs depending on direction, and the form factor needs no photon mass as an infrared cutoff. The amplitude is complex, and its imaginary part is interpreted as a finite lifetime for the excited electron state. If correct, this is the first computation of the transverse anomalous magnetic moment at arbitrary field strength.

Core claim

The central result is the form factor F^{λλ'}_{2⊥⊥}, the purely transverse anomalous magnetic moment. At zero photon momentum it vanishes for transitions from the lowest Landau level to itself, while for the k=1↔0 transitions it is proportional to (1−√2) times an integral I(1,0), with the reverse direction carrying the opposite sign. The asymmetry is presented as a direct manifestation of time-reversal breaking by the magnetic field. The paper also finds the amplitude is generally complex, interpreting the imaginary part as a finite lifetime of the decaying initial Landau state, and shows that the transverse form factor is infrared finite without introducing a photon mass because the magneti

What carries the argument

The calculation is carried in the basis of exact Landau-level eigenstates of a charged fermion in a uniform magnetic field, labeled by the Landau level k and spin projection λ, and expressed through spin projectors that split the vertex into longitudinal and transverse pieces. The transverse anomalous magnetic moment is isolated by sandwiching the one-loop vertex between external states with a generalized Gordon identity, and the selection rules emerge from the index constraints of the Laguerre and Bessel functions in the l→0 limit, which reduce the summation to a single set of allowed intermediate states.

Load-bearing premise

The l→0 evaluation assumes Landau-level-changing transitions can be studied at zero photon momentum with equal longitudinal momenta, even though on-shell energies of different Landau levels differ, making l0 nonzero for k≠k'.

What would settle it

Recompute the k≠k' amplitudes with the exact on-shell photon energy l0 = E_e(k)−E_e(k') (rather than l∥→0) and compare the sign and magnitude of F_{2⊥⊥} with the paper's l=0 results; a different proportionality or a vanishing amplitude would settle whether the selection rules survive physical kinematics.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The transverse AMM for the lowest Landau level is exactly zero, so a nonzero LLL transverse moment would require physics beyond this one-loop QED treatment.
  • Transition amplitudes for k→k' and k'→k differ by an overall sign, giving a field-controlled asymmetry that directly tracks time-reversal breaking.
  • The transverse form factor is infrared finite, so no photon mass is needed to regulate it, unlike the longitudinal component.
  • The imaginary part of the form factor gives a field-dependent lifetime for the decaying Landau-level state.
  • The real part saturates at very strong magnetic fields, a non-linear response the authors liken to ferromagnetic saturation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Relaxing the zero-momentum limit to the on-shell photon energy for k≠k' transitions could alter the (1−√2) proportionality; the plotted l=0 amplitudes are a kinematic idealization.
  • The same longitudinal/transverse/mixed decomposition could be applied to the parallel and mixed AMM components, likely showing similar sign-reversal and infrared safety.
  • The imaginary part's lifetime interpretation could be checked against an independent decay-width calculation for the same Landau-level transition.
  • The saturation behavior suggests a magnetization-like response; if extended to real photons, this could affect photon self-energies in strongly magnetized media.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes the one-loop QED fermion-photon vertex in a constant, uniform magnetic background using Ritus eigenfunctions. It identifies a tensor decomposition of the vertex and isolates a purely transverse anomalous magnetic moment form factor F^{λλ'}_{2⊥⊥}. In the limit of vanishing photon momentum l→0, the paper derives selection rules for low-lying Landau-level transitions: LLL-to-LLL transitions are forbidden, k=1↔0 and k=2↔0 amplitudes are opposite in sign under time reversal, and the transverse form factor is infrared finite without a photon mass. Numerical results are shown for the k=1→0 transition as a function of magnetic field strength.

Significance. If correct, the calculation would be the first arbitrary-field computation of the transverse AMM in QED, going beyond existing LLL and weak-field approximations. The paper is technically detailed, with explicit Ritus-basis expressions and analytic reductions in appendices. However, the central results — the selection rules and the sign asymmetry for Landau-level-changing transitions — are obtained at l=0, a kinematic point that is inconsistent with on-shell transitions between different Landau levels. The significance of the paper therefore depends on whether the l=0 limit can be physically justified or whether the form factor must be evaluated at the on-shell photon momentum with l0 = E(k)−E(k′).

major comments (3)
  1. [III.A and Appendix E] The evaluation of F^{λλ'}_{2⊥⊥} at l=0 is kinematically inconsistent for transitions between different Landau levels. The Ritus amplitude contains momentum-conservation delta δ(l0−p0+p'0) (Eq. A12). For on-shell external fermions, p0=sqrt(m^2+2kB_e+p3^2) and p'0=sqrt(m^2+2k'B_e+p3^2). For k≠k' and p3=p'3, l0≠0, so the four-vector l=0 cannot satisfy momentum conservation. Appendix E explicitly sets l∥=p'∥−p∥→0 (Eq. E6), which forces p'0=p0; combined with on-shellness this implies k=k'. Thus Eqs. (51)–(56) and Figs. 4–5 do not describe physical on-shell Landau-level-changing transition amplitudes. The form factor should be computed at the on-shell photon momentum with l^2=0 and l0=E(k)−E(k'), not at l=0. Since the selection rules and the time-reversal sign asymmetry follow from the l=0 amplitudes, this issue is load-bearing.
  2. [Appendix C, text after Eq. (C16)] The extraction of the transverse AMM relies on the assertion that the purely transverse form factor 'appears exclusively in the N2 factor.' This is not demonstrated. The terms N1, N3, and N4 contain gamma-matrix products that, after contraction with the external Ritus spinors and projection onto σ^{μ2}_{⊥⊥}, could in principle contribute to F^{λλ'}_{2⊥⊥}. An explicit proof that these terms vanish or do not generate the σ^{μ2}_{⊥⊥} structure is required; without it the result is incomplete.
  3. [III.A, exclusion of Set 2] The text after Eq. (40) appears to contain sign inconsistencies. It refers to a 'fourth term' although Eq. (40) has only three terms, and it states that the third term implies β′=−β and ω=ω′, whereas the displayed third term has δ_{ω′,−ω}δ_{ω,β}δ_{β′,β}, implying β′=β and ω′=−ω. Since the exclusion of Set 2 is essential for reducing the sum to Set 1 and for all subsequent selection rules, a correct and complete proof is needed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Notation, Eq. (4)] The notation \tilde q = (q0, q2, q3) is used before it is explicitly defined. Also, the vertex function still carries the momentum-conservation delta; the paper sometimes calls the vertex an 'amplitude' without making clear whether the delta has been stripped. Please clarify.
  2. [Figs. 4 and 5] The captions call the plotted quantity the 'magnetic form factor'; it is the transverse AMM form factor F^{λλ'}_{2⊥⊥}. The normalization units are unclear: the prefactor in Eq. (48) has dimension m B_e^{3/2}, so the statement 'normalized to m^4' needs explanation.
  3. [Conclusions] The phrase 'gluon/photon mass' should read 'photon mass'; the context and reference [33] are QED, not QCD.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the calculation is self-contained and its benchmark comparison is external.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The tree-level vertex is obtained by inserting the Ritus eigenfunctions into the standard QED interaction and evaluating the overlap integrals in Appendices A and B; the one-loop vertex follows from the Schwinger-propagator representation and the photon propagator, with the transverse form factor F^{λλ'}_{2⊥⊥} extracted as the coefficient of σ^{μ2}_{⊥⊥} through the generalized Gordon identity of Appendix D. The selection rules and the quoted amplitudes, such as the (1−√2)I(1,0) factor for k=1↔0, follow algebraically from Eq. (48) after imposing the l→0 conditions (37)–(43); no fitted parameter is introduced and no equation is equivalent to an input by construction. The LLL-to-LLL vanishing is checked against Ref. [33], which is an external, independent computation. Self-citations in the introduction are background context and are not load-bearing in the derivation. The possible kinematic concern about evaluating k≠k′ transitions at l→0 with p′∥=p∥ is a physical/correctness issue, not a circularity; it does not make any derived quantity identical to an input by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The ledger is clean of fitted parameters and invented entities. The calculation is a self-contained one-loop QED evaluation, but it relies on two load-bearing internal assumptions: the N2-only projection and the l=0 kinematics for k≠k'. The latter is the more fragile premise.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Ritus eigenfunction completeness and Schwinger propagator representation in the magnetic background
    Used to expand fermion fields and propagators, Eqs. (4)-(17); this is the standard nonperturbative-in-eB basis.
  • domain assumption Feynman gauge photon propagator
    Eq. (C3), D_αν = -i g_αν/(r²+iϵ); standard choice for one-loop QED vertices.
  • ad hoc to paper The purely transverse AMM appears exclusively in the N2 term of the one-loop numerator
    Stated after Eq. (C16); the vanishing of the N1, N3, N4 contributions to the σ^{μ2}_{⊥⊥} coefficient is not shown in the text.
  • ad hoc to paper The l→0 limit can be combined with on-shell Landau-level-changing transitions
    Section III A takes l→0 and Appendix E takes l∥=p'∥−p∥→0, but for k≠k' the on-shell energy difference forces l0≠0. This kinematic consistency is not discussed.
  • standard math Generalized Gordon identity
    Derived in Appendix D from the Ritus-space Dirac equations; used to identify the magnetic form factor coefficient.
  • domain assumption External fermion states are on-shell Ritus spinors
    Eq. (10) with p0=E_e; on-shell reduction is stated in the introduction.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 33753 in / 16922 out tokens · 198634 ms · 2026-08-02T07:24:28.948349+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QED vertex and anomalous magnetic moment in the presence of a magnetic field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PNWH3QIB

@misc{pith2026260710015,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QED vertex and anomalous magnetic moment in the presence of a magnetic field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PNWH3QIB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10015}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We compute the fermion-photon vertex in QED in the presence of a constant and uniform magnetic background up to one-loop order. We show that even at tree-level, the vertex is modified due to the loss of Lorentz invariance induced by the magnetic field, thus breaking into longitudinal and transverse pieces. Moreover, the radiative corrections induce the emergence of a rich tensor structure that includes the anomalous magnetic moments in the transverse, parallel, and mixed transverse/parallel directions. We concentrate on studying one of these anomalous magnetic moment components, the one in the purely transverse direction. We find the selection rules for transitions between a few low-lying Landau levels and show that the amplitudes for transitions from an initial to a final Landau level differ by a sign from the reverse process due to the loss of time reversal invariance induced by the presence of the field. Contrary to the vacuum case, the amplitudes are, in general, complex, and the phase factor can be interpreted in terms of a finite life-time of the decaying state. For the anomalous magnetic moment in the purely transverse direction, transitions between states occupying both the lowest Landau levels are forbidden. Moreover, for the computation of the allowed transitions, we find that it is not necessary to include a photon mass since the magnetic field acts as an infrared regulator.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10015 by Alejandro Ayala, Enrique Mu\~noz, Juan Cristobal Rojas, Marcelo Loewe, Norberto Scoccola.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Feynman diagrams contributing to the fermion-photon interaction vertex up to one-loop order. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Feynman diagram for the tree-level (LO) contribution to the fermion-photon vertex. FIG. 2: Feynman diagram for the tree-level (LO) contribution to the fermion-photon vertex. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Feynman diagram for the next-to-leading order contribution to the fermion-photon vertex. FIG. 3: Feynman diagram for the next-to-leading order contribution to the fermion-photon vertex. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Real part of the magnetic form factor, normalized to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Imaginary part of the magnetic form factor, normalized to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Imaginary part of the magnetic form factor, normalized to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗

Review history (3 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Magnetic field modifications to the pion-quark vertex in the Linear Sigma Model with quarks

    hep-ph 2026-08 reject novelty 5.0

    The magnetic field modifies the pion-quark vertex in the Linear Sigma Model; a tree-level modification vanishes after summing Landau levels, and the claimed one-loop LLL identity between Ritus and Schwinger methods fa...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 35 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    ue(p∥, k, a)∆λN2∆λ′ ue(p′ ∥, k′, a′) =−2 ue(p∥, k, a)∆λ n F λ,λ′ 2⊥⊥σµ2 ⊥⊥ +

    The termN 2 TheN 2 term is given by N2 =γ ν∆ω[(1−y) /p∥ −z /p′ ∥ + /Π⊥(n)]∆ω′ γµ∆β[−y/p∥ + (1−z) /p′ ∥ + /Π⊥(n′)]∆β′ γν =γ ν∆ω[∆ω′ {(1−y) /p∥ −z /p′ ∥}+ ∆ −ω′ /Π⊥(n)]γµ∆β[∆β′ {−y/p∥ + (1−z) /p′ ∥}+ ∆ −β′ /Π⊥(n′)]γν =γ ν∆ω[δω′,ω{(1−y) /p∥ −z /p′ ∥}+δ ω′,−ω /Π⊥(n)] ∆−βγµ ⊥ + ∆βγµ ∥ ×[δ β′,β{−y/p∥ + (1−z) /p′ ∥}+δ β′,−β /Π⊥(n′)]γν ≡A+B (C17) 18 where A=γ ν∆ω...

  2. [2]

    Therefore iF λ,λ′ 2⊥⊥(k= 1, k′ = 0, l→0) =−iπm p 2B3e δλ,−1δλ′,−1 1− √ 2 I(1,0).(51) 3.k= 0,k ′ = 1(LLL to 1LL): For this case we can have two possible values fork ′ λ′ and a single value fork λ k′ λ′ =k ′ − 1 +λ ′ 2 = 0 (λ ′ = 1) 1 (λ ′ =−1) kλ = 0 (λ=−1).(52) 10 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Be /m 2 ReF 2⟂⟂ λλ' (k=1,k'=0,l=0) /m 4 FIG. 4: ...

    2025

  3. [3]

    ln(a+by− √ −c) + ln(1−a−(b+ 1)y− √ −c) −ln(a+by+ √ −c)−ln(1−a−(1 +b)y+ √ −c) # =− 1 2Bep2 ∥ ∂ ∂η Z 1 0 dy 2√−c

    Case (1):n ′ =n Here, the roots further reduce to the simplified forms: z1 →a+ √ −c+by z2 →a− √ −c+by(E8) Substituting, we thus have K(η) =−(2B ep2 ∥)−1 ∂ ∂η Z 1 0 dy Z 1−y 0 dz (z−z 1)(z−z 2) =− 1 2Bep2 ∥ ∂ ∂η Z 1 0 dy z1 −z 2 ln (1−y−z 1)z2 z1(1−y−z 2) =− 1 2Bep2 ∥ ∂ ∂η Z 1 0 dy 2√−c [ln(z2) + ln(1−y−z 1)−lnz 1 −ln(1−y−z 2)] =− 1 2Bep2 ∥ ∂ ∂η Z 1 0 dy 2...

  4. [4]

    (E7), withWin Eq

    Case (2)n ′ ̸=n Let us define the parameter W= (2n′ −2n)B e p2 ∥ (E12) Substituting, we thus have K(η) =−(2B ep2 ∥)−1 ∂ ∂η Z 1 0 dy Z 1−y 0 dz (z−z 1)(z−z 2) =− 1 2Bep2 ∥ ∂ ∂η Z 1 0 dy z1 −z 2 ln (1−y−z 1)z2 z1(1−y−z 2) =− 1 2Bep2 ∥ ∂ ∂η Z 1 0 dy 2√W y−c [ln(z2) + ln(1−y−z 1)−lnz 1 −ln(1−y−z 2)] =− 1 2Bep2 ∥ ∂ ∂η Z 1 0 dy 2√W y−c " ln(a+by− p W y−c) + ln(...

  5. [5]

    Chekhovskyet al

    V . Chekhovskyet al. (CMS), Phys. Lett. B868, 139651 (2025), arXiv:2412.16665 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    F. M. Steffens, Braz. J. Phys.36, 582 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0409329

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Ayala, F

    A. Ayala, F. Fialho, and A. Mizher, Phys. Rev. D113, 056009 (2026), arXiv:2512.19807 [hep-th] . 27

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev.73, 416 (1948)

    1948

  9. [9]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    V . P. Gusynin, V . A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy, Nucl. Phys. B563, 361 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9908320

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  11. [11]

    Mueller, J

    N. Mueller, J. A. Bonnet, and C. S. Fischer, Phys. Rev. D89, 094023 (2014), arXiv:1401.1647 [hep-ph] “‘latex

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  12. [12]

    S. S. Avancini, W. R. Tavares, and M. B. Pinto, Phys. Rev. D93, 014010 (2016), arXiv:1511.06261 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    S. S. Avancini, R. L. S. Farias, and W. R. Tavares, Phys. Rev. D99, 056009 (2019), arXiv:1812.00945 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    S. S. Avancini, R. L. S. Farias, M. B. Pinto, W. R. Tavares, and V . S. Tim ´oteo, Phys. Lett. B767, 247–252 (2017), arXiv:1606.05754 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    Ayala, C

    A. Ayala, C. A. Dominguez, L. A. Hernandez, M. Loewe, J. C. Rojas, and C. Villavicencio, Phys. Rev. D92, 016006 (2015), arXiv:1504.01308 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    J. P. Carlomagno, D. Gomez Dumm, M. F. I. Villafa ˜ne, S. Noguera, and N. N. Scoccola, Phys. Rev. D106, 094035 (2022), arXiv:2209.10679 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    J. P. Carlomagno, D. Gomez Dumm, S. Noguera, and N. N. Scoccola, Phys. Rev. D106, 074002 (2022), arXiv:2205.15928 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Ayala, R

    A. Ayala, R. L. S. Farias, S. Hern ´andez-Ortiz, L. A. Hern ´andez, D. M. Paret, and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D98, 114008 (2018), arXiv:1809.08312 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    S. S. Avancini, M. Coppola, N. N. Scoccola, and J. C. Sodr ´e, Phys. Rev. D104, 094040 (2021), arXiv:2109.01911 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Coppola, D

    M. Coppola, D. G ´omez Dumm, and N. N. Scoccola, Phys. Lett. B782, 155 (2018), arXiv:1802.08041 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Coppola, D

    M. Coppola, D. Gomez Dumm, S. Noguera, and N. N. Scoccola, Phys. Rev. D109, 054014 (2024), arXiv:2312.16675 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    C.-F. Li, L. Yang, X.-J. Wen, and G.-X. Peng, Phys. Rev. D93, 054005 (2016), arXiv:1602.03939 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    Ayala, A

    A. Ayala, A. Bashir, A. Raya, and E. Rojas, Phys. Rev. D73, 105009 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  24. [24]

    Ayala, J

    A. Ayala, J. D. Casta ˜no-Yepes, M. Loewe, and E. Mu ˜noz, Phys. Rev. D101, 036016 (2020), arXiv:1912.07136 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Ayala, J

    A. Ayala, J. D. Casta ˜no-Yepes, M. Loewe, and E. Mu ˜noz, Phys. Rev. D104, 016006 (2021), arXiv:2104.04019 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Rojas, A

    E. Rojas, A. Ayala, A. Bashir, and A. Raya, Phys. Rev. D77, 093004 (2008), arXiv:0803.4173 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  27. [27]

    J. D. Casta ˜no-Yepes, M. Loewe, E. Mu˜noz, J. C. Rojas, and R. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D107, 096014 (2023), arXiv:2211.16985 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    J. D. Casta ˜no-Yepes, M. Loewe, E. Mu˜noz, and J. C. Rojas, Phys. Rev. D108, 116013 (2023), arXiv:2308.12249 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    J. D. Casta ˜no-Yepes and E. Mu˜noz, Phys. Rev. D110, 056003 (2024), arXiv:2407.04210 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    T. H. Moreira and F. L. Braghin, Phys. Rev. D105, 114009 (2022), arXiv:2202.10559 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    J. D. Casta ˜no-Yepes and E. Mu ˜noz, Phys. Rev. D109, 056007 (2024), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 109, 119903 (2024)], arXiv:2401.12401 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Wang, (2026), arXiv:2602.15410 [hep-ph]

    Z. Wang, (2026), arXiv:2602.15410 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Adhikari et al., Prog

    P. Adhikari et al., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.146, 104199 (2026), arXiv:2412.18632 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Fayazbakhsh, S

    S. Fayazbakhsh, S. Sadeghian, and N. Sadooghi, Phys. Rev. D86, 085042 (2012), arXiv:1206.6051 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [35]

    Sheng, Y

    B. Sheng, Y . Wang, X. Wang, and L. Yu, Phys. Rev. D103, 094001 (2021), arXiv:2010.05716 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    V . A. Miransky and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys. Rept.576, 1 (2015), arXiv:1503.00732 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

    E. S. Fraga, L. F. Palhares, and C. Villavicencio, Phys. Rev. D109, 116018 (2024), arXiv:2403.10641 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Lin and M

    F. Lin and M. Huang, Commun. Theor. Phys.74, 055202 (2022), arXiv:2112.01051 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    V . N. Baier, V . M. Katkov, and V . M. Strakhovenko, Yad. Fiz.24, 379–382 (1976)

    1976

  40. [40]

    W. R. Tavares, S. S. Avancini, R. L. S. Farias, and R. P. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D109, 016011 (2024), arXiv:2309.04055 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    R. L. S. Farias, W. R. Tavares, R. M. Nunes, and S. S. Avancini, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 674 (2022), arXiv:2109.11112 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Fayazbakhsh, and N

    Sh. Fayazbakhsh, and N. Sadooghi, Phys. Rev. D90, 105030 (2014), arXiv:1408.5457 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  43. [43]

    V . I. Ritus, Annals Phys.69, 555 (1972)

    1972

  44. [44]

    V . I. Ritus, Sov. Phys. JETP48, 788 (1978)

    1978